"The guru is your own potential appearing in front of you." These are powerful words. Doing the work and not just putting on a show is the key. Thank you 🙏
It is beautiful to see this authentic conversation between the three of you, each of you deeply honest and open in this exchange. The tilak conversation had me laughing so much! What Padmanabha Maharaj went through in relation to his former gurus must have been so painful. But learning from that experience and enlightening others on Guru tattva is glorious. So many devotees have an unhealthy approach to Guru disciple relationship because of misunderstanding of the Guru tattva, isolating Guru principle to just one person who they receive initiation from and over idealize to support their weak faith. This becomes one of the biggest obstacles in the path of Bhakti. So there is a big need in our communities, particularly ISKCON for a proper healthy understanding of the Guru tattva. Thank you for helping so many of us by bringing this awareness and encouraging us to be brave and sincere on this beautiful journey. ❤
Thank you Nama rasa for having Maharaja back on. Maharaja is a great thinker of our times, at least, that's what I think😊.Although im not very intelligent, I take shelter of others in the bhakti tradition who have and in this way im nourished. Thanks Maharaja, always your fan😊❤🙏
this is nice what Maharaj mentions around 29:00 re. not being too attached to the temporary identification of “sannyasi”, with the ultimate goal and destination at the forefront, the nature of our true identity being just so far beyond these categories…
Great talk again… I listened from beginning to end. Such talks give me great hope that we on the light way out of narrow roads of seeing only „us“ and opens the path to connect and by this example actually preach and reach. All topics are very relevant. Please all continue on Your path. You all 3 do a great seva to the whole vaishnava community I would like to be part of… Hare Krishna!
I love the way Maharaj explained the tilak thing, not to be judged and excluded by other pariwar or Sampradaya. I believe people who don't belong to any Sampradaya (in good terms as karami) or non devotee can enter any spiritual group and openly associate with all different Vaishnava Sampradaya and keep their individual character and gain all the benefits of sadhu saga. This is no way to discourage to get initiated by particular guru or Sampradaya and practice to that standards.
Please, if you could reply your comment of said Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Maharaj about sukriti to connect with the type of gurues in this life... I don't know how the bar of options dessapaired of shorts.
Thanks @@penlight5289saw that appeared again... 🙏 Of all comments I keep two interrelationed words that helped somebody: "Faith" and "Sukriti" to follow in the same Parampara or left it and walk in a new, both always give the spiritual force and guide to find it finally, after many intents failed. Only is by Paramatma in all cases? But really what mean a bonafide Parampara and be part of one?
13:35 I can't speak for all Grihastas, but many have a yearning for the simplicity of monastic life and thus doubt their ashram from time to time. That is also true for many people with a Christian background 😅
Hare Krishna A wonderful podcast as always, a difficult subject matter as always. I think the point of being true to self whilst on a spiritual path is important; that way we become devotees for a lifetime. Being called anti ISKCON hurt so deeply but I remain convinced a one size fits all system doesn't work. That courses and forms have to be done, for me Bhakti isn't a job this makes it a job. And the strength that attracted me to ISKCON was the fact you can have different views on a subject matter and friendships would continue, something I feel is being lost. I remain faithful in trying to fulfill my Guru Maharaja's challenge for me when it comes to my work within health, to care for both the material body but also the spirit soul. I feel as long as I continue to try to fulfill this I remain connected even if rejected by ISKCON
I think its hard to find a proper guru in the sense where one can comfortably surrender and have a healthy relationship. Its better to stay unintiated untill one is sure to get into guru disciple relationship. Its like getting married 😅😅😅😅😂😂😂.
Maharaj's situation seems precarious to me. On the one hand, he's attached to the shiksha line coming from Bhaktivinoda Thakur but if we take things as they philosophically appear, or as is commonly believed or understood in places like ISKCON, for example, Maharaj's views on topics such as the (non-)fall of jiva or non-inherencey of bhakti are more aligned to those outside of that line than what the acharyas of that line have taught. I think there will always be a sort of philosophical tension for those who don't accept Maharaj's views on such topics, regardless of how much we try to reconcile these matters as 'preaching strategy' and so on. And he will necessarily need to find a guru in the Bhaktivinoda shiksha line who holds the same philosophical views, otherwise why to follow a guru if you don't accept their teaching?
Problem in Iskcon is that disciples are evaluating their gurus in equal level with Srila Prabhupada. That's why so many Iskcon devotees are joining other Pariwar or Babaji groups once they find out that their guru is not Uttam Adikari .
the conditioned soul is completely covered and the real person is completely unknown and covered by the material character, am I wrong? so where is the question of continuing with the material identity? Sanyas is a shelter as it the identity of sanyas. It all seems so familiar, so many sanyasi's think the same way and associate with women. Instead of intertaining our minds and material conditioned ideas? why dont they instead of following their minds try instead to follow Sri Caitanya? bhaktisiddanta, Prabhupada etc.....?
Nama Rasa: My name is Vaidyanath Das. I’ve written to you before about this topic, but it seems there’s still some misunderstanding. I’ve known this individual for over 20 years, and it’s clear that he has always a desire for recognition or popularity, which seems contrary to the principles we are taught. This could be described as an issue of “pratistha”. Tripurari Maharaj, recognizing this, sent him to Argentina to focus on chanting and introspection, away from social media and other distractions. This wasn’t a rejection but rather an opportunity for growth and reflection. Regarding any alleged “conspiracy” against Tripurari Maharaj’s mission, I don’t think it’s fair to call it that. Perhaps there were misunderstandings, but it seems more likely that Tripurari Maharaj wanted to shield Padmanabha Maharaj from the potential challenges of social media and certain public programs. I’ve spoken with a few of his disciples, and they confirmed this perspective. As for Padmanabha Maharaj, while he may have friends in America and elsewhere, I feel there’s still room for him to deepen his understanding of what true friendship entails. Some devotees in South America felt taken advantage (not in a sexual way, but perhaps emotionally or in terms of service), which created tensions. Personally, I’ve found it challenging to offer him advice or constructive criticism, but I remain hopeful that he is reflecting on these matters and growing from them. We had a conversation in India, and it seemed he was beginning to understand these issues. It’s not easy to discuss these matters publicly, especially regarding devotees, but given the nature of online platforms, it’s sometimes necessary to share opinions. I hope this comment is received with respect and is not removed, as happened when my previous email was shared without my consent. With love and empathy, Dandavats.
