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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your servant,

Rocana dasa

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

NOI, P. 64

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

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

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

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

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

C.C. Madhya 8.312

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

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

Srila Prabhupada writes:

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

Adi-lila 1.35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

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

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport excerpt:

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

Brahma dasa also quoted:

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport excerpt:

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

Translation to CC Adi Lila 46:

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

Purport:

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

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

Brahma dasa also quoted:

Srila Sridhar Maharaja replied:

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

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

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

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

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

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

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

In a dated 9 November 1975, Srila Prabhupada ordered:

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

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

"In the beginning, during the presence of Om Vishnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Astottara-sata Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. "Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a Governing Body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next (guru) acharya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acharya, and they split in two factions over who the next acharya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order spiritual master....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brahma dasa wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rocana dasa