Bala Dāsa – US: The evidence indicates that Tripurari is a prakrta sahajiya neophyte who has decent memory of scripture and Gaudiya history which he selectively applies in arguments to support his deviant creation of a neophyte cult. History shows he used his charisma and intellect to accept disciples and was carried away as the weed like anarthas of fame, adoration, and distinction grew like wild in his devotional garden and stifled his bhakti creeper. Not to mention the aparadha, intentional or not, that he commits against his first Guru.
Here are some examples of his manipulatively disingenuous, contradictory, and even false statements made in the last week alone on his website “the Harmonist”
TRIPURARI: “Offensive? You’re accusing any number of devotees of being involved in a dark conspiracy and representative of evil forces, all of whom Prabhupada initiated and loved and who served him selflessly. I agree many of them have erred, but you are judging their motives that you have no access to. I did not realize that orthodox ritvikvada was so dark. You make Prabhupada look like someone unable to control his own mission and disciples….
…. He was not controlled by his disciples and unable to ward off a sinister plot to poison him and all such nonsense.”
BD: Of course Tripurari is aware of Srila Prabhupada’s own statement that the great sinister movement is already in his society, and he is aware that his disciples controlled him by locking him away for a week in LA in 1970 until he met their demands, and he is aware of the multitude of SELFISH, NOT SELFLESS activities. But denying these things was the only suitable way to label his opponent a darkly motivated offender.
Next, we find TRIPURARI engaged in a mind bending twisting of siddhanta.
In the middle of a discussion on the qualifications of Gurus and the ritvik system, one commenter, “Anuttama DD”, challenges commenter “Kula-pavana” when he directly implies that Prabhupada used the ritivik system to assign conditioned souls to be his own disciples new Gurus.
She writes: “To say that a conditioned soul can bring another conditioned soul back to Godhead is a “change up” of the philosophy.”
TRIPURARI responds: “You stated that the philosophy teaches that conditioned souls cannot be gurus and that thinking so involved changing the philosophy. Such would include madhyama adhikaris. I demonstrated from Prabhupada’s books that he disagreed with this, that your idea constituted changing the teaching, not mine.”
BD: Here is the quote from the books Tripurari actually gave.
“The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or non devotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of the second-class devotee for preaching work.” (SB 2.3.21)
First, this self promoted scriptural genius asserts that Madhaymas are conditioned souls. I know he has rejected his original Guru, but since the readers of this forum have not, I will quote Srila Prabhupada on the matter and let his version refute this nonsense with no further comment from myself.
The pure devotee whose faith advances becomes a madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari.” (Cc. Madhya 22.64,69-70)
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that any Vaiṣṇava who is constantly chanting the holy name of the Lord should be considered to have attained the second platform of Vaisnavism. Such a devotee is superior to a neophyte Vaiṣṇava who has just learned to chant the holy name of the Lord. A neophyte devotee simply tries to chant the holy name, whereas the advanced devotee is accustomed to chanting and takes pleasure in it. Such an advanced devotee is called madhyama-bhagavata, which indicates that he has attained the intermediate stage between the neophyte and the perfect devotee. Generally a devotee in the intermediate stage becomes a preacher. A neophyte devotee or an ordinary person should worship the madhyama-bhagavata, who is a via medium. ( Madhya 16.72 : PURPORT)
Such a maha-bhagavata Vaiṣṇava has the transcendental eyes to see who is sleeping under the spell of maya, and he engages himself in awakening sleeping conditioned beings by spreading the knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He opens eyes that are closed by forgetfulness of Krsna. Thus the living entity is liberated from the dullness of material energy and is engaged fully in the service of the Lord. The madhyama-adhikari Vaisnava can awaken others to Krsna consciousness and engage them in duties whereby they can advance… Although preaching is not meant for a maha-bhagavata, a maha-bhagavata can descend to the platform of madhyama-bhagavata just to convert others to Vaiṣṇava. (Madhya 16.74)
A madhyama-adhikari has received spiritual initiation from the spiritual master and has been fully engaged by him in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. (NOI 5)
A preacher is madhyama-adhikari, advanced devotee. He can preach. (Garden Conversation — June 27, 1976, New Vrindaban )
Second, the purport Tripurari mentions does not support the idea that a devotee would reject an uttama’s Siksa to become a disciple of a Madhyama, but rather that an uttama may prescribe Siksa or instructional duties to his qualified madhyama disciples so that they may instruct neophytes.
