Srila Prabhupada's Hare Krishna Society Los Angeles, CA
Uniting devotees under the inspiration, guidance and authority of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Founder Acharya of the Krishna Consciousness Movement.
"I wish that each and every branch shall keep their independent identity and cooperate keeping the Acarya in the centre.
On this principle we can open any number of branches all over the world."


















Last Update
2 October 2008
In defense of Srila Prabhupada Continued


From the internet emailed 2 October 2008

"How things will continue to evolve in ISKCON is hard to imagine. The leaders are clearly not following Srila Prabhupada's model, nor do they aspire to have ISKCON go in that direction at all. And because most of the leaders are gurus themselves, they look up to the big successful gurus, who are essentially Zonal Acaryas, and secretly if not outwardly aspire to find themselves in just such a scenario." Rocana Das October 2nd
 
"The leaders are clearly not following Srila Prabhupada's model, nor do they aspire to have ISKCON go in that direction at all."
 
What is the "model" Srila Prabhupada created and he refers to here? This he cannot or will not offer.
Only a couple of days ago, he claimed that he neither "thought or believed" the MODEL created by Srila Prabhupada -  and set in stone by him via deliberate instructions - can now be the "model" or "system" for today.
 
"I don't think that an institution should have anything directly to do or say about relationships between gurus and disciples, nor do I believe that Srila Prabhupada wanted them to." Rocan Das September 29th
 
Then he reverses and asserts - no less absolutely today - the opposite!
 
"And because most of the leaders are gurus themselves, they look up to the big successful gurus," Rocan das October 2nd
 
 Now does a genuine "guru" covet the success of another guru as he alludes here? Is not the GURU ONE. Is there such a thing as a successful guru and a failed guru? Would that mean that there can be a good guru and a bad guru?
 
When I employ the verb "are" which is the plural tense of the verb "is" am I not again making an ABSOLUTE ASSERTION?
 
In our line - do not all such absolute assertions - demand that we provide the proper evidence to fully support our absolute assertion?
 
Thus - should not this man carefully support his claims that these leaders are in fact "authorized" by HDG Srila Prabhuapda to present themselves as "gurus" as opposed to Ritivik representatives?
 
Should he not likewise offer some statement from Srila Prabhupada and/or his books that supports the notion that one guru can be seen as more successful than another - or covet the "success" of another - WHEN IN FACT if GURU IS ONE - his success is not "measured" against another - but only by the Heart of Lord Krsna and hiis fulfilling his particular mission on behalf of the Lord?
 
Would Srila Prabhupada have measured himself - against the "apparent' success of SBBST or the "apparent" lack of success in preaching by Gaurakisora Das Babaji?
 
He is thinking like a karmi - and suggesting that a pure devotee - the spiritual master - also thinks like a karmi.
 
"There is nothing a goat won't eat or a fool won't utter!"  
 
He will say anything to make and assert HIS fanciful ideas - all dressed up with philosophy and wordsmiithing. But in the end - he chases his tail and reveals a very very confused and rebellious mind.