Do Vaishnava Acharyas Like Lord Brahma Fall Down?

PADA-Newsletter Jan. 30, 1999

PADA: In 1976, “Nitai dasa” said that vaishnava acharyas may fall down. He cited the alleged example of Lord Brahma’s fall down (which took place before he had heard the Bhagavatam Verses), and which is not appropriate to cite as an excuse for bogus cheaters posing as acharyas in the first place. Anyway, Srila Prabhupada said Nitai is a rascal, poisonous, and he banned Nitai from ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada says in his “who is that rascal?” conversation, that those who think the acharyas do not have to be a pure devotees are rascals. This would seem to indicate many prominent current leaders of both ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha?


In fact, this bogus “falling acharya” idea has become the centerpiece of the GBC’s post 1977 guru siddhanta. The GBC follows Nitai dasa. We find that this siddhanta was also given in the Gaudiya Matha: that acharyas fall down (as is also found in Sridhara Maharaja’s book “Sri Guru And His Grace”): “So, deviation and partiality, these two things can take down the acharya.” SGAHG p.78

Naturally, Srila Prabhupada says the direct opposite, acharyas like Narada Muni cannot ever be brought to the material plane, and it is an offence to think that they can. “Narada muni, Haridasa thakura, and similar acharyas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord CANNOT BE BROUGHT DOWN to the material platform. Therefore one is strictly forbidden to think that the acharya is an ordinary human being (gurusuh narah matih naraka sah). (SB 7.7.14)

In a portion of a book penned by Narayan Maharaja’s group included below, we find that they still think that the (homosexual) Ananta Vasudeva was the appointed acharya for the Gaudiya Matha. I was very much shocked to see, despite my pointing out this (homosexual guru) to you, in person, nearly twenty times in a direct conversation, you skipped over it as not even barely worthy of a reply, and instead you went forward telling me that Vasudeva was a great scholar and so on. You are like the mother of a bank robber, “Oh, Charles is robbing banks, true, but he always ate his potatoes nicely.” Fine. But then he started robbing banks? You have missed the point?

Indeed, you are missing the whole point: a person with unresolved homosexual anarthas might be a great scholar, agreed, but he is not and was not the acharya. Nor was he ever appointed as the acharya by His Divine Grace BHAKTISIDDHANTA SARASWATI THAKURA PRABHUPADA. Therefore Sridhara Maharaja and his associates –deviated– by making Vasudeva the acharya. That point you are not even answering: the real point in question? I hate to say this, but you sounded very much like the ISKCON GBC sector.

I have been saying to them, for years together: “You have homosexual pedophiles in your guru parampara.” And their reply is almost always, “So what, why are you objecting? Children are getting molested, agreed. And dissidents are getting killed, agreed. And the media is practically vomiting in disgust, agreed. STILL we are not to be questioned, since we’ll get our sidewalk goondas to threaten you”? In sum, both

you and they are EVADING a direct reply, although I have to admit your approach is very much higher class in comparison.

Of course, the Gaudiya Matha’s false gurus evaded the same question from Srila Prabhupada: “… I have also read specifically your articles on the matter of acaryas, wherein on the 14th paragraph I see that the acarya shall be entitled to nominate in writing his successive acarya. But we do not find any record [in the 1930s Gaudiya Matha] where our Srila Prabhupada nominated any acharya after him. Different persons have interpreted this point and every one of our God brothers are acting as acharyas…” (SPL August 21, 1969)

Worse, you tell me that Sridhara Maharaja’s solution (to his Frankenstein mad guru concoction) was to leave the Gaudiya Matha and start his own independent institution. In sum, “I started the Gaudiya Matha’s house on fire, as a result, innocent citizens are now being banned, beaten and killed. So, to help my fellow citizens, those who are suffering death threats and so on from my creation, I am formally leaving the burning down house. I personally poured gasoline on that house for years, so ‘too bad suckers,’ I am moving to another house. Bye bye!

Or suppose that the ship’s captain foolishly places the big ocean liner on the rocks in a 90 mph gale, with 2000 passengers, and he slips off in his private yacht and drinks soda on the banks of shore, while the passengers are horrified and in danger? That is your idea of helping? How does that help?