This purport does not grant any authority to a madhyama to act as an initiating Diksa Guru who accepts newcomers as exclusively their own disciples, and then instructs those disciples outside of the paramaters of an uttama.
For this would directly and irreconcilably contradict the statement from NOI 5 which states…
“One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava 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.” (NOI 5 purport)
Remembering that everyone in Iskcon was already an initiated Diksa disciple of an acarya who was an uttama Spiritual master, any instructions he gave to accept discipline from a local authority was equivalent to becoming the disciple of neohpytes or madhaymas. BUT not exclusively, as any Siksa these neophyte Guru’s might give that was revealed to be contrary to the Uttama’s siksa was ALWAYS REJECTABLE. And the uttama often intervened to correct such overstepping.
But TRIPURARI continues to trip over his own ambition in even more glaring examples of his unabashed cheating mentality.
Anuttama says : “If Srila Prabhupada teaches very clearly, that it’s best to accept an uttama as diksa guru and not a madhyama guru, and if he says in the purport of C.C Madhya chapter 7 Lila Volume 3., “It is best not to accept any disciples.” Why is it that so many people continue to not take the advice of Srila Prabhupada on these points and continue to elect or become “diksa gurus?”
TRIPURARI RESPONDS: “One should not try to be an artificially advanced devotee, thinking ‘I am a first-class devotee,’ so it is best not to accept any disciples. Such thinking should be avoided. One has to become purified at home by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and preaching the principles enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu. Thus one can become a spiritual master and be freed from the contamination of material life.”
As one can see, he is saying that it is best not to accept disciples by trying in some artificial way to become advanced. Rather than being a false renunciate, one can remain as a householder and eventually take op the seva of initiating when one is qualified. And in fact Prabhupada even indicates that this can be done in the context of further purifying oneself!: “Thus one can become a spiritual master and be freed from the contamination of material life.” Sounds like a madhyama adhikari guru is what he is referring to.
BD: Tripurari falsely reproduced that purport just to suit his conclusion! Here is the actual purport from CC Madhya Madhya 7.130
“The cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is explained here very nicely. One who surrenders to Him and is ready to follow Him with heart and soul does not need to change his location. Nor is it necessary for one to change status. One may remain a householder, a medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn’t matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. One has to learn humility and meekness at home, following the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and in that way one’s life will be spiritually successful.”
“One should not try to be an artificially advanced devotee, thinking, “I am a first-class devotee.” Such thinking should be avoided. It is best not to accept any disciples. One has to become purified at home by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and preaching the principles enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Thus one can become a spiritual master and be freed from the contamination of material life.”
So, I personally noticed this discrepancy and replied that very day.
Bala Das: Here is the direct sequence of statements.
1. “It is best not to accept any disciples.”
Instead the next sentence states what TO DO.
2. “One has to become purified at home by chanting and peaching”
Thus he indicates one should take the position of Siksa Guru, also known as Instructing Spiritual master, while at home. And it will be purifying. Which supports the very next statement.
3. “Thus one can become a spiritual master and be freed from the contamination of material life.”
So staying at home and becoming a spiritual master is purifying and will free one from contamination.
It is not incumbent upon a Siksa Guru to formally initiate and accept disciples as Diksa Guru. Especially when the instruction from the Acarya is to NOT accept disciples. Since one can discipline someone without formally considering them “my disciple”, this instruction harmonizes the apparent contradiction.
Notice, I did not attack him at the time for twisting Srila Prabhupada’s words to suit his opinion. That was smart, because he sinks further into quicksand with his next reply to me when he blames ME for misinterpreting!
TRIPURARI : “That is not at all clear from the text itself. You have clearly inserted this distinction. And for that matter the siksa guru is not different in qualification from the diksa guru, but rather the functions of the two differ. It’s not that a siksa guru is a less qualified guru than a diksa guru. Just wanted to make that clear (see Cc.).
And “the instruction of the acarya,” in this case Srila Prabhupada, is not what you think it is, for in numerous places he told us that he wanted his disciples to initiate and of course qualify themselves to do so. You can’t take this one statement and make guru-tattva theology out of it. We already have one, and it states that diksa gurus are required and that they differ from purvacaryas.
