ISKCON'S Guru Program
BY: SUN EDITORS
Mar 22, 2016 — CANADA (SUN) —
BY: SUN EDITORS
Mar 22, 2016 — CANADA (SUN) —
The following YouTube video was recently called to our attention. In it, Mahavisnu Swami is once again demonstrating for the world his bizarre personality and 'preaching mood'. After all the articles complaining about Mahavisnu's indiscretions and offenses to the Holy Name in years past, there is no need for us to belabor the point. Sincere, sober devotees can clearly see for themselves the state of his consciousness.
[PADA: Rocana just does not get it, at all. He thinks he is very clever, but Rocana and his bogus GBC's "guru program" is a worldwide laughingstock, period. His bogus GBC gurus have been looking totally ignorant ever since Rocana and his foolish GBC pals announced they had manufactured 11 acharyas in 1978.
Rocana has supported the idea these GBC folks are simultaneously "gurus" and "managers" right from the get go in 1978, but there is no evidence any of these folks were ever appointed as gurus, nor has Rocana ever shown any.
Its called "the big lie."
March, 1978 is when Rocana's crew first of all officially announced they had rubber stamped their first wave of 11 gurus. Later, his false messiahs started looking more and more like criminals, deviants and debauchees than mere fools. Mahavishnu swami in fact looks pretty darn good when compared to some of the more degraded "gurus" in Rocana's guru program.
OK lets face it, Rocana's "gurus" are often viewed as criminals, debauchees, rogues, deviants, sexual predators etc. If Rocana's gurus were being viewed merely as deranged fools -- that would be a major upgrade to their status.
Why can't Rocana just stick with selecting fools as his idea of God's messiahs, and at least have less crimes going on? Instead, Rocana's guru program selects criminals and debauchees as their "parampara successors" -- who are MUCH worse than crazy fools. Apparently, Rocana is not advanced enough to worship plain fools, so his above mentioned "guru program" has to also place criminals and debauchees in their guru lineage. This process gives the entire Krishna movement worldwide a bad reputation as a haven for criminals posing as messiahs.
After Rocana and his pals rubber stamp debauchees and criminals as their messiahs, then they wonder why their religion looks bad in the public media, courts and so on and so forth, and its now officially bankrupted? This is like asking why, after placing a dog's stool into someone's cup of sweet rice, no one wants it anymore?
Rocana should be doing the happy dance that at least ONE of his lineage's bogus gurus is behaving simply "nutty" as opposed to his many other gurus who have behaved "criminally." Why not simply admit -- Mahavishnu swami is one of the "better gurus" in the Rocana bogus guru rubber stamping program? Most of the rest of Rocana's previous gurus have been WAY worse.]
That does merit repeating, however, is that it is the GBC who are 'ultimately' responsible for the fact that Mahavisnu continues to travel around, interacting with devotees and members of the public while representing himself as an approved diksa guru and sannyasi in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON.
[PADA: There is no GBC? There is a pile of people claiming to be God's successor gurus, answering to no one, and claiming they are not merely GBC managers, they are de facto acharyas? Who cannot be administered?
Rocana's GBC / guru program has been promoting the first wave of 11 gurus -- who then "voted in" the second wave of gurus, and now they are voting the third wave of gurus, and so on. Voting in a pile of gurus is not the function of a group of managers? Srila Prabhupada says the acharya is appointed by Krishna, not by Rocana and his committee?
Rocana has never explained how his first wave was authorized in the first place, and why he wanted to have his first wave of bogus gurus vote in another wave of gurus (which is what Rocana wanted to do with his 1986 guru reform, launch the guru voting system). Why not admit, Rocana's first wave of gurus are bogus and thus they are NOT qualified to vote in a second wave, third wave etc.?]
We have stated many times that we reject the GBC's rubber-stamp diksa guru system and the way in which they administer their sannyasa program. The Constitution for ISKCON As It Is represents a different siddhantic position on the society's proper role with respect to diksas and sannyasis -- one that we believe is in line with sastra and Srila Prabhupada's instructions. We refer the reader to Constitution articles § 8.6.5 (Regulation and Oversight of Diksa) and 7.4.5 (The Sannyasa Asrama).