Yes, how did that help? That ONLY made matters VASTLY worse for the suffering souls aligned with the Gaudiya Matha. In sum, Sridhara Maharaja created the very dangerous cult imbroglio, and instead of clearing up his own creation, he instead said, the best thing to do is to –leave the mission, and feed my poor God brothers to the sharks that I empowered, and forget all about it? How did this help? You TOTALLY lost me here?

Both Sridhara Maharaja and later Narayana Maharaja’s book further says that there were eleven GBC gurus? What? No, there never were eleven gurus? Where is there any evidence of this? We have been asking for evidence of this for over 20 years? Are we ALL not aware, by now, that these eleven were only appointed as ritviks? Why are we saying there are eleven gurus, and some of them fell down as Narayana Maharaja’s book says?

No. There were eleven imitators. End of story. And they were fallen WAY before they even spent one second on a vyasasana, because they were already thinking they could imitate the acharya. This is always forbidden everywhere in shastra. And then along comes Sridhara Maharaja in 1978 and encourages these cheaters, “wear the acharya’s uniform and it will show you what to do” (i.e. cheat others by posing as acharya, as he had encouraged in the Gaudiya Matha). Just like he told Vasudeva to do in the 1930s?

Sridhara Maharaja should have said, “gurus were not appointed in ISKCON because your Srila Prabhupada opposed –appointing gurus– for forty years. And where is the specific proof that you were appointed? Why was this not released earlier? And besides, you are not qualified to be acharyas, and so on, and so on, and so forth.]

TD: It is precisely for this reason that Srila Madhvacarya does not accept Brahma-vimohana lila & so many other portion of 10th canto. This also one of the reasons Mahaprabhu felt Himself in some ways closer philosophically to the Ramanujas than to the Madhva camp Now your dealing with more substantial issues than who’s in charge at New Dvaraka. You say the Gaudiya Math has similar guru problems.

[PADA: We don’t say anything independently. The fact is that there are hundreds of quotes from Srila Prabhupada about the Gaudiya Matha’s post-1930s guru debacles which included: false guru appointments; homosexual gurus; murders and beating of dissenters; bad publicity; an “acharya’s” child not only being abused but murdered; and in sum: ditto of what has occurred in post-1977 ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada said: “Another man comes, another man comes (by vote) to be guru.” (Room Conversation, August 14, 1976 Bombay, India)

TD: There are over 20 Gaudiya Math branches because most of Srila Sarasvati Thakur’s sannyas-sisyas eventually opened up their own branch, not to defy the others but to increase the flow of nectar of Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan parties.

[PADA: That is the deviation exactly. Srila Prabhupada said in 1959 in his Vaisistha – astakam offering that this “many branches” is due to the tigress of name and fame. They were not supposed to start a big imbroglio of fighting guru camps, many separated guru branches, rather they were supposed to unite under one acharya, namely Srila Sarasvati Thakura, and form a GBC and work cooperatively. They did not do that. They have still have not done that.

Besides, the main parties were called “usurpers,” not “bona fide brances” as you imply: “…Regarding the section 92 case against the Gaudiya Matha, I don’t think there is any possibility of compromise. Both the Bagh Bazaar party [Sridhara Maharaja’s group] and the Mayapura party [Tirtha Maharaja’s group] have UNLAWFULLY usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupada…” (SPL September 5, 1969)]

And these “bona fide branches” were simply a headache for Krishna and his pure devotees: “All along my [Gaudiya Matha “guru”] Godbrothers have gave me ONLY depression, repression, compression, but I continued strong in my duty.” (SPL August 4, 1972)

TD: Any normal tree will eventually branch. That is not deviation; that is a sign of health & growth. We all have to become qualified gurus. Meanwhile we cannot tolerate that our gurudev’s mission is being led deviants & cheaters. I support you until you blame senior vaisnavas outside of ISKCON such as Srila Sridhar Maharaja & Srila Narayan Maharaja. There’s a saying among Christians: you’re never defeated till you blame others. SSM never even kept any Vyasasan in his own Math for himself! What to speak of him being responsible for the size & altitude of asanas in ISKCON. Hoping this meets you in good health & protected by Sri Guru & Gauranga. Your god brother, servant & friend, Tarun

[PADA: This is fact finding not fault finding. Srila Prabhupada is the authority, and he has proven that by his books, his preaching and his accomplishments. And he severely criticized the Gaudiya Matha’s false gurus.