While I don't know you personally and have no intention of passing judgment, I noticed some differences in perspective and context in your comment that I’d like to address. From what I understand, your connection with Swami Padmanabha was close for only a few years, and over the last decade, there seems to have been significant distance between you. During the time you were close, you spoke of him with deep appreciation, even considering him a dear friend. The distance appears to have begun around the time Swami Padmanabha made the decision to publicly separate himself from his first (and your current) guru for well-documented misconduct and later formalized his connection with another, Tripurari Swami. You mentioned that Swami Padmanabha has "always" been motivated by recognition or popularity. If that were the case, would he have made decisions that jeopardized his position of prominence as being Swami Tripurari’s public representative in order to follow what was not popular but what he believed to be true. This suggests a more complex motivation than desiring popularity. If recognition were his goal, remaining in his previous role would have been a much easier path as he was poised to inherit the kingdom, so to speak. I was informed by Swami Tripurari that he had been training Swami Padmanabha to guide the mission upon his retirement. So surely there was something other than position moving Swami Padmanabha. The use of the term pratistha, as meaning pride, is a bit of a trap because if it is denied, then that’s proof; admitted, and it is confirmed. Your perspective on Tripurari Swami’s intentions is also interesting, especially given past criticisms of him in private exchanges with Swami Padmanabha that led him to blocking you on social media. What has led to this shift in your stance? Additionally, while you state that Tripurari Swami did not reject Swami Padmanabha, his own words-where he mentioned that he could no longer consider him a disciple-seem to suggest otherwise. You are drawing strong conclusions about what both Swami Tripurari and Swami Padmanabha were thinking and motivated by, despite not being an insider to these events. This coupled with a history of critical remarks toward both Swami Padmanabha and Tripurari Swami may complicate how your observations are received. You mentioned speaking to disciples of Tripurari Swami to confirm your views. Have you also considered speaking with those close to Swami Padmanabha to gain a broader perspective? You haven’t reached out to me, for example, even though I was present as these events unfolded. Approaching Swami Padmanabha directly with an open mind and heart could also be valuable in gaining insight and fostering understanding. Your comment about South American devotees "feeling taken advantage of" deserves careful reflection. Feelings of being misunderstood or hurt are valid and should be addressed, but they don’t always equate to wrongdoing. Resolving such matters often requires constructive dialogue and a willingness to find common ground. Genuine engagement, rather than sharp criticism, can lead to growth for everyone involved. As for your conversation with Swami Padmanabha in India, I asked him about it, and he clarified that it was he who invited you to speak, even after years of him receiving your harsh criticism. In that meeting, your concerns seemed focused on his public stance regarding his first teacher and, what seemed to you as a “sudden" shift to his second. However, his connection with Tripurari Swami had already been established for over 15 years before being formalized. After that exchange with Swami Padmanabha, there was little to no interaction. I share all of this not to undermine you or cause harm, but as an invitation for self-reflection and mutual understanding. We all share in the imperfections of being human, and through empathy and open dialogue, even challenging histories can lead to clarity, compassion and healing. Although I may have failed in my expression, that has been my hope.
@ HK ! I heard your comments on videos couple years ago, so i know a bit your way of thinking about Trip Mahj and his mission, and i guess you aren’t connected with them, so i wont talk too long with some one who rejected his Guru. With all respect. Just couple things : I lived with Padmanabha Mahj for more than a decade, and we were friends. He was one of my best friends, or i thought he was … So i know what im saying. With the past of the time my godbrothers started to leave his association because misleading and explotation from his group ( not just from him ) Long story, sad, full of details, etc. No way to discuss all of this in the forum. He promoted Trip Mahj among my Godbrothers, and they were re-iniciated. That group open a separate mission, even before that. Most of Vrinda Mission and the ( not too new ) Group devotees are not connected to Bhakti Path any longer. He overglorify Trip Mahj, even before rejected his first Guru. Why ?? For what ?? Look the results … He blocked me from FB, because he can’t tolerate even a Thumb Down. Not just from me, from all my old Godbrothers/Friends from our past in South America. He can’t lead, write, or preach without proper guidance , that’s not just for him, is for all of us. Last time we spoked, he says he has no connection/inspiration with no one, at least in the Gaudiya Math branches. Maybe things started to change, but looks like not … He wasn’t a friend of any of his Gurus, so what can we expect :(( I wrote a comment here, because he has no clue about what friendship really means but he talks like he knew it, and in a public program. I hope this little exchange with you has been completed, Matajeee. Good Luck. Dandavats 🙏
It's probably Satyanarayan Das Babaji. They have been saying for years that Iskcon, Bhaktisidhanta and Bhaktivinode Thakur are not bonafide or bonafide enough to reach the highest bhavas
@hridayacaitanyadas that's what I was thinking , Maharaj himself said in the podcast that there is no in the shastra that Guru can renounce his disciple. But always it's a blessing from Krishna nowadays if they do. It's better to remain without guru and accept everyone as guru. This initiation thing is getting 🤪 😜 CRAZY 🤪
A nitya siddha does not need to be "proven" like a mundane science experiment. A nitya siddha is self-evident (swatah pramana) via visible symptoms of pure and spotless (amala) behavior and practice. How do we know srila prabhupada is nitya siddha if nitya siddha can't be "proven"?