[PADA: Except Srila Prabhupada never discussed Rocana's program of "designating" (voting in) acharyas, and then "regulation and oversight" of said acharyas with Rocana's program of guru censuring, monitoring, suspending, regulating, excommunicating etc.? So they are not only going to vote in more gurus, they are going to "regulate and have committee oversight" of their voted in gurus. Where in shastra do we find that acharyas need to be voted in, given committee oversight, censuring, monitoring and so on?
This is why even Hansadutta says, a person cannot be simultaneously (A) ruled by the GBC committee, and (B) become the acharya who oversees the GBC committee? This is a complete contradiction, which is why Rocana's "guru oversight program" will never work. Also! None of this is found in any examples of any previous acharyas?
Rocana has simply devised a huge and complex system for "designating" (voting in) gurus, and then regulating (monitoring, censuring and removing) acharyas, and he has been self-appointing himself as the overseer of Lord Krishna's acharyas, but he cites no examples from our parampara where this has been done? And since normally KRISHNA is the person who dictates to the acharya, how does Rocana remove Krishna and take up the role of dictating to the acharyas himself? Rocana says he can replace Krishna's dictation with his own? Really?
He also seems to forget his GBC's almighty "acharya committee overseers" are often more foolish than the alleged acharyas they oversee. Worse, not one single acharya in our line ever participated in such a system, nor did they ever create or even mention such a "guru designating and overseer" system. This has all been concocted by people like the GBC and their henchmen like Rocana.
Rocana is one of the founder fathers of the GBC's voted in guru program. He was one of the members of the "50 man committee" which voted in "more gurus" in 1986, like Prithu, Jayadvaita, Trivrikrama, Rohininandan, and many others. And they reinstated Bhavananda at the same time.
Rocana says he is against guru voting, meanwhile, he is one of the chief architects of the guru voting system that he helped create in 1986 ... and all this was created under the supervision of the "reformers" ... like Rocana. Of course Rocana now says he is merely "designating gurus" instead of "voting for gurus," that's just a smoke screen to hide his voting process.]
GBC / ISKCON has steadfastly maintained its diksa guru rubber-stamp program for well over 30 years now.
[PADA: Except Rocana just now said his program will designate (vote), regulate, and oversee their gurus, so that means, they will continue to rubber stamp (vote) their gurus. Rocana says his program will designate gurus, and then regulate and oversee the gurus they designate / vote in, but he thinks that is not rubber stamping? Well sorry, "designating," or voting, it is all the same -- rubber stamping, duh!]
In all that time, they have considered themselves to be the ultimate controllers over who shall, and who shall not become a diksa guru or a sannyasi in ISKCON. Worse still, they have engaged in only half of that process… the political half, determining to whom they will award the title of guru or sannyasa renunciate.
[PADA: OK except Rocana is the person who says the GBC will designate, regulate and oversee their gurus. That is totally political because there is no such thing as a committee which designates, or votes in gurus, and then regulates and oversees them, this is a completely political arrangement made by the GBC and Rocana. And only GBC's guru club promoters and supporters are the persons voted in as their gurus.]
The GBC is attracted to the act of 'deciding' (accepting and rejecting). The other half of the process, however -- deciding who is not living up to the sastric standards for diksa or sannyasi… that, the GBC has historically shown they have little or no interest in. They enthusiastically embrace the job of deciding who to authorize, but they refuse to be accountable for their choices. They refuse to safe-keep members of the society by decommissioning their authorized gurus and sannyasis when they are proven to be fallen.
[PADA: What is a decommissioned guru? We used to "decommission" the old trucks at the place I worked for, and they were sold off at auction. Is the acharya like an old truck? The acharya is no longer is relevant or useful, and he needs to be decommissioned -- and go to the old truck bone yard? And now Rocana is saying his gurus are often conditioned souls who are falling. Does he not know that its one of the ten offenses to say gurus are falling down conditioned souls?]