For example, Srila Prabhupada called some of these so-called branches the “cockroach guru” branches: “That [extensively preaching] is the duty of a [guru] acharya. Not that three dozen [guru] acharyas in Mayapura. [The Gaudiya Matha] Each one has a temple and a few dozen, not few dozen, one dozen disciples. Collecting some money, taking [pilgrims] to the holy place. They [artificial gurus] say “whatever is in our capacity we are doing”. That capacity means when they are speaking that “cockroach is as good a bird as Garuda. Cockroach is also a bird and Garuda is also a bird.” How can the cockroach say “I am also as good as Garuda?” Tamala Krishna: “That is called insanity. (RC April 10, 1977. Bombay, India)

Anyway, Sridhara Maharaja said on numerous occaisions that these eleven GBC were not ritviks –but gurus. The point is, you should not dare to question Srila Prabhupada’s judgement on the Gaudiya Matha’s deviation: “…If you are serious to be an important assistant in our society …do NOT mix yourself with my SO-CALLED [Gaudiya Matha] Godbrothers. As there are some residents, like monkeys and hogs, in Vrindavana, similarly there are many RASCALS in the name of Vaishnavas, be careful of them. And do not DARE to question impudently before your spiritual master… ” (SPL November 21, 1972)

Narayana Maharaja also claims that the GBC were gurus in defiance of the order for them to be ritviks. Yet, there is no evidence anywhere that these people were ever qualified to acquire the title of acharya? This is the same false propaganda that caused the reactions (and responses from Srila Prabhupada) as mentioned above –in the Gaudiya Matha. These Gaudiya Matha folks have never proven their first point: that either Ananta Vasudeva or later our eleven were EVER appointed as gurus?

Yet they dare to challenge the acharya on this point, even in the book just now penned by Narayan Maharaja (see analysis below) –at their and our peril. “We haven’t got to manufacture. To manufacture ideas is troublesome. Why should we take the trouble? And as soon as you want to manufacture something to my…., that is DANGEROUS. Guru mukha padma vakya cittete kariya aikya ara na kariha mane asa. This is …You are singing every day, “What our guru has said, that is our life and soul. We do not want”. Ara na kariha mane …As soon as this POISON will come-suppress guru and I become Brahman-everything FINISHED. Spiritual life is finished. Gaudiya Matha finished, that, …VIOLATED the orders of Guru Maharaja.” (RC April 20, 1977 Bombay, India)]

FROM NARAYANA MAHARAJA’s book “Guru Tattva” (herein as “GT”)

GT: You wrote that your Prabhupada’s instructions to you are open and direct, but by what you have written it seems to be the complete opposite. I will give you an example to clarify this point. Your Prabhupada had said that the “Gaudiya Matha had failed,” but in your writings you say that “Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada radically reformed the Gaudiya tradition transforming it into a global preaching mission in the modern world.” Now what is the name of that mission? It is the Gaudiya Matha.

And who were its members that dedicated themselves to that mission? You must learn to appreciate their position, but unfortunately you are busy publishing books that make false propaganda against these exalted devotees.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said that his guru did wonderful things. However, his so called successors caused havoc. The above text mixes the success of the acharya with the failures of the false successor system. This would be like saying: “Jesus is wonderful, therefore, his (false) Medieval Papal successors are wonderful.” Not really?]