Excuse me, the title invited more Unfiltered Revelation, not the same known now more accommodated. I believe that gurus diksa and siksa shouldn't "play to be transcendental" if still not are, only the highest do it. Here I saw tendences of normal being humans hiding things and facts (for personal motives or trascendental?) that should not be omited and should be talked in time. Maybe a mix both too. I ask me if Swami Padmanabha never did something like this before, beside and after his last two gurus? For me that would be only an example of many of unfiltered, humble and honest Revelation of possible integrated facts; but this is very personal and perhaps unnecessary to show in public, only Krishna and those involved know. Very agree with not overidealize, first get to know them better, maybe someone at a high level will stop it in time and channel it better. Hare Krishna 🙏
This is why we need more preaching and good leadership in South America by iskcon. Good people like this swami fell for joining a bogus organization called Vrinda from a follower who left Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Then his second guru is another person who left Srila Prabhupada ‘s movement. Very confusing and sad.
Srila Prabhupada’s movement went through a few somewhat drastic changes over its history. I can understand why someone would leave any movement once it changes and it’s not the way it used to be. For example, I would probably quit if I was there during that time when Prabhupad introduced all the strict rules and expectations. I feel I would stick around if I were to witness those early times when Prabhupad just got some folks together and didn’t demand anything
You said that "Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of you anymore" , so how is that consistent with narrative that you was rejected without reason? It seems that you did not mind the rejection and so maybe the rejection was not so one-sided. There is scriputral reference for Guru rejecting a disciple, Bhaktivinode Thakur in Harinama Cintamani says that disciple can be rejected if he becomes "dusta", deceitfull. Becouse what is use of Guru- Disciple relationship if disciple don't want to be corrected and cannot take chastisement . I just don't get how that goes in line with our philoshopy? Of course you can invoke wild cards of "abusing the position " and "healthy psychology", but that is so often done from space of passive agresivity. You still play a victim even while claiming you are not. I don't see such type of mentality as accommodating, its rather conflation and bringing the topic on mundane level of so-called "balanced thought" and dialogue. Yes Guru have relative side, but why make that side more important? Srila Sridhar Maharaj said that sadhaka is more concerned with Absolute side.
Padmanabha Swami's narrative is perfectly logical and consistent to me. When he says that Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of him anymore, he is talking about the fact that the guru has to represent and be aligned with truth, otherwise he or she can not be called a guru. Regarding your point that the disciple has to be willing to be corrected and take chastisement, our philosophy is that one should not follow the guru (or anyone, for that matter) blindly. In the purport to the Bhagavad-gita verse 4.34, Srila Prabhupada writes, "In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master; but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries." What I have heard and understood from Swami Padmanabha is that he had asked his guru for an explanation, and he wasn't given any. Surrender should be done wholeheartedly, and in order for that to happen, one has to be able to understand why one is being chastised. The guru cannot act whimsically or as a tyrant towards the disciple. That's abuse. And besides that, Maharaja explains that he didn't even disobey his guru's order. His guru rejected him publicly only two days after he had asked him to go to Argentina (he didn't even have the chance to leave that quickly).
Thank you for openly sharing your concerns. Having witnessed and participated in the events in question and heard Swami Padmanabha respond to similar doubts many times, I hope to provide an accurate and thoughtful reply. I also appreciate how delicate this matter might be for you as a disciple of Swami Tripurari. My intention is to answer honestly, without undermining your faith in your Guru, as I see no need or desire to do so. I am not sure if you have ever contacted Swami Padmanabha personally and spoken to him about this. He has always invited devotees to reach out to him directly and privately, so concerns can be addressed on a personal level. So please keep that in mind, if you are unsatisfied by my reply. /- "You said that 'Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of you anymore,' so how is that consistent with the narrative that you were rejected without reason?" I see these two points as entirely consistent. Swami Padmanabha’s rejection being based on false accusations of conspiracy, betrayal, blackmail, and other wild and invalid claims, demonstrates that the principle of Sri Guru was not manifest at that time through Swami Tripurari. Sri Guru, as a divine principle, operates in alignment with truth, justice, and ultimately mercy. False accusations and baseless rejections are misaligned with the compassionate nature of guru-tattva. Therefore, it is precisely because the rejection was unjust and unsupported by truth that it indicates Sri Guru was not manifesting in that moment. / -"It seems that you did not mind the rejection and so maybe the rejection was not so one-sided." Swami Padmanabha was deeply affected by the rejection, which began subtly weeks, or even months, before it was made official. Swami Tripurari had started distancing himself in ways that some senior devotees noticed and questioned, though at the time, none of us understood the extent of the rift. The full scope of the distancing only became apparent gradually. Swami Padmanabha’s persistence in addressing the relationship stemmed from his deep care. He fought to preserve it, engaging in many conversations in the month leading up to his rejection, yet the core issues were never addressed. Instead, the issue that he was originally pointing to got circumvented as new complications arose in its place-such as Swami Padmanabha discovering false accusations circulated about him in emails from Swami Tripurari to his friends. These friends, knowing his character, reached out to him, bewildered by the claims. These mounting layers of misinformation made resolving the issues increasingly difficult and increasingly obvious that there was a problem that was not being directly and honestly addressed. Despite this, Swami Padmanabha continued to seek, and begged for open and honest dialogue, not out of arrogance, but from a genuine desire to protect the relationship. This required him to paradoxically risk the very connection he was trying to save. However, each time progress seemed