Mahavisnu "Swami" is proof positive.
[PADA: He is proof that Rocana's idea of rubber stamping unqualified persons as gurus does not work.]
Because the swami is an authorized ISKCON diksa guru and sannyasi, he is in a position of trust and authority that carries the weight of the institution behind it, and thus the weight of Srila Prabhupada's good name. Yet Mahavisnu's actions demonstrate, time and time again, that he is not behaving according to Srila Prabhupada's and sastra's standards for these spiritual offices.
[PADA: How many of these voted in gurus has acted according to standards? Most of them fell down, and ALL of them supported the whole corrupt system of gurus needing censure for falling down and etc.]
This latest episode of Mahavisnu's public 'preaching' also motivates us to address an issue that has been ongoing between the Sun editors and certain members of the UK yatra. Over the last year, we have repeatedly been asked by several devotees to publicize the results of a survey on ISKCON 'mission drift', which was conducted by senior devotees under the banner of the Prabhupada Vision Body.
[PADA: The Prabhupada Vision Body is a good idea, when we look at his shastra, then we find the whole idea of gurus being designated by votes, being monitored, suspended, censured, removed, excommunicated, etc. is all a total concoction from the GBC's and Rocana's fertile brains.]
The Prabhupada Vision Body was founded by Parasuram das, who is well known throughout the UK for his dedication to harinam sankirtan. Unfortunately, Parasuram has also become well known for his loyal support and facilitation of Mahavisnu Swami. Having withdrawn our support from Parasuram das because of this, the Sun has also been unwilling to publish articles from the Prabhupada Vision Body. We find it hypocritical that they should be preaching against 'mission drift' under the circumstances.
[PADA: Right, we cannot simultaneously support a false guru body, and reject it, all at the same time.]
Mahavisnu Swami could serve as the UK poster boy for mission drift. He has not simply 'drifted' -- he has blown off-course like a tiny boat in a typhoon. In one of the most recent pleas received from a member of the Prabhupada Vision Body, an email was included (to convince us to soften our position) in which Parasuram das advised Mahavisnu that his crazy hat / attire causes some concern, therefore perhaps he should only wear that regalia for the biggest festivals. Parasuram's advice left us dumbstruck. Mahavisnu should act like a buffoon at only the biggest public gatherings?
[PADA: Hee hee, right, lets put on our worst behavior in the biggest public scrutiny, just like the GBC was publicly promoting Kirtanananda at the height of his madness.]
So on the heels of this, the latest of Mahavisnu's video phantasmagorias, we would like to urge the senior devotees who comprise the UK Prabhupada Vision Body to publicly repudiate this so-called swami's activities, and to formally cut ties with him. And, because Parasuram das has announced himself as the founder of this Vision group, he should also make a public declaration rejecting the swami, and pledging to no longer associate with or support him in any public preaching. Either that, or Parasuram should resign from the Vision Body, and they should publicly repudiate their association with him, too -- along with their Ritvik member(s) and anyone else deviating from Srila Prabhupada's standards and instructions.
Either that, or kindly stop preaching on matters of 'mission drift' in ISKCON.
[PADA: Rocana is one of the main persons who still says we need to have a committee which designates (votes), oversees and manages Lord Krishna's successor acharyas. That is nowhere to be found in Vaishnava history or Prabhupada's teachings. There is a puff of white smoke from the Vatican and the new pope has been voted in, but this is not our system?
Rocana has also said that Srila Prabhupada is the post-samadhi, posthumous and post mortem guru, but where has any bona fide disciple described his guru with these terms? Rocana is implying that we need to worship his living gurus, i.e. the same fools who voted in Mahavishnu swami as a guru and who fail to "regulate" him.
Lets review a few samples of nut case gurus from Rocana's program:
*** Harikesha was lecturing about all sorts of nutty speculations, then he ran off with his therapist and allegedly took a bunch of money. All that after he kicked out hundreds of Prabhupada devotees from "his zone." Now he says awful things about the Krishna movement. Nutty?