GT: If it is not against your GBC rule I strongly request you to read the book entitled Saraswati Thakura published by Mandala Media and in that way get lots of real information about the global successful preaching mission, because according to your writings the Gaudiya Math is unsuccessful. Again you have quoted a room conversation in Bombay [August 16, 1976] wherein your Prabhupada wanted to nourish the very soft faith of the newly initiated (those who were less than ten years or so) and you think this is exactly the fact.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said that the post-1930s Gaudiya Matha’s philosophy was “as soon as he learns that guru maharaja is dead, then I kill guru and become guru. Then he is finished.” (Room Conversation, Bombay INDIA, August 16, 1976)

So, this was not just to effect a few people with soft faith, Srila Prabhupada honestly believed that his guru was betrayed. The 1976 quote is merely one of hundreds of similar quotes critical of the Gaudiya Matha’s post 1930s guru system. For example, Srila Prabhupada: “…These [artificial claims to be a guru] are weapons. That was the only endeavor, how he [Tirtha Maharaja] could legally occupy the bricks and stones of the Gaudiya Matha. That’s all. He has no other ambition …It was simply show. But real purpose was to occupy, how to take the whole property. BUSINESS.” (Srila Prabhupada conversation January 13, 1977)]

GT: Before the passing away of Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, he gave orders that there would only be one guru and the rest should work in a very harmonizing way as to be able to preach the message of Rupa Raghunatha.

[PADA: False. Srila Prabhupada says that some prominent Gaudiya Matha leaders, such as Sridhara Maharaja, deviated because they thought there was supposed to be one acharya. Srila Prabhupada: “…So SRIDHARA MAHARAJA and his associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acharya and later it proved to be a failure. The result is that now EVERYONE is claiming to be acharya…in some camps the acharya is being CHANGED three times a year. Therefore amongst my Godbrothers NO ONE IS QUALIFIED to become acharya. So it is better NOT TO MIX with my Godbrothers very intimately, because instead of inspiring our students they may sometimes POLLUTE them. This attempt was made by them previously, especially MADHAVA Maharaja and TIRTHA Maharaja and BON Maharaja, but somehow I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be careful about them AND NOT MIX WITH THEM. This is my instruction to YOU ALL. They CANNOT HELP us in our movement, but they are very competent to HARM our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them…” (SPL April 28, 1974).

In sum, Sridhara Maharaja and Madhava Maharaja deviated from the order of their guru. “They unauthorizedly selected one acharya.” That means they engaged in

mental speculation and they had no faith in their acharya’s words: to form a Governing Body and not a false guru successor project. This “living guru” idea is very much akin to the smartas, the medieval Papal system, and similar other appointed, elected, and/or rubber stamped guru systems: ALL OF WHICH are eternally damned and condemned by our Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada said this man (Vasudeva) was not appointed as the acharya, so why are we still saying he was or could have been the acharya?]

GT: He also said that Ananta Vasudeva will preach the message of Rupa-Raghunatha and Kunja-bihari Vidyabhusana (later on Srila Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja) will do the managing for as long as he lived and must be respected by all. A few years earlier he had written, vasudevananta dasye thakiya ta sada laha nama -always remain in the service of Ananta Vasudeva and chant the holy name.

[PADA: Apparently, Srila Saraswati Thakura wrote a few encouraging letters to some of his followers and it merely inflated their egos. A teacher may say to a 10 year old student, “Oh, your writing is wonderful.” That is called encouraging. However, Srila Prabhupada says that both parties mentioned above are severe offenders, usurpers, and one was even the ferocious snake’s party, etc. So, the final word has to be accepted and it is: condemnation by the acharya. “…And as soon as you manufacture, fall down. This manufacturing idea is very, very dangerous in spiritual life. …Our mission is to serve bhakta visesa and live with devotees. NOT THAT YOU TAKE THE PLACE OF GURU. THAT IS NONSENSE, VERY DANGEROUS. Then everything will be spoiled. As soon as you become AMBITIOUS to TAKE THE PLACE of GURU, gurusuh nara matih. That is MATERIAL DISEASE…” (RC April 20, 1977 Bombay, India )]

GT: In his presence it was said that Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wanted all of the members of the Gaudiya Matha to stay under the guidance of Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu and chant the holy name.

[PADA: It was said? Who said it was said? It might have been said? Who said it might have been said? Somebody was alleged to have said? What kind of evidence is this? It was known to have been said? Known by whom? No. That Vasudeva was supposed to be the prominent acharya, either de facto or actual acharya, after the departure of Srila Saraswati thakura, was never said. Ever. What was said was: that you make a mangerial body, a GBC. Many of these same Gaudiya Matha people now say that eleven gurus were appointed in 1977, because “it was said.” No, it never was said. Speculation. Srila Prabhupada says, Vasudeva was never appointed as the acharya. The eleven were never appointed as acharyas.