BD: To see how I further defeated his false equivocation of Diksa and Siksa and further misrepresentations and offenses against his “dead” guru’s vani, you can go to the link and read the whole sordid mess, I only give some highlights here. http://harmonist.us/2012/02/embracing-unity-in-diversity/
I will only give one more excruciating and blatant example of his twisting and rejection of Srila Prabhupada’s position on the subject of his godbrother Sridhara Maharaj from that same discussion.
TRIPURARI : Prabhupada criticized Sridhara Maharaja for disobeying the instruction of BSST and choosing a successor acarya, when BSST did not pick one. This is the gist of the criticism. However, in one sense it is actually a glorification of Sridhara Maharaja. Let me explain.
BD: Yes please do explain if you can.
TRIPURARI : “BSST asked his followers to form a governing body, and according the Prabhupada, the idea was that an acarya would eventually emerge. However, after forming the governing body (SM was not a member) there was a dispute among the members concerning succession. Several sannyasi board members felt they should be given the seva of initiating, while others felt that Ananta Vasudeva should be the successor. So there was a split of sorts. Then given the regard that the board members had for the opinion of SM, they approached him for his opinion. When the split was explained to him he replied that it seemed from what they had said that the sannyasis might have some personal motivation, whereas Ananta Vasudeva himself was not interested in being the acarya. That’s all. However this remark ended up carrying the day for those in favor of AV, which only goes to show how highly SM was regarded by his Godbrothers.
So SM was not actually involved in the selection but gave his unbiased opinion when asked given the choices presented. And that opinion was influential. Thus SM’s opinions are something to reckon with. But we must note that he gave his opinion on what he was asked, while he himself was not involved and served independently of the fighting that ensued in Gaudiya Math.
BD: Here, Tripurari fails to acknowledge that if Sridhara had stuck to the opinion of his Guru, he would have obviously declared that Ananta had personal motivation! All knew Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s clear order. No successor acarya. But Tripper claims that Sridhara is so dull that he considered that one person lobbying to be appointed acarya had no motivation, whereas the sanyasis who wanted to continue initiating were motivated??
And this after TRIPURARI has argued against ritvik for decades stating that all qualified disciples of Srila Prabhupada should become initiating Gurus! What a hypocrite! He will say anything at anytime from any corner of his serpentine mouth to fill his agenda.
As a matter of fact his most vocal butt kissing supporter had JUST COMMENTED THE FOLLOWING:
KULA-PAVANA: “Incidentally, the concept of ‘officiating’ or ‘institutional’ acharyas go back to Gaudiya Matha, where the senior sannyasis were supposed to be initiating gurus within GM after the passing of BSST.”
But, “TRIPPEN AREN’T WE” did not attempt to correct that even after I did and was shot down!
But wait, there’s MORE.
TRIPURARI : “It is true that AV failed. But there is evidence that Prabhupada himself supported AV at one point, referring to him as Vasudeva Prabhu, etc. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Prabhupada is offering hindsight and blaming SM. One can criticize SM in this way, but then one can also legitimately ask why SP did not object and offered criticism only later after AV failed, etc. Thus such criticism on Prabhupada’s part appears to be part of an overall frustration with what happened to GM, in which “his old friend” SM’s role is exaggerated but in a manner that sheds light on how highly he was respected.
BD: OK, by etiquette we are told to call even neophytes Prabhu, but according to Tripuari, the fact that Srila Prabhupada followed this etiquette while in the Gaudiya Matha in India translates to mean that he was once a “supporter” of Ananta who actually drew the harshest criticism from Srila Prabhupada outside of Madhava and Bon Maharajas.
Then Tripuari further construes this inane sophistry to accuse Srila Prabhupada of such mundane hindsight that he flip flopped by issuing criticism of Ananta “only after the fact”. And then Tripuari’s conclusion that his own Diksa Guru and ex-Acarya was just exaggerating is simple Guru aparadha.
TRIPPER: “And Godbrothers can criticize one another from time to time, accurately and inaccurately.
