Srila Prabhupada should continue as the diksha guru for ISKCON (Bhakti Ananda Goswami)

Bhakti Ananda Goswami: What do you think about this gender mainstreaming plan for the human society worldwide in compare with Vedic knowledge ?

The authentic Vedic Vaishnava Culture, based on the equanimity and equal-amity of Sri Krishna’s Samata Yoga, had nothing to do with mundane sexism. It included, respected and uplifted all people, regardless of their physical ‘sex’ or gender identity and expression. Even to the time of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the remaining Vaishnava Vedic Culture provided some place for intersex people, which can be seen in the fact some ‘Hijra’ music and dance performers were ‘auspiciously’ present to celebrate the birth of Nimai Gaurangadeva Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I do NOT agree with Amara Dasa of GALVA that the Hijra Class of India was or is primarily made-up of ‘homosexuals’.

I have been to India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, and have interviewed various kinds of ‘Hindu’ ‘Hijras’ there, and ALL of the people that I interviewed and studied would be scientifically classed as intersex people. Factually while Amara Dasa may be generally correct about the role of ‘Third Sex’ people in Vedic and ‘Hindu’ Culture, in my opinion, his own homosexual bias has blinded him to the purely biological, the scientific reality involved.

>And is Prabhupada the only real Diksa guru in Iskcon for you or not ? What is your knowledge about that point in guru tattva because you are a senior Vaisnava therefore you must know much more about this point ?

Is ISKCON Srila Prabhupada’s Institution? Is he ISKCON’s Founder-Acharya? Then HE is ISKCON’s Diksha Guru.

During the Zonal Acharya days I was told that it was Srila Prabhupada’s last will and ORDER that I had to accept one of my God brothers as a ‘living guru’! Apparently because some of his criminal associates wanted my farm property, for a year they put great pressure on me saying that I would be cut-off from Srila Prabhupada if I did not OBEY SRILA PRABHUPADA AND SUBMIT TO MY ISKCON ZONAL ACHARYA. Still I resisted, but finally relenting I told the ‘Acharya’ that “I am Srila Prabhupada’s man, not yours.”

He said that he accepted this but to please Srila Prabhupada I still had to formally take new vows with him. Of course later I learned that their whole plot was to usurp Srila Prabhupada’s Authority, and so I completely rejected my relationship with that ‘Zonal Acharya’, and any further connection to the “ISKCON” that fraudulently created the Zonal Acharya System.

A Vaishnava Acharya is always THE ACHARYA for the lineage or sub-lineage that he has founded. Srila Prabhupada is THE ACHARYA for the “ISKCON” sub-lineage of the Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Line of modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism. No one else can or should ever make this claim or try to assume any status equal to HIM in HIS OWN GAUDIYA VAISHNAVA SAMPRADAYA ISKCON SUB-LINEAGE.

If some follower legitimately becomes an ‘acharya’ in their own right, then it MEANS that they MUST establish their own ‘school’. If their teachings do not contradict that of their own Acharya, then their new school or sub-lineage should be accepted as a sub-branch of their own Acharya’s Lineage. If their teachings are contradictory then they should NOT be accepted as still-connected-to their own Acharya’s lineage or school of thought. If their teachings are acceptable but their behavior is not, they may also be rejected as part of their Acharya’s Sampradaya.

In religious history a disciple is either acting as the initiating agent on behalf of his or her own spiritual master, or she or he is acting as a DIKSHA guru and initiating disciples on his or her own behalf. This depends on many things. Most essentially it depends on what the nature IS of the contract of initiation between the guru and disciple? Is the guru vowing to ‘take the sins’ of the disciple? If so, then the guru must personally make that decision OR must have previously set the conditions for acceptance of a disciple, and for severing the relationship and rejecting a disciple. If the disciple breaks the initiation contract, then the diksha guru is no longer obligated to take any more post-initiation vi-karmic (sinful) reactions for the disciple.

When someone dares to become a sin-taking diksha guru, ‘taking sins’ on their own, it means that they are willing to suffer the vi-karmic reactions of some disciple(s), rather than allowing their own guru to ‘take those sins’. Thus if they are very magnanimous, they may vow, like the Pure Land Buddhists or Vasudeva Raya, to ‘take’ the vi-karma of all of the sinners of the World! Of course it is ultimately only the Original Spiritual Master, the Second Person of the Godhead, Lord Ananta-Baladeva, Who ultimately “…takes away the sins of the World / Cosmos”.

As for the situation in ISKCON, it is not proper for any disciple to take the position of his or her Guru in a holy place established by their Guru and thus belonging to Him. Thus Srila Prabhupada should be the ONLY ACHARYA in HIS ISKCON ESTABLISHMENTS. His disciples should not receive ACHARYA VENERATION in any of his ISKCON ESTABLISHMENTS.

If any of his disciples want to start their own missions, establish temples etc. then they are certainly free to do so under their own credentials and authority, whatever that may be. BUT, whatever they do ON THEIR OWN should be honestly and properly labeled / identified, and NOT presented as being done under the EXPRESSED authority and permission of Srila Prabhupada. If, though, a disciple is truthfully and humbly continuing an expressedly approved, or ordered, or empowered service to Srila Prabhupada, then that service should continue. This principle is the same for the Books too. Sri Krishna’s permissive will allows everyone to be free to do what they can or want-to TO EITHER IMPROVE, OR TO RUIN Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai’s Non-Sectarian Hari Nama Sankirtan Movement. The freedom is there, but the reaction will be too.

Honesty and humility dictates that everyone honestly presents their offering to the Lord and to the public. This means that the public should not be cheated. Thus a teacher, a guru or spiritual intercessor, should first of all be honest and humble about what they are offering the public. This means that there should not be any ‘bait and switch’ where guru(s) USE Srila Prabhupada to attract the public and them give them something other and less than Srila Prabhupada. If a teacher or guru truly attracts and ‘makes’ their own disciples, based on their own merits, then they should have their own mission. In history this is the usual protocol.

Based on my knowledge of religious history in general and Vaishnava history and Gaudiya history and theology in specific, my conclusion has always been that Srila Prabhupada’s established Temples, Rites, Books etc. should have been kept the way that he established them, and that if any of his disciples wanted to establish anything differently, they should have started their own mission. This is what I personally told and wrote to Kirtanananda about his syncretistic changes at New Vrindavan. I was opposed to his New Age Syncretism, and pointed-out the many faults in it to him. Because Radhanath Swami was personally a staunch Vaishnava Traditionalist, I ask him, and NOT Kirtanananda, to ‘give me sannyas’.