Here is what is really said: Srila Prabhupada: “…People complained against [a GBC for trying to appear as a guru]. ..No, no. You become guru, but you must be QUALIFIED FIRST of all. THEN you become. Tamala Krishna: Oh that kind of complaint was there. Srila Prabhupada: Did you know that? Tamala Krishna: Yeah, I heard that, yeah. Srila Prabhupada: What is the use of producing some RASCAL GURU?” Tamala Krishna: “Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it’s clear fact that we are ALL CONDITIONED SOULS, so we CANNOT BE gurus. MAYBE someday it may be possible…”

Srila Prabhupada: “Hm.” [agrees] Tamala Krishna: “…but not now”. Srila Prabhupada: “Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say ” Now you become acarya. You become authorized.’ I retire completely. But the training must be COMPLETE.” Tamala Krishna: “The process of purification must be there. Srila Prabhupada: O Yes, must be there, Caitanya Mahaprabhu wants that. Amara ajnaya guru hana. “You become guru.” (laughs) But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower… Tamala Krishna: Not rubber stamp. Srila Prabhupada: Then you’ll not be effective.You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and “guru.” What kind of guru?” No publication, no preaching, simply bring some foodstuff… My Guru Maharaja, “joint mess” a place for eating and sleeping amar amar ara takana: Joint mess. He said this. (RC April 22, 1977. Bombay, India.)]

GT: On that basis he had been selected as the acharya of the Gaudiya Matha and no one had been fighting for that post.

[PADA: False on two counts. It was ONLY on the basis of some extrapolated mental speculation that Vasudeva was “selected” as the acharya, and this is not described accurately herein. This is why Srila Prabhupada says that the acharya is empowered (selected?) by Krishna, not by the votes of mental speculators. Next point, that there was “no fighting” for the post of acharya is also false, since Srila Prabhupada says they were fighting for forty years over the post of acharya. “Both of them (the two Gaudiya Matha parties) are severe offenders.” April 24, 1977

There were also severe politics FROM SQUARE ONE to make and keep Vasudeva as the acharya. The fighting started IMMEDIATLEY. And that is because there were already plots, schemes and politics afoot, against Srila Saraswati Thakura WHILE HE WAS physically present. Just like our current poisoning investigation?]

GT: Your Gurudeva was also part of the Gaudiya Matha and he also did not object at that time.

[PADA: People who objected openly were sometimes getting beaten or killed. Krishna may have directed Srila Prabhupada not to object, and thus not to get killed, because Krishna had another plan, and to thus wait for a better time when the violent cult madness subsided. Of course, we also know that Srila Prabhupada did make numerous objections to their system way before he started ISKCON.]

GT: They did not create an artificial acarya.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada says they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of their spiritual master. And, Srila Prabhupada says that they DID make an artificial acharya. So, Narayana Maharaja’s book is now saying that Srila Prabhupada does not know what he is talking about? Narayana Maharaja’s group has become the superior of our Srila Prabhupada?

Srila Prabhupada: “He, [Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, founder of the Gaudiya Matha] before passing away, He gave them all direction – and he NEVER

said that this man [Vasudeva] should be the next [guru] acharya. But these people, just after he passed away, they began to fight, ‘Who shall be the next acharya?… “That is the failure. They never thought, ‘Guru Maharaja gave us instruction on so many things, why did he not say, “This man should be the next acharya?”‘ They wanted to create somebody ARTIFICIALLY as acharya and EVERYTHING FAILED.