*** Prithu was alleged to be getting at least some followers to masturbate, and there were huge financial discrepancies in his "zone." Nutty?
*** Jaggadish ran off with the wife of a disciple and her small child, making the husband suffer severely trying to find her. And his neglect of the gurukulas is famous all over the world. Nutty? Or just mean as hell?
*** Hari Sauri went nutty as the infamous "Prabhupada Kripa maharaja." He is still a huge supporter of the Mayapura molester regime's leaders. Nutty? Or devious?
*** Many agree that Bhagavan went nutty when he "blooped." And he stole the money from the safe. Nutty? Crooked?
*** Many agree that Ramesvara went sort of nutty when he ran off to be a New York city real estate agent. He apparently drove off from LA in a Ford Taurus filled with aluminum briefcases into the sunset. Nutty? Or did he run away because the police were investigating the Sulochana murder?
*** Many agree that Tamal's promoting Bhavananda was nutty -- and foolish.
*** Many agree Kirtanananda's "Christian interfaith" program was -- nutty, as well as umpteen other devious outcroppings at New Vrndavana.
*** Many agree Jayatirtha went nutty with his LSD cult.
*** Many agree Satsvarupa's writings have gone nutty.
*** Bhakti Vikas Swami said that Bhakti Tirtha was a tin foil hat speculator for preaching about "The Lost Continent of Mu" and so on. OK Bhakti Tritha was criticized for being nutty.
*** The biggest defender of the Mayapur molester program, Jayapataka, is very sick from a stroke. And he got that stroke by eating like a hog and weighing the same as a Volkswagen, while his program was starving children and making the children skinny. Nutty? Evil?
*** Bhavananda was having sex with taxi drivers in the holy dham. Nutty? Evil? And Rocana's guru program keeps him around like their favorite pet pal. How nutty is that?]
*** Suhotra was lecturing about all sorts of nutty books he was reading, and he allegedly bragged that he was related to the author of "Satan's Bible." He was also said to be infatuated with 1940s detective noir movies and he would rent them and collect them. He was also credited with kicking out hundreds of Prabhupada's devotees from ISKCON, and burning down his zone from discouraging people. Nutty? Evil?
[PADA: Rocana just does not get it, at all. He thinks he is very clever, but Rocana and his bogus GBC's "guru program" is a worldwide laughingstock, period. His bogus GBC gurus have been looking totally ignorant ever since Rocana and his foolish GBC pals announced they had manufactured 11 acharyas in 1978.
Rocana has supported the idea these GBC folks are simultaneously "gurus" and "managers" right from the get go in 1978, but there is no evidence any of these folks were ever appointed as gurus, nor has Rocana ever shown any.
Its called "the big lie."
March, 1978 is when Rocana's crew first of all officially announced they had rubber stamped their first wave of 11 gurus. Later, his false messiahs started looking more and more like criminals, deviants and debauchees than mere fools. Mahavishnu swami in fact looks pretty darn good when compared to some of the more degraded "gurus" in Rocana's guru program.
OK lets face it, Rocana's "gurus" are often viewed as criminals, debauchees, rogues, deviants, sexual predators etc. If Rocana's gurus were being viewed merely as deranged fools -- that would be a major upgrade to their status.
Why can't Rocana just stick with selecting fools as his idea of God's messiahs, and at least have less crimes going on? Instead, Rocana's guru program selects criminals and debauchees as their "parampara successors" -- who are MUCH worse than crazy fools. Apparently, Rocana is not advanced enough to worship plain fools, so his above mentioned "guru program" has to also place criminals and debauchees in their guru lineage. This process gives the entire Krishna movement worldwide a bad reputation as a haven for criminals posing as messiahs.
After Rocana and his pals rubber stamp debauchees and criminals as their messiahs, then they wonder why their religion looks bad in the public media, courts and so on and so forth, and its now officially bankrupted? This is like asking why, after placing a dog's stool into someone's cup of sweet rice, no one wants it anymore?