possible, he was redirected to someone else, as Swami Tripurari ceased direct communication. Ultimately, all conversations were canceled, culminating in the official rejection. There was no mutual rejection-Swami Padmanabha’s persistence was an act of deep and genuine care and integrity, seeking clarity and reconciliation at every step. / -"There is scriptural reference for Guru rejecting a disciple, Bhaktivinode Thakur in Harinama Cintamani says that disciple can be rejected if he becomes "dusta", deceitfull." : Swami Padmanabha directly addresses this issue in Radical Personalism (p. 245): "In his Harinama-chintamani 6.43-47, Bhaktivinoda Thakura (according to some translations) seems to indicate that if the disciple becomes unqualified, then the guru must reject him and, if he does not do so, the guru will fall down. However, we should go to the original Bengali of Sri Bhaktivinoda’s verses. When we do, we discover that he doesn’t use the word rejection but rather the Bengali word danda, which translates as 'chastisement.' If the disciple is unqualified, then the guru will chastise him lovingly. This is very different from the inaccurate translations which basically depict the guru as being forced to reject his disciples so he himself does not fall down." This clarification underscores that Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s teachings emphasize compassionate correction rather than outright rejection. Furthermore, in the Radical Personalism section titled “On Being Rejected by One’s Guru,” Swami Padmanabha elaborates: “Even if we consider some slight prospect for a guru disowning his disciple, then the only possible conclusion is that in those cases the disciple must have done something horrific or be a very evil person. In such cases, due to extreme guru-aparadha, or offense to the guru, the so-called disciple would likely abandon the practice altogether or behave horribly as a reaction to their misdeeds.” This aligns with Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Umapati (November 23, 1967): “Any good soul who approaches me once for spiritual enlightenment is supposed to be depending on my responsibility to get him back to Krishna, back to home. The disciple may misunderstand a bona fide spiritual master under the influence of Maya, but a bona fide spiritual master NEVER LETS GO OF A DEVOTEE ONCE ACCEPTED. When a disciple misunderstands a bona fide spiritual master, THE MASTER REGRETS HIS INABILITY TO PROTECT THE DISCIPLE and sometimes he cries with tears in his eyes.” Similarly, Srila Bhakti Sundara Govinda Maharaja conveyed Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s attitude in the following exchange with a devotee, reaffirming this principle: Devotee: Sometimes I think, Srila Guru Maharaj’s [Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj’s] nature is very strict and my nature is very bad, so he is not accepting me and I am not really getting sadhu-sanga. Therefore, I think I am not a sisya, disciple, of Guru Maharaj. He is giving his mercy, but I am not accepting it, so he is disgusted and does not want me as a sisya. Srila B. S. Govinda Maharaja: “Srila Guru Maharaj DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO REJECT SOMEONE. If Guru Maharaj accepted me once, in any way, through Hari-nam, through diksa, or through sannyas-IF HE ACCEPTED ME IN ANY WAY, THEN HE MUST LOOK AFTER ME, and today or tomorrow, some result must come to me. This type of faith is necessary. If Guru Maharaj accepted me, if he accepted me in any way, then I must get that in the future. I have no doubt. It may come today or tomorrow, but it must come. HE CANNOT THROW ME OUT. If I commit many offences or commit vaisnava-aparadha, then he will check himself. But when that is removed, the sun will shine, just as when clouds clear from the sky. We must keep this type of faith in our heart, and we must be benefitted by that. I feel this. I am not only telling this by word or by mouth: I feel it.” These teachings collectively highlight that the ideal course of action for a guru is not rejection but continued care and compassionate correction, maintaining the sacred bond of guru and disciple. / "Because what is use of Guru-Disciple relationship if disciple don't want to be corrected and cannot take chastisement . I just don't get how that goes in line with our philoshopy?" I completely agree-a true disciple must remain open to correction and chastisement from the guru. However, the question remains: what exactly warranted chastisement or rejection of Swami Padmanabha? What actions or behaviors required correction? To this day, no clear or truthful explanation has been provided for his rejection. If no legitimate reason exists, blindly accepting a guru’s actions in the name of submission risks fostering a culture of blind following and potential abuse. Our philosophy emphasizes sadhu-sanga (association with the saintly) and guru-tattva (the principle of guru) as aligned with divine truth-not uncritical acceptance of arbitrary or unfounded actions. Claiming he was rejected because he refused correction begs the question: where was the correction? What was being corrected? Without a legitimate basis, such actions stand in stark contrast to the ideals of our tradition. Again, I appreciate you expressing your view and you are free to contact Swami Padmanabha directly if something remains unclear, however, in case you are unaware, Swami Tripurari has told his students not to contact Swami Padmanabha so you might want to take that into consideration.
@@BhaktirasaSCS Well i was was unfriended on FB by Padmanabha two years ago and didn't get reply to my comment. I will not act that i care too much about that i just don't buy into this narrative of being open and inviting for discussion which the interviewers trying to run like its some new Absolute Truth. I also don't feel entitled that someone have to reciprocate with me if they don't want. It is okey, we cannot artificialy impose our emotions on others. That is mayavada, not radical personalism. Sometimes withdrawal is best way how to fix a relationship. So what is use of saying "oh, i cried so much", but then not being able even to take a bit of distance? It's just show of crying no? I am not saying he could not question a Guru at all or that he must repent and force himself to submission, i cannot judge subtleties of their relationship nor do i want to becouse its full of subjective projections and it's very double edge and also i am not that pure myself. But I think i understand clearly we should not change a philoshopy and try to relativize everything just because maybe we simply cannot handle some heavy thing about ourselves. And of course we cannot handle that if we have to keep public image, in which case to keep a distance and oiling own machine is for sure most loving and sweet instruction we can get.
@@natashapuhar9248 of course it seems consistent to you if you hear only one side of story which tries very hard to appear in that way. Are you disciple of Padmanabha Swami?