“They did not even consider common sense that if guru maharaja had wanted to APPOINT somebody as acharya, why he did not say? He said so many things and this point he missed? The main point? And they insisted on it. They declared, ‘Come on unfit persons to become acharya,’ then another man comes, then another, then another. So better to remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by Guru Maharaja. So that is perfection. And as soon as it was announced that, ‘Guru maharaja is dead, now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and become [guru]’…then he is finished.” (Srila Prabhupada conversation August 15 1976)

Srila Prabhupada says “artificial” guru and they say he is wrong? Of course the above is also a perfect description of the post-1977 ISKCON GBC. First of all, they artificially claimed that Srila Prabhupada had appointed them to be his “successor acharyas.” Doubters were excommunicated, some even killed. As they become more exposed, they appointed “another and another man” to become guru. The current status in ISKCON is so much degraded that persons who have been openly exposed as having sex with ISKCON’s children are still considered as “persons who are components of the bona fide parampara.” Worse, such deviant persons authorized the current wave by their “rubber stamp.” The GBC insists on it. Yet Srila Prabhupada called all of this “killing the guru.”

Anyway, how can Narayana Maharaja’s group make a public challenge to our Srila Prabhupada’s words and call them false? Who do these people think they are: challenging the words of the acharya? Well, nevermind, we know already why they challenge. Deviants challenged the GBC idea in the 1930s and made artificial achayas. They have a long history of challenging the acharyas. Narayana Maharaja indeed thinks the three worst deviants of the Gaudiy Matha are acharyas as well.]

GT: Srila Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu was a brahmacari (in white dress, according to Gaudiya Matha tradition only when a brahmacari accepted the vow to maintain a life-long celibacy, the acarya will offer him the saffron cloth) at that time, and afterwards when his Godbrothers saw some flaws in his behaviour they left his association.

[PADA: Why are we calling this bogus imitator: “Srila”? And they call Srila Prabhupada “swami maharaja”? A KNOWN homosexual debauch is “Srila,” but our guru is merely swami maharaja? What is this nonsense? And since when are there flaws in the acharya? This is the “acharyas fail” –Nitai vada, which Srila Prabhupada condemns.]

GT: Srila Audulomi Maharaja was then selected as the following acarya of the Gaudiya Mission and Srila Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu accepted the life of a Vaisnava grhastha and stopped giving initiations.

[PADA: This is the exact bogus system Srila Prabhupada condemns: another man comes, then another man comes, then another and another to be guru. And this is called “kill guru and become guru” by Srila Prabhupada. And we are endorsing this as something good? Killing guru to become guru? “Selected” is also a euphemism

which really means: elected. This is the “guru by appointment,” “guru by votes” system, that Srila Prabhupada condemned for a solid forty years. Ananta Vasudeva also did not just take to “grhastha life,” he also engaged in homosexuality. In sum, he became a total debauched person due to imitation of the acharya.]

GT: After the disappearance of Srila Audolomi Maharaja, Srila Bhagavata Maharaja was appointed as the next acarya and when he disappeared Sripad Parivrajaka Maharaja was the next. There is nothing wrong with this.

[PADA: Everything is wrong with this. This system was never approved of. Vasudeva is a debauched person, not an acharya. His successor(s) were “appointed” by the same deviants who had appointed Vasudeva. Of course, the guru is not rubber stamped and appointed in the first place, but nevermind these minor details.]


GT: If you say that this is not enough proof that Frabhupada wanted Srila Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu to be the acarya, one may ask, “Did Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura want to appoint Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja as his successor acarya?”

[PADA: This book misses the whole point. The guru is not appointed by some ecclessiastical rubber stamp and vote system –in the first place. The guru is self realized, he sees Krishna at every moment, thus, he needs NO RUBBER STAMP FROM ANYONE. Although yes, we could say, in one abstract sense: Srila Prabhupada was “appointed” (?) by Srila Saraswati Thakura, BUT! –through the heart– by spiritual vision, not some paper diploma or show of hands vote from known deviants! These people have forgot the whole process of internal realization of the acharya. This is why Haridasa Thakura was not recognized by many also, they thought he was not a brahmana etc. NONSENSE! Were Arjuna, Madhavacarya, Lord Caitanya, Haridasa thakura, the Goswamis, or etc. ever “appointed”?