Rocana should be doing the happy dance that at least ONE of his lineage's bogus gurus is behaving simply "nutty" as opposed to his many other gurus who have behaved "criminally." Why not simply admit -- Mahavishnu swami is one of the "better gurus" in the Rocana bogus guru rubber stamping program? Most of the rest of Rocana's previous gurus have been WAY worse.]
That does merit repeating, however, is that it is the GBC who are 'ultimately' responsible for the fact that Mahavisnu continues to travel around, interacting with devotees and members of the public while representing himself as an approved diksa guru and sannyasi in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON.
[PADA: There is no GBC? There is a pile of people claiming to be God's successor gurus, answering to no one, and claiming they are not merely GBC managers, they are de facto acharyas? Who cannot be administered?
Rocana's GBC / guru program has been promoting the first wave of 11 gurus -- who then "voted in" the second wave of gurus, and now they are voting the third wave of gurus, and so on. Voting in a pile of gurus is not the function of a group of managers? Srila Prabhupada says the acharya is appointed by Krishna, not by Rocana and his committee?
Rocana has never explained how his first wave was authorized in the first place, and why he wanted to have his first wave of bogus gurus vote in another wave of gurus (which is what Rocana wanted to do with his 1986 guru reform, launch the guru voting system). Why not admit, Rocana's first wave of gurus are bogus and thus they are NOT qualified to vote in a second wave, third wave etc.?]
We have stated many times that we reject the GBC's rubber-stamp diksa guru system and the way in which they administer their sannyasa program. The Constitution for ISKCON As It Is represents a different siddhantic position on the society's proper role with respect to diksas and sannyasis -- one that we believe is in line with sastra and Srila Prabhupada's instructions. We refer the reader to Constitution articles § 8.6.5 (Regulation and Oversight of Diksa) and 7.4.5 (The Sannyasa Asrama).
[PADA: Except Srila Prabhupada never discussed Rocana's program of "designating" (voting in) acharyas, and then "regulation and oversight" of said acharyas with Rocana's program of guru censuring, monitoring, suspending, regulating, excommunicating etc.? So they are not only going to vote in more gurus, they are going to "regulate and have committee oversight" of their voted in gurus. Where in shastra do we find that acharyas need to be voted in, given committee oversight, censuring, monitoring and so on?
This is why even Hansadutta says, a person cannot be simultaneously (A) ruled by the GBC committee, and (B) become the acharya who oversees the GBC committee? This is a complete contradiction, which is why Rocana's "guru oversight program" will never work. Also! None of this is found in any examples of any previous acharyas?
Rocana has simply devised a huge and complex system for "designating" (voting in) gurus, and then regulating (monitoring, censuring and removing) acharyas, and he has been self-appointing himself as the overseer of Lord Krishna's acharyas, but he cites no examples from our parampara where this has been done? And since normally KRISHNA is the person who dictates to the acharya, how does Rocana remove Krishna and take up the role of dictating to the acharyas himself? Rocana says he can replace Krishna's dictation with his own? Really?
He also seems to forget his GBC's almighty "acharya committee overseers" are often more foolish than the alleged acharyas they oversee. Worse, not one single acharya in our line ever participated in such a system, nor did they ever create or even mention such a "guru designating and overseer" system. This has all been concocted by people like the GBC and their henchmen like Rocana.
Rocana is one of the founder fathers of the GBC's voted in guru program. He was one of the members of the "50 man committee" which voted in "more gurus" in 1986, like Prithu, Jayadvaita, Trivrikrama, Rohininandan, and many others. And they reinstated Bhavananda at the same time.
Rocana says he is against guru voting, meanwhile, he is one of the chief architects of the guru voting system that he helped create in 1986 ... and all this was created under the supervision of the "reformers" ... like Rocana. Of course Rocana now says he is merely "designating gurus" instead of "voting for gurus," that's just a smoke screen to hide his voting process.]