@@MarpLG You’ve raised an intriguing point about “buying into the narrative.” We use that phrase so often, yet rarely pause to unpack its implications. What does it truly mean to “buy into” a narrative? What is the currency of such a purchase? What parts of ourselves are we investing-or withholding-in this transaction? Reflecting on this, it seems much of it involves projecting our own story onto others, embracing aspects of their narrative that validate us while rejecting those that don’t. This isn’t about right or wrong, nor is it unique to any one of us. It’s a tendency common to most: judging others from where we stand rather than meeting them empathically where they are. When we do this, we miss opportunities for authentic connection. How much effort are we willing to invest in truly knowing someone? How open are we to being changed by that connection? Or are we more inclined to stay at a distance, constructing a narrative about someone else’s life based on our own assumptions? We assign characters roles and motivations that may have little to do with their reality. To the extent that we rely on these assumptions, our world becomes more of our own fiction than the truth of shared experience. To presume we know another’s inner world without actually knowing them-and to feel so certain of this that we box them into simplistic categories-may be one of the greatest barriers to real understanding. And this same dynamic extends to our relationship with God. How much of our “certainty” about the Sweet Absolute is merely a projection of our own mental and emotional framework? Even when we hear about Him from others, our limited understanding of those descriptions inevitably affects the nature of our relationship with Him. A narrative, then, is only as authentic as our willingness to encounter its characters-human or divine-as they truly are. I appreciate your acknowledgment that it’s impossible to fully judge the subtleties of Swami Padmanabha and Swami Tripurari’s relationship because so much of our perception is colored by subjective projections. Doesn’t this principle hold true for how we relate to each other? How can we appreciate the subtleties of one another while seeing through the lens of our own subjective projections? This obscures the path to genuine connection. Our ultimate aspiration is to partake in Sri Sri Radha Krishna’s subjective experience, not to project onto Them. In that light, practicing empathy and compassion with one another here and now becomes the starting point. By striving to meet each other as we are, we take a step closer to realizing that divine perspective.
Hes clearly doing his own thing. He would have more credibility when he stops writing his own books, and rather accepts a spiritual authority and demonstrates surrender. Lets see, maybe he will.
According to Vedic shastras, mlecchas cannot be sanyasis. This is no better than cosplay. You can larp any which way you want but this nonsense has no stamp of shastric and divine approval.
What a sectarian comment. So sad to know there are still people who believe one has to have an Indian body that perceives a taste of chilli differently unlike bodies of other nations in order to follow a Vedic path
@TheHappyCoder I don't make the rules. I just tell it like it is. If your new age acharyas have lied to you about what the shastras actually say in order to gain more followers and milk them for money, thats not my fault. ISKCON & Gaudiya math sanyas is inauthentic. Even Hari-bhakti vilas doesn't support it. If you have a problem with this then finding another religion is a viable option.
@@SKP-op4vd Hey genius. The term mlecchas is originally used to designate persons whose language is not intelligible. Do you think the essence of Sanatana sastras is so low that it takes such consideration into account? And by the way, simply by designating someone as "mleccha" you are also contradicting so many statements of the same scriptures, notably those about the fact that everyone should be seen as an eternal soul, whose duty is whether dharma, karma, bhakti, etc. And if you think only white bodies are playing cosplay by taking the orange robs, then look closer into the Indian monasteries...
Someone may feel called to clarify missing or convoluted points in Maharaja’s story, but I am not here to do that; I just want to share my experience. I was greatly saddened by the unfolding events and feelings of devotees at the time in our sangha. I also cried many times. But in the midst of the uncertainty, there was a notable clarity within me: my heart was given to my Guru Maharaja, Swami Tripurari. It was a trust beyond rational thinking of “he said this” or “they did that,” and so I understood it to be faith. Faith not in the relative of psychological balance-which is so subjective, and can be easily turned on oneself-but faith in the continual experience of his deep, realized mercy. No one has ever moved me, brought me nearer to Krsna’s feet than my Guru Maharaja. Such is his absorption in his pranesvara, Gopal. Sometimes, I feel that we have gone too far with "dynamic" and "nuanced" ideas of surrender and service. Faith can make something that seems complex-with all its layers of mental dissection-into something very simple. Faith is all Krsna and Guru ask for.
Hare krsna, This is Syamala Dasi. I began attending Swami Tripuraris classes at the age of 14. 12 years later I became a disciple. I spent lots of time at his ashrams and the sanga was my family. I find your words "missing information" and convuluted" a bit hard to digest. As someone who was there, so to speak, for what transpired, and can agree that it was painful for everyone, the words seem a bit harsh. I found Padmanabha Swamis answer to be objective and kind. You further go on to explain that faith is what kept you with Gurumaharaj. Does that mean the ones who left are faithless? While i did experience a faith crisis and cried harder than I ever have in my life, my faith now feels stronger than ever. While Swami Tripurari was told he could not listen to Sriddhar Swami or he would no longer be in ISKCON, i feel a similar occurance had happend in our own sanga. There was no world in which Padmanabha Swami would not be directly in my life. His lectures are an anchor for me. Sri Caitanya Sanga felt beautiful with both amazing swamis sharing. For that to be ripped apart and to have to decide felt wrong. I believe a resolution could've been found and the opportunity was not given. Not only that, but dear senior vaishnavas, who had dedicated their lives to the sanga were cast aside. As Padmanabha Swami stated it was the hardest time in our lives. So faith was also enough for me to walk away.