BD: More aparadha by implying inaccuracy on the part of one’s Guru (even one’s ex-Guru LOL)
TRIPURARI: Just one example: he wrote that he considered Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja his siksa guru, referred to him as a “pure devotee.” He also very much honored SM’s disciple and successor B.S. Govinda Maharaja. And he wrote that at one point when he and SM were living together in Prabhupada’s house (for six years) he desired to start a mission with SM as the acarya. Note that despite his criticism of SM, Prabhupada wrote that after the break up of GM (the fall of AV, etc.) he wanted to start a mission with SM as the acarya. So he criticized SM for his influence that indirectly led to AV becoming the acarya and he also wanted to start a mission in which SM would be the acarya. This history should help to put the criticism in perspective.
BD: More twisting. He did refer to him a Siksa guru once. But never wrote the rest, and never used the word “acarya” but in a conversation with Sridhara in Mayapura in 1973 he said the following.
PRABHUPADA: “I took his advice, his instruction very seriously, because from the very beginning I know he’s a pure Vaisnava and devotee, and I wanted to associate with him, and try to help him also in so many ways. He also tried to help me, so our relationship is very intimate. After the breakdown of the Gaudiya Matha, I wanted to organize another organization, making Sridhara Maharaja head.”
Apparently, Srila Prabhupada suggested long ago when living with Sridhara that they start a new organization and Sridhara become the head. In 1974 Srila Prabhupada confirms to Rupanuga das that at the time he considered Sridhara to be the “best of the lot” of his Godbrothers, and in another place that Sridhara was his “Siksa guru”. So in humility he made the proper suggestion that his elder godbrother head up their joint effort. For some reason the Lord saw fit that this new organization never happened.
This praise by Srila Prabhupada also cannot be construed to mean that Sridhara was an uttama adhikari. Even in light of the fact that Srila Prabhupada once said that Sridhara was his Siksa guru, it is already well established that neophytes can offer good Siksa if they are repeating the words of their Acarya, and also that just previous to attaining madhyama adhikari, a neophyte can be considered a pure Vaisnava devotee, as in the case of Mahaprabhu’s close associates, Tapana Misra and Candrashekara.
The following letter to Rupanuga, a leading GBC man, was written a year after this conversation with Sridhara. Srila Prabhupada was writing in response to a letter from Rupanuga wherein he asserted that after meeting with Sridhara, that Sridhara seemed jealous and that he openly disagreed with some of the methods Srila Prabhupada was using in Iskcon.
In the letter we see that a pure neophyte is what Prabhupada actually considered Sridhara to be at the time and clearly NOT in a position to act as Acarya. Note carefully Srila Prabhupada’s characterizations and use of INCLUSIVE and plural terms here.
“You are right about Sridhara Maharaja’s genuineness. But in my opinion he is the best of the lot. He is my old friend, at least he executes the regulative principles of devotional service. I do not wish to discuss about activities of my Godbrothers but it is a fact they have no life for preaching work. All are satisfied with a place for residence in the name of a temple, they engage disciples to get foodstuff by transcendental devices and eat and sleep. They have no idea or brain how to broadcast the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
My Guru Maharaja used to lament many times for this reason and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success. In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years. Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math.
But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected.
So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them. (Letter to: Rupanuga — Tirupati 28 April, 1974 : 74-04-28)
BD: I like to consider that after Sridhara’s experience wrestling with the ambitious “zonal acaryas” in the late 70’s and early 80’s , where he was manipulated by them to back up their sinister takeover, he finally graduated to full fledged Madhayma Adhikari.
He already knew sastra quite well, was strict with the regulative principles as Srila Prabhupada mentioned, and finally he received direct experience of the manipulative machinations of envious persons in Vaisnava dress, teaching him not only how to identify such persons in the future, but EXACTLY WHY a Madhyama is told NOT to engage with them, but to neglect them. Graduation day!
Which is why he was then able to go on and preach and establish his own SCS matha centers around the world and even emulate the Ritvik system in the end.
Of course Tripurari rejects everything but his own version, and claims he was authorized by Sridhara to become an initiating spiritual master just after his own Acarya’s disappearance. Maybe if Sridhara was more than a learned and pure but naive neophyte at the time, he would have forseen the horrid results that such a recommendation would have, but truly the responsibility for Tripurari’s current status as a sahajiya offender is ultimately his own for failing to follow the recommendations of his original Guru.
And of course he sees the situation quite the opposite.
TRIPPER: “Had such warnings been warranted and fully representative of what Prabhupada taught on the subject, I would not be the spiritually vital person that I am today.”
B.D. – The “Swami” humbly extols his own virtues. How perfectly sad.