GBC / ISKCON has steadfastly maintained its diksa guru rubber-stamp program for well over 30 years now.
[PADA: Except Rocana just now said his program will designate (vote), regulate, and oversee their gurus, so that means, they will continue to rubber stamp (vote) their gurus. Rocana says his program will designate gurus, and then regulate and oversee the gurus they designate / vote in, but he thinks that is not rubber stamping? Well sorry, "designating," or voting, it is all the same -- rubber stamping, duh!]
In all that time, they have considered themselves to be the ultimate controllers over who shall, and who shall not become a diksa guru or a sannyasi in ISKCON. Worse still, they have engaged in only half of that process… the political half, determining to whom they will award the title of guru or sannyasa renunciate.
[PADA: OK except Rocana is the person who says the GBC will designate, regulate and oversee their gurus. That is totally political because there is no such thing as a committee which designates, or votes in gurus, and then regulates and oversees them, this is a completely political arrangement made by the GBC and Rocana. And only GBC's guru club promoters and supporters are the persons voted in as their gurus.]
The GBC is attracted to the act of 'deciding' (accepting and rejecting). The other half of the process, however -- deciding who is not living up to the sastric standards for diksa or sannyasi… that, the GBC has historically shown they have little or no interest in. They enthusiastically embrace the job of deciding who to authorize, but they refuse to be accountable for their choices. They refuse to safe-keep members of the society by decommissioning their authorized gurus and sannyasis when they are proven to be fallen.
[PADA: What is a decommissioned guru? We used to "decommission" the old trucks at the place I worked for, and they were sold off at auction. Is the acharya like an old truck? The acharya is no longer is relevant or useful, and he needs to be decommissioned -- and go to the old truck bone yard? And now Rocana is saying his gurus are often conditioned souls who are falling. Does he not know that its one of the ten offenses to say gurus are falling down conditioned souls?]
Mahavisnu "Swami" is proof positive.
[PADA: He is proof that Rocana's idea of rubber stamping unqualified persons as gurus does not work.]
Because the swami is an authorized ISKCON diksa guru and sannyasi, he is in a position of trust and authority that carries the weight of the institution behind it, and thus the weight of Srila Prabhupada's good name. Yet Mahavisnu's actions demonstrate, time and time again, that he is not behaving according to Srila Prabhupada's and sastra's standards for these spiritual offices.
[PADA: How many of these voted in gurus has acted according to standards? Most of them fell down, and ALL of them supported the whole corrupt system of gurus needing censure for falling down and etc.]
This latest episode of Mahavisnu's public 'preaching' also motivates us to address an issue that has been ongoing between the Sun editors and certain members of the UK yatra. Over the last year, we have repeatedly been asked by several devotees to publicize the results of a survey on ISKCON 'mission drift', which was conducted by senior devotees under the banner of the Prabhupada Vision Body.
[PADA: The Prabhupada Vision Body is a good idea, when we look at his shastra, then we find the whole idea of gurus being designated by votes, being monitored, suspended, censured, removed, excommunicated, etc. is all a total concoction from the GBC's and Rocana's fertile brains.]
The Prabhupada Vision Body was founded by Parasuram das, who is well known throughout the UK for his dedication to harinam sankirtan. Unfortunately, Parasuram has also become well known for his loyal support and facilitation of Mahavisnu Swami. Having withdrawn our support from Parasuram das because of this, the Sun has also been unwilling to publish articles from the Prabhupada Vision Body. We find it hypocritical that they should be preaching against 'mission drift' under the circumstances.
[PADA: Right, we cannot simultaneously support a false guru body, and reject it, all at the same time.]
Mahavisnu Swami could serve as the UK poster boy for mission drift. He has not simply 'drifted' -- he has blown off-course like a tiny boat in a typhoon. In one of the most recent pleas received from a member of the Prabhupada Vision Body, an email was included (to convince us to soften our position) in which Parasuram das advised Mahavisnu that his crazy hat / attire causes some concern, therefore perhaps he should only wear that regalia for the biggest festivals. Parasuram's advice left us dumbstruck. Mahavisnu should act like a buffoon at only the biggest public gatherings?