Worse, some Gaudiya Matha leaders are also directly or indirectly described as “disciples of Kali-yuga.” “Unfortunately in this age of Kali there are many mundane persons in the dress of Vaishnavas, and Srila Bhativinoda Thakura has described them as disciples of Kali. He says, kali-cela. He indicates that there is another Vaishnava, a pseudo-Vaishnava with tilaka on his nose and kunti beads around his neck. Such a pseudo-Vaishnava associates with money and women and is jealous of successful Vaishnavas. Although passing for a Vaishnava, his only business is earning money in the dress of a Vaishnava. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, therefore says that such a pseudo Vaishnava is not a Vaishnava at all but a disciple of Kali-Yuga. A disciple of kali cannot become an acarya by the decision of some high court. Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaishnava acarya. A Vaishnava acarya is self-effulgent and there is no need for any high court judgement. A false acarya may try to override a Vaisnava by a high court decision, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-Yuga…” Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya-Lila 1.220]

In sum, Srila Prabhupada called the system of establishing false acharyas in the Gaudiya Matha: Kali chelas. How can Narayana Maharaja and our GBC say (as they did in 1990) that Tirtha is an acharya, when Srila Prabhupada says he is a Kali chela?

Also, Srila Prabhupada pulls the carpet out of the “voting for guru” system: “mundane votes have no juristiction to elect a Vaishnava acharya.”

GT: If not, did he try to become more than his guru?

[PADA: Just see the impudence of this upstart challenge to the bona fide acharya! This is an offensive mentality. Anyway, why does our guru need any visible rubber stamp that they can see? He is authorized by his guru, by his purity, by his spiritual realization. He wrote more books than ALL of them put together. Yet, we can even utter the above idea in public? No. Srila Prabhupada says that the Gaudiya Matha deviants are the ones who overstepped their guru.

Just who are you people to even pose the question “did he try to become more than his guru,” of the greatest maha bhagavata in recent history, and raise such doubts about his authority in public? RATHER, Srila Prabhupada says that your Gaudiya Matha’s “voted in guru” system is what is an impudent and foolish attempt to become “more than guru.”

And why? We know why. Because Our Guru (and thus we as his followers): do not ever accept your HOMOSEXUAL APPOINTED GURU(s) and/or your similar deviations –from square one! You dare challenge us (on Srila Prabhupada’s authority) because we do not accept your 1930s and 1970s homosexual and bogus guru appointment(s) history and endorsements? We will NEVER accept this. No. You are deviants!!! And our Srila Prabhupada says so, over and over.

And now we see why! Tamal Krishna placed a known homosexual pedophile on our Srila Prabhupada’s seat, and had us beaten and killed for not accepting, and you are giving this extreme deviant “gopi gita” classes? Rasika classes? And you think those of us who want to worship the acharya are ritvik deviants? And you have recommended the worship, as gurus, of the worst deviants in Vaishnava history? Homosexual gurus and their founders in the post-1930s? Pedophile gurus and their founders in the post-1970s? And you still think Vasudeva was appointed as acharya? And this is all some rasika teachings? Srila Prabhupada says: “As soon as this (guru imitation) poison enters –Gaudiya Matha finished.”]

GT: All of these are your questions, can you answer them?

[PADA: You answered your own questions very nicely. You think that Ananta Vasudeva was appointed as an acharya, which means that according to Srila Prabhupada you are deviants. Your party also thought: there are eleven GBC gurus too. More deviation on top of deviation.]

GT: You may say that Srila Swami Maharaja inspired so many people to come to Krishna consciousness and that proves that he was the successor of his guru. In that argument one may say that H.H. Narayana Maharaja is also inspiring so many of your Godbrothers and Godsisters to follow him, which proves that he is a self-revealed successor.

[PADA: Not if Narayan Maharaja writes books like the above. Apparently Narayan Maharaja has not read, or understood, or accepted Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in regards to the GAUDIYA MATHA, its leaders, and its history of deviation from the

order of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Nor has he understood or accepted the unfortunate results of their so-called living guru necessity. Narayana Maharaja is introducing an idea of a so-called successor acharya, which was never ordered and desired by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON.