@@MvP19877 Pranams Syamala. Yes, it is natural that you find some of my words hard to digest, as I may have found some of Swami's words hard to digest. That is my point: we see the world based on our faith. And so I just wanted to share my experience, as an example of what most of my god siblings experienced, to say that Swami's view is not objective just because he has a big platform and feels compelled to publicly share and explain everything that happened; in contrast, my Guru Maharaja has not felt compelled to defend or explain himself but simply carries on in his service to his gurus. I find that example much more inspiring and in line with the example of our acaryas. You say, "There was no world in which Padmanabha Swami would not be directly in my life." That is what I felt for my Guru Maharaja. So no, I don't think those who left are faithless; I think they had developed more faith in Padmanabha Swami, especially from spending lots of personal time with him during the pandemic when my Guru Maharaja was not traveling much. Swami offers a teaching with lots of emphasis on psychological balance, empathetic communication, and therapy; clearly some devotees feel encouraged by this. I am not sure how you can apply this emphasis to the teachings and examples of the previous acaryas-who clearly placed suddha-bhakti so far and above any relative concerns-but I guess that is why he is trying to "revolutionize" Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Anyways, I clearly have my differences of opinion. But I did have a dream last night where Swami and I had a nice exchange. I understand this process has been very difficult for him and his followers. I want to share my gratitude for the service that Padmanabha Swami had in our sangha. I do believe he was sincerely trying to serve my Guru Maharaja during those years, and I appreciate his approach to seeing the divine inspiration he received from his previous gurus. I will try to see what he imparted to me in the same way 🙏
@@MvP19877Dear Syamala, you seem to lack some understanding... There is absolutely nothing similar between Swami Tripurari following Sridhar Maharaj and Padmanabha Swam ileaving his guru. Tripurari Maharaj did not reject Still Prabhupada. Quite opposite, he followed Srila Prabhupadas instruction to hear philosophy from Sridhar Maharaj. For this he was expelled from managers of Iskcon at the time. He never rejected his guru and was never rejected by him. Meanwhile Padmanabha Swami rejected Swami Tripurai and because of that was mutually rejected by him. Not as a revenge but because Swami Tripurari saw he was not able to guide Padmanabha Swami in any way anymore. Disciple means discipline. Let's not forget that it is Krishna who acts as Sri Guru. Krishna sends us a person that can help us most. Not a person who will please us most, praise us most ect. To make progress on the spiritual path one has to be ready for the pain of erasing one's anarthas and then the pain of separation on higher stages of one's practice. Through our guru Krishna shows us what we have to work on. We might neglect that voice to maintain our mundane understanding of wellbeing friendship, loyalty. But that won't be spiritual life anymore. Mama Maya duratyaya says Sri Krishna. Without surrendering to him one cannot get out of ilusión. That's why we have to pay attention to Krishna in his form as our guru. Krishna might test us as he likes. And Padmanabha Swami failed his test unfortunately. But it's up to Krishna to give the test and we are lucky if we are given an opportunity to take it again. I pray that Padmanabha Swami understands his mistake and gets an opportunity to surrender to Sri Guru once again in this lifetime.
@KishoreKrishnaDas-y7p Hello Kishore, I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for responding to my message. While we seem to be on two different pages with how things transpired, as well as our personal feelings about Padmanabha swami, i hope that we can just appreciate the common ground. Ultimately our goals are the same and what I hope can remain in the forefront is appreciation of everyone's spiritual journey. We are all trying. While differences arise, Krsna remains in our hearts
What a conversation! Thank you for making it public for us.
"The guru is your own potential appearing in front of you." These are powerful words. Doing the work and not just putting on a show is the key. Thank you 🙏
It is beautiful to see this authentic conversation between the three of you, each of you deeply honest and open in this exchange. The tilak conversation had me laughing so much!
What Padmanabha Maharaj went through in relation to his former gurus must have been so painful. But learning from that experience and enlightening others on Guru tattva is glorious. So many devotees have an unhealthy approach to Guru disciple relationship because of misunderstanding of the Guru tattva, isolating Guru principle to just one person who they receive initiation from and over idealize to support their weak faith. This becomes one of the biggest obstacles in the path of Bhakti. So there is a big need in our communities, particularly ISKCON for a proper healthy understanding of the Guru tattva. Thank you for helping so many of us by bringing this awareness and encouraging us to be brave and sincere on this beautiful journey. ❤
Thank you Nama rasa for having Maharaja back on. Maharaja is a great thinker of our times, at least, that's what I think😊.Although im not very intelligent, I take shelter of others in the bhakti tradition who have and in this way im nourished.
Thanks Maharaja, always your fan😊❤🙏
this is nice what Maharaj mentions around 29:00 re. not being too attached to the temporary identification of “sannyasi”, with the ultimate goal and destination at the forefront, the nature of our true identity being just so far beyond these categories…
Great talk again… I listened from beginning to end. Such talks give me great hope that we on the light way out of narrow roads of seeing only „us“ and opens the path to connect and by this example actually preach and reach. All topics are very relevant. Please all continue on Your path. You all 3 do a great seva to the whole vaishnava community I would like to be part of… Hare Krishna!
what an ADVENTURE this path is !! another great convo with Maharaja
I love the way Maharaj explained the tilak thing, not to be judged and excluded by other pariwar or Sampradaya. I believe people who don't belong to any Sampradaya (in good terms as karami) or non devotee can enter any spiritual group and openly associate with all different Vaishnava Sampradaya and keep their individual character and gain all the benefits of sadhu saga. This is no way to discourage to get initiated by particular guru or Sampradaya and practice to that standards.
Bodhyana Maharaja said: always stay a Disciple even when you become Sanyasi. Always have the mentality of a servant and not a Master/Sanyasi
Please, if you could reply your comment of said Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Maharaj about sukriti to connect with the type of gurues in this life... I don't know how the bar of options dessapaired of shorts.
@luzpv108 Depending on the type of sukriti developed in a previous life , one is Attracted to a particular Guru
Thanks @@penlight5289saw that appeared again... 🙏
Of all comments I keep two interrelationed words that helped somebody: "Faith" and "Sukriti" to follow in the same Parampara or left it and walk in a new, both always give the spiritual force and guide to find it finally, after many intents failed. Only is by Paramatma in all cases? But really what mean a bonafide Parampara and be part of one?
Looking forward to this one
13:35 I can't speak for all Grihastas, but many have a yearning for the simplicity of monastic life and thus doubt their ashram from time to time. That is also true for many people with a Christian background 😅
Hare Krishna
A wonderful podcast as always, a difficult subject matter as always.