[PADA: Hee hee, right, lets put on our worst behavior in the biggest public scrutiny, just like the GBC was publicly promoting Kirtanananda at the height of his madness.]
So on the heels of this, the latest of Mahavisnu's video phantasmagorias, we would like to urge the senior devotees who comprise the UK Prabhupada Vision Body to publicly repudiate this so-called swami's activities, and to formally cut ties with him. And, because Parasuram das has announced himself as the founder of this Vision group, he should also make a public declaration rejecting the swami, and pledging to no longer associate with or support him in any public preaching. Either that, or Parasuram should resign from the Vision Body, and they should publicly repudiate their association with him, too -- along with their Ritvik member(s) and anyone else deviating from Srila Prabhupada's standards and instructions.
Either that, or kindly stop preaching on matters of 'mission drift' in ISKCON.
[PADA: Rocana is one of the main persons who still says we need to have a committee which designates (votes), oversees and manages Lord Krishna's successor acharyas. That is nowhere to be found in Vaishnava history or Prabhupada's teachings. There is a puff of white smoke from the Vatican and the new pope has been voted in, but this is not our system?
Rocana has also said that Srila Prabhupada is the post-samadhi, posthumous and post mortem guru, but where has any bona fide disciple described his guru with these terms? Rocana is implying that we need to worship his living gurus, i.e. the same fools who voted in Mahavishnu swami as a guru and who fail to "regulate" him.
Lets review a few samples of nut case gurus from Rocana's program:
*** Harikesha was lecturing about all sorts of nutty speculations, then he ran off with his therapist and allegedly took a bunch of money. All that after he kicked out hundreds of Prabhupada devotees from "his zone." Now he says awful things about the Krishna movement. Nutty?
*** Prithu was alleged to be getting at least some followers to masturbate, and there were huge financial discrepancies in his "zone." Nutty?
*** Jaggadish ran off with the wife of a disciple and her small child, making the husband suffer severely trying to find her. And his neglect of the gurukulas is famous all over the world. Nutty? Or just mean as hell?
*** Hari Sauri went nutty as the infamous "Prabhupada Kripa maharaja." He is still a huge supporter of the Mayapura molester regime's leaders. Nutty? Or devious?
*** Many agree that Bhagavan went nutty when he "blooped." And he stole the money from the safe. Nutty? Crooked?
*** Many agree that Ramesvara went sort of nutty when he ran off to be a New York city real estate agent. He apparently drove off from LA in a Ford Taurus filled with aluminum briefcases into the sunset. Nutty? Or did he run away because the police were investigating the Sulochana murder?
*** Many agree that Tamal's promoting Bhavananda was nutty -- and foolish.
*** Many agree Kirtanananda's "Christian interfaith" program was -- nutty, as well as umpteen other devious outcroppings at New Vrndavana.
*** Many agree Jayatirtha went nutty with his LSD cult.
*** Many agree Satsvarupa's writings have gone nutty.
*** Bhakti Vikas Swami said that Bhakti Tirtha was a tin foil hat speculator for preaching about "The Lost Continent of Mu" and so on. OK Bhakti Tritha was criticized for being nutty.
*** The biggest defender of the Mayapur molester program, Jayapataka, is very sick from a stroke. And he got that stroke by eating like a hog and weighing the same as a Volkswagen, while his program was starving children and making the children skinny. Nutty? Evil?
*** Bhavananda was having sex with taxi drivers in the holy dham. Nutty? Evil? And Rocana's guru program keeps him around like their favorite pet pal. How nutty is that?]
*** Suhotra was lecturing about all sorts of nutty books he was reading, and he allegedly bragged that he was related to the author of "Satan's Bible." He was also said to be infatuated with 1940s detective noir movies and he would rent them and collect them. He was also credited with kicking out hundreds of Prabhupada's devotees from ISKCON, and burning down his zone from discouraging people. Nutty? Evil?