GT: Before the passing away of Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, he gave orders that there would be only one guru (successor?) and the rest should work in a very harmonizing way as to be able to preach the message of Rupa-Raghunatha. He also said that Ananta Vasudeva will preach the message of Rupa-Raghunatha and and Kunja-bihari Vidhyabusana (later on Srila Bhakti Vilasa Titha Maharaja) will do the managing for as long as he lived and be respected by all. A few years earlier he had written, “vasudevananta dasye thakiya ta sada laha nama” — always remain in the service of Ananta Vasudeva and chant the holy name.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada did not agree that either “Ananta Vasudeva” or “Bhakti Vilas Titha” had become acharyas. Instead, Srila Prabhupada said that they were usurpers, severe offenders, and so on. It is possible that Srila Saraswati thakura had wrote some letters of encouragement regarding these people at one time, but he had never said that they were acharyas.]

“…On that basis he (Ananta Vasudeva) had been selected as the acharya of the Gaudiya Matha.”

[PADA: UTTER NONSENSE! As for Tirtha Maharaja: “…Regarding GAUDIYA MATHA books being circulated there, who is distributing? Who is sending these books? The Gaudiya Matha does not sell OUR books, why should we sell their books? Who has introduced these books? Let me know. These books should NOT AT ALL be circulated in OUR society . . . Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much ANTAGONISTIC to our society and he has no clear conception of devotional service. He is contaminated. Anyway, who has introduced these books? You say that you would read only one book if that is all I had written, so you TEACH OTHERS to do like that . . . ” (SPL December 17, 1973)

Yet in their March, 1990 “ISKCON Journal,” both the GBC and Narayan Maharaja exalted this Tirtha Maharaja to the same status as Srila Prabhupada. Meanwhile, some of the other very elderly and senior Gaudiya Matha members now agree that the current GBC has done what Tirtha Maharaja had done: the GBC gurus have made “a commercial business” of ISKCON or Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

Srila Prabhupada: “Our mission is to serve, bhakta vishesha, and live with devotees. NOT THAT YOU TAKE THE PLACE OF GURU. That is all nonsense. Very DANGEROUS, then everything will be SPOILED. As soon as you become ambitious to take the place of guru-gurusu narah matih. That is material disease…” (April, 21 1977)

Srila Prabhupada also indirectly compares the “guru” Tirtha Maharaja to the demon Ravana in his Srimad-Bhagavatam. (SB 5.18.22) “We have seen that one of the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wanted to enjoy the property of his spiritual master, and the spiritual master being merciful toward him, gave him the temporary property, but not the power to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu all over the world. That special mercy of the power to preach is given to a devotee who does not want anything material from his spiritual master but wants only to serve him. The story of the demon Ravana illustrates this point!…” Yet the GBC and

Narayan Maharaja issued a joint statement in 1990 that this Ravana was a guru like Srila Prabhupada?

The Gaudiya Matha “acharyas” generally are called “self-interested fools” in the Caitanya Caritamrita. (CC Adi-Lila 2.76) “… Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami, at the time of his passing away, ordered all of his disciples to work conjointly to preach the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu all over the world. Later, however, some self-interested, foolish disciples disobeyed his orders. Each one of them wanted to become head of the mission and they fought in the courts, neglecting the order of the spiritual master, and the entire mission was defeated. We are not proud of this, but the truth must be explained. We believed in the words of our spiritual master and started in a humble way- in a helpless way- but due to the spiritual force of the order of the supreme authority, this movement has become successful…” Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi-Lila 7.95-96

This is merely a sampling, there are hundreds of similar quotes. Many important points are made. Here are a few: The Gaudiya Matha deviants and the GBC have a tendency to replace spontaneous Krishna Consciousness with “legal” formulas,” as the Gaudiya Matha did in fact. The GBC has a tendency not to openly discuss their insidious plans with the general devotees, which fully ripened with their concocted guru appointment. The GBC had a tendency to enact legislation and money manipulations without following established guidelines or obtaining Srila Prabhupada’s approval.

We should carefully deliberate on this because Narayana Maharaja’s explanation and Srila Prabhupada’s explantions of the so-called acharyas of the post 1937 Gaudiya Matha and their so-called successors were never authorized by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the current bona fide acharya of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya and the foremost disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada. “NO ONE SHOULD BE WILLING TO HEAR ONE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL ACHARYA.” S.B. Purport First Canto Chapter 4, text 1.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *