Tag: Srila Prabhupada

Recently an announcement was posted on "Dandavats.com" wherein the representative of ISKCON's Sri Sri Krishna Balaram temple in Vrindavana [Shyamakrishna Das] informed all the devotees around the world that "Srila Prabhupada's Bhajan-kutir is now re-opened."

I read a recent article on the internet by a leading ISKCON sannyasi/GBC/guru wherein he says, "We cannot even extend this family [ISKCON] to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. We cannot even take one step forward because the problem is if we put too much emphasis on Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then we will miss out on our focus. We will lose the focus on ISKCON." So my question is: Is there really a conflict between the interests [focus] of ISKCON and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?

During my many travels in India I have visited certain temples where it is claimed that the Deity of Visnu or Krishna was self-manifest. So my question is, whether it is possible that God self-manifests His Deity form or is it always necessary that an acarya or representative of God be instrumental in establishing a Deity?

I have heard it said recently by some devotees that the origin of the jiva (regarding the soul's falling or not falling from the lila of Krsna) is inconceivable and that we cannot imagine or understand how or from where the soul has come into this material world. Can you please comment on this controversial topic?

I have read the book "Our Original Position" (OOP) published by the Iskcon GBC Press in which it is stated that the jivas (living entities) come to this material world after falling from grace in the spiritual world. Is this 'fall philosophy' correct according to sastra and previous acaryas?

There is a doubt circulating among some devotees about the authentic location of 'Mayapura,' the birth site of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There is also a controversy among some devotees about the Adbhuta-mandira. Will you please say something to clarify these issues?

I have heard whispers that the temple being built in Mayapura, called the "Temple of Understanding," in some ways falls short of the proper conception of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I have also heard that this Temple of Understanding is thought by some devotees to be the Adbhuta Mandira predicted by Sri Nityananda Prabhu and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. In your opinion is there any truth to this way of thinking?

Recently our attention was drawn to a small pamphlet entitled 'Guru Nirnaya Dipika' written by Mahant Krsna Balarama Svami, who considers himself to be a disciple of His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada. In 'Guru Nirnaya Dipika' the author has strongly advocated that only a Vaisnava born in a brahmana family has the right to initiate disciples and confer diksa-mantras to them. Coincidentally, the author just happens to be born in a brahmana family.

Sri Guru may be compared to the Pole Star because with the help of the guru we can derive great benefit from the Vedic knowledge. But without the help of the guru we will be bewildered in our attempt to understand the Vedic knowledge.

We have heard it said that Srila Prabhupada (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja) received the name "Bhaktivedanta" from his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Others have said that he received the name "Bhaktivedanta" from Srila Sridhara Maharaja and yet others are saying that he received the name "Bhaktivedanta" from Srila Kesava Maharaja. Can you please say something to clarify this issue?

Once we counted Raghunatha Dasa Goswami’s gurus, and we found that he had nine gurus. So then the question is, “Which one of his gurus is most important?”

Being an admirer of Srila Sridhara Maharaja, how do you harmonize your opinion about the rasa of your Guru Maharaja with that indicated by Srila Sridhara Maharaja?