*** Hrdayananda's nut case program is not welcome even in ISKCON ...
*** Hansadutta simply says the whole post-1978 guru thing is nutty ...
*** OK one semi-sane guy, Bhakti Purushottama swami (Mayapur) who says, no more monarchs, we need servants, not more bogus kings! Of course he does not have any real solution for the nutty acharyas program ...
ETC.!
Meanwhile there are other problems, like Rocana's gurus are getting sick with terminal ailments, and some are already dead. OK in part because they are not supposed to be taking karma as diksha gurus. That factor alone will make a person get sick, fall down, or just go nutty, and may explain why some of these gurus have such severe mental ailments.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, more and more people are self-evidently getting tired of promoting all these nutty fools as their gurus, and they want to promote Srila Prabhupada instead, and they are!
"Kṛṣṇa is so powerful that He can immediately take up all the sins of others and immediately make them right. But when a living entity plays the part on behalf of Kṛṣṇa, he also takes the responsibility for the sinful activities of his devotees. Therefore to become a guru is not an easy task. You see? He has to take all the poisons and absorb them. So sometimes—because he is not Kṛṣṇa—sometimes there is some trouble. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has forbidden, “Don’t make many śiṣyas, many disciples.” But for preaching work we have to accept many disciples—for expanding preaching—even if we suffer. That’s a fact. The spiritual master has to take the responsibility for all the sinful activities of his disciples. Therefore to make many disciples is a risky job unless one is able to assimilate all the sins." (Srila Prabhupada; PQPA, Ch. 6)
ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY
WE CANNOT MAKE CONDITIONED SOULS INTO GURUS ...
"Kṛṣṇa is so powerful that He can immediately take up all the sins of others and immediately make them right. But when a living entity plays the part on behalf of Kṛṣṇa, he also takes the responsibility for the sinful activities of his devotees. Therefore to become a guru is not an easy task. You see? He has to take all the poisons and absorb them. So sometimes—because he is not Kṛṣṇa—sometimes there is some trouble. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has forbidden, “Don’t make many śiṣyas, many disciples.” But for preaching work we have to accept many disciples—for expanding preaching—even if we suffer. That’s a fact. The spiritual master has to take the responsibility for all the sinful activities of his disciples. Therefore to make many disciples is a risky job unless one is able to assimilate all the sins." (Srila Prabhupada; PQPA, Ch. 6)
ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY
WE CANNOT MAKE CONDITIONED SOULS INTO GURUS ...
My first problem with Mahavishnu swami is that he is a leader of an institution, and in that institution all sorts of deviations are going on in the name of guru and acharya -- and yet he does not write a position paper to clarify that this is not authorized, and what is the proper standard for guru and acharya. I keep getting reports of ongoing problems, including rats in temples, selling temples without authority, child abuse in a GBC managed campus even recently, and so on ad infinitum, and it seems most of these guys are out there goofing around while all sorts of tragic events are going on all around them, and they seem to have no concern.
ReplyDeleteMahavishnu swami was also a supporter of Jayatirtha and other bogus acharyas and he helped keep them in the Vyasa seat way after it was evident they did not belong there. Later on Jayatirtha's head was chopped off, and all the newspapers in UK said "GURU'S head hacked off," and people like Mahavishnu never issued any clarification to the media, to the devotees, or to anyone that we know of, that these 11 were never gurus because they were never appointed as gurus.
So he allows all these public scandals in the name of acharyas to go on without ever clarifying. He was also standing by laughing when Bhagavan was blowing his nose and tossing the kleenex and people were collecting that as maha, so he has participated all sorts of silly things over the years, we are only noticing him now because many of the other silly people have left, or died. He has been part of all this silliness for years and years. Rocana has basically done the same thing, he supported all these fools, and their foolishness, to his credit he is starting to notice that his living gurus are looking like fools to everyone else. He should have noticed that in 1978. He still thinks these people are gurus, he just wants to administrate them better, as if gurus are administered by a committee. ys pd