I think the point of being true to self whilst on a spiritual path is important; that way we become devotees for a lifetime.
Being called anti ISKCON hurt so deeply but I remain convinced a one size fits all system doesn't work. That courses and forms have to be done, for me Bhakti isn't a job this makes it a job. And the strength that attracted me to ISKCON was the fact you can have different views on a subject matter and friendships would continue, something I feel is being lost.
I remain faithful in trying to fulfill my Guru Maharaja's challenge for me when it comes to my work within health, to care for both the material body but also the spirit soul.
I feel as long as I continue to try to fulfill this I remain connected even if rejected by ISKCON
I think its hard to find a proper guru in the sense where one can comfortably surrender and have a healthy relationship. Its better to stay unintiated untill one is sure to get into guru disciple relationship. Its like getting married 😅😅😅😅😂😂😂.
Maharaj's situation seems precarious to me. On the one hand, he's attached to the shiksha line coming from Bhaktivinoda Thakur but if we take things as they philosophically appear, or as is commonly believed or understood in places like ISKCON, for example, Maharaj's views on topics such as the (non-)fall of jiva or non-inherencey of bhakti are more aligned to those outside of that line than what the acharyas of that line have taught. I think there will always be a sort of philosophical tension for those who don't accept Maharaj's views on such topics, regardless of how much we try to reconcile these matters as 'preaching strategy' and so on.
And he will necessarily need to find a guru in the Bhaktivinoda shiksha line who holds the same philosophical views, otherwise why to follow a guru if you don't accept their teaching?
Problem in Iskcon is that disciples are evaluating their gurus in equal level with Srila Prabhupada. That's why so many Iskcon devotees are joining other Pariwar or Babaji groups once they find out that their guru is not Uttam Adikari .
Gourgovinda Swami is surely no less exalted than Srila Prabhupada.Surely.
Gourgovinda ki jaya
@@Pete-m2t He was not very happy with GBC.
the conditioned soul is completely covered and the real person is completely unknown and covered by the material character, am I wrong? so where is the question of continuing with the material identity? Sanyas is a shelter as it the identity of sanyas. It all seems so familiar, so many sanyasi's think the same way and associate with women. Instead of intertaining our minds and material conditioned ideas? why dont they instead of following their minds try instead to follow Sri Caitanya? bhaktisiddanta, Prabhupada etc.....?
Nama Rasa:
My name is Vaidyanath Das. I’ve written to you before about this topic, but it seems there’s still some misunderstanding. I’ve known this individual for over 20 years, and it’s clear that he has always a desire for recognition or popularity, which seems contrary to the principles we are taught. This could be described as an issue of “pratistha”.
Tripurari Maharaj, recognizing this, sent him to Argentina to focus on chanting and introspection, away from social media and other distractions. This wasn’t a rejection but rather an opportunity for growth and reflection.
Regarding any alleged “conspiracy” against Tripurari Maharaj’s mission, I don’t think it’s fair to call it that. Perhaps there were misunderstandings, but it seems more likely that Tripurari Maharaj wanted to shield Padmanabha Maharaj from the potential challenges of social media and certain public programs. I’ve spoken with a few of his disciples, and they confirmed this perspective.
As for Padmanabha Maharaj, while he may have friends in America and elsewhere, I feel there’s still room for him to deepen his understanding of what true friendship entails. Some devotees in South America felt taken advantage (not in a sexual way, but perhaps emotionally or in terms of service), which created tensions. Personally, I’ve found it challenging to offer him advice or constructive criticism, but I remain hopeful that he is reflecting on these matters and growing from them.
We had a conversation in India, and it seemed he was beginning to understand these issues. It’s not easy to discuss these matters publicly, especially regarding devotees, but given the nature of online platforms, it’s sometimes necessary to share opinions. I hope this comment is received with respect and is not removed, as happened when my previous email was shared without my consent.
With love and empathy,
Dandavats.
While I don't know you personally and have no intention of passing judgment, I noticed some differences in perspective and context in your comment that I’d like to address.
From what I understand, your connection with Swami Padmanabha was close for only a few years, and over the last decade, there seems to have been significant distance between you. During the time you were close, you spoke of him with deep appreciation, even considering him a dear friend. The distance appears to have begun around the time Swami Padmanabha made the decision to publicly separate himself from his first (and your current) guru for well-documented misconduct and later formalized his connection with another, Tripurari Swami.
You mentioned that Swami Padmanabha has "always" been motivated by recognition or popularity. If that were the case, would he have made decisions that jeopardized his position of prominence as being Swami Tripurari’s public representative in order to follow what was not popular but what he believed to be true. This suggests a more complex motivation than desiring popularity. If recognition were his goal, remaining in his previous role would have been a much easier path as he was poised to inherit the kingdom, so to speak. I was informed by Swami Tripurari that he had been training Swami Padmanabha to guide the mission upon his retirement. So surely there was something other than position moving Swami Padmanabha. The use of the term pratistha, as meaning pride, is a bit of a trap because if it is denied, then that’s proof; admitted, and it is confirmed.
Your perspective on Tripurari Swami’s intentions is also interesting, especially given past criticisms of him in private exchanges with Swami Padmanabha that led him to blocking you on social media. What has led to this shift in your stance? Additionally, while you state that Tripurari Swami did not reject Swami Padmanabha, his own words-where he mentioned that he could no longer consider him a disciple-seem to suggest otherwise.
You are drawing strong conclusions about what both Swami Tripurari and Swami Padmanabha were thinking and motivated by, despite not being an insider to these events. This coupled with a history of critical remarks toward both Swami Padmanabha and Tripurari Swami may complicate how your observations are received.
You mentioned speaking to disciples of Tripurari Swami to confirm your views. Have you also considered speaking with those close to Swami Padmanabha to gain a broader perspective? You haven’t reached out to me, for example, even though I was present as these events unfolded. Approaching Swami Padmanabha directly with an open mind and heart could also be valuable in gaining insight and fostering understanding.
Your comment about South American devotees "feeling taken advantage of" deserves careful reflection. Feelings of being misunderstood or hurt are valid and should be addressed, but they don’t always equate to wrongdoing. Resolving such matters often requires constructive dialogue and a willingness to find common ground. Genuine engagement, rather than sharp criticism, can lead to growth for everyone involved.
As for your conversation with Swami Padmanabha in India, I asked him about it, and he clarified that it was he who invited you to speak, even after years of him receiving your harsh criticism. In that meeting, your concerns seemed focused on his public stance regarding his first teacher and, what seemed to you as a “sudden" shift to his second. However, his connection with Tripurari Swami had already been established for over 15 years before being formalized. After that exchange with Swami Padmanabha, there was little to no interaction.
I share all of this not to undermine you or cause harm, but as an invitation for self-reflection and mutual understanding. We all share in the imperfections of being human, and through empathy and open dialogue, even challenging histories can lead to clarity, compassion and healing. Although I may have failed in my expression, that has been my hope.
@
HK ! I heard your comments on videos couple years ago, so i know a bit your way of thinking about Trip Mahj and his mission, and i guess you aren’t connected with them, so i wont talk too long with some one who rejected his Guru. With all respect.
Just couple things : I lived with Padmanabha Mahj for more than a decade, and we were friends. He was one of my best friends, or i thought he was … So i know what im saying.
With the past of the time my godbrothers started to leave his association because misleading and explotation from his group ( not just from him ) Long story, sad, full of details, etc. No way to discuss all of this in the forum.
He promoted Trip Mahj among my Godbrothers, and they were re-iniciated.
That group open a separate mission, even before that. Most of Vrinda Mission and the ( not too new ) Group devotees are not connected to Bhakti Path any longer.
He overglorify Trip Mahj, even before rejected his first Guru. Why ?? For what ?? Look the results …
He blocked me from FB, because he can’t tolerate even a Thumb Down. Not just from me, from all my old Godbrothers/Friends from our past in South America.
He can’t lead, write, or preach without proper guidance , that’s not just for him, is for all of us.
Last time we spoked, he says he has no connection/inspiration with no one, at least in the Gaudiya Math branches.
Maybe things started to change, but looks like not …
He wasn’t a friend of any of his Gurus, so what can we expect :((
I wrote a comment here, because he has no clue about what friendship really means but he talks like he knew it, and in a public program.
I hope this little exchange with you has been completed, Matajeee.
Good Luck. Dandavats 🙏
It's probably Satyanarayan Das Babaji. They have been saying for years that Iskcon, Bhaktisidhanta and Bhaktivinode Thakur are not bonafide or bonafide enough to reach the highest bhavas
Omg! Maharaj got rejected by his second guru too. What a lucky person 😂😂😂😂😅😅😅
He never got rejected by Paramadvaiti.
@hridayacaitanyadas that's what I was thinking , Maharaj himself said in the podcast that there is no in the shastra that Guru can renounce his disciple. But always it's a blessing from Krishna nowadays if they do. It's better to remain without guru and accept everyone as guru. This initiation thing is getting 🤪 😜 CRAZY 🤪
A nitya siddha does not need to be "proven" like a mundane science experiment. A nitya siddha is self-evident (swatah pramana) via visible symptoms of pure and spotless (amala) behavior and practice. How do we know srila prabhupada is nitya siddha if nitya siddha can't be "proven"?
Excuse me, the title invited more Unfiltered Revelation, not the same known now more accommodated.
I believe that gurus diksa and siksa shouldn't "play to be transcendental" if still not are, only the highest do it. Here I saw tendences of normal being humans hiding things and facts (for personal motives or trascendental?) that should not be omited and should be talked in time. Maybe a mix both too. I ask me if Swami Padmanabha never did something like this before, beside and after his last two gurus? For me that would be only an example of many of unfiltered, humble and honest Revelation of possible integrated facts; but this is very personal and perhaps unnecessary to show in public, only Krishna and those involved know.
Very agree with not overidealize, first get to know them better, maybe someone at a high level will stop it in time and channel it better.
Hare Krishna 🙏
This is why we need more preaching and good leadership in South America by iskcon.
Good people like this swami fell for joining a bogus organization called Vrinda from a follower who left Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Then his second guru is another person who left Srila Prabhupada ‘s movement. Very confusing and sad.
Srila Prabhupada’s movement went through a few somewhat drastic changes over its history. I can understand why someone would leave any movement once it changes and it’s not the way it used to be.
For example, I would probably quit if I was there during that time when Prabhupad introduced all the strict rules and expectations. I feel I would stick around if I were to witness those early times when Prabhupad just got some folks together and didn’t demand anything
Sannyasa is a non sense in Kali Yuga and against Mahaprabhu's phylosophy.
You said that "Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of you anymore" , so how is that consistent with narrative that you was rejected without reason? It seems that you did not mind the rejection and so maybe the rejection was not so one-sided. There is scriputral reference for Guru rejecting a disciple, Bhaktivinode Thakur in Harinama Cintamani says that disciple can be rejected if he becomes "dusta", deceitfull. Becouse what is use of Guru- Disciple relationship if disciple don't want to be corrected and cannot take chastisement . I just don't get how that goes in line with our philoshopy? Of course you can invoke wild cards of "abusing the position " and "healthy psychology", but that is so often done from space of passive agresivity. You still play a victim even while claiming you are not. I don't see such type of mentality as accommodating, its rather conflation and bringing the topic on mundane level of so-called "balanced thought" and dialogue. Yes Guru have relative side, but why make that side more important? Srila Sridhar Maharaj said that sadhaka is more concerned with Absolute side.
Padmanabha Swami's narrative is perfectly logical and consistent to me. When he says that Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of him anymore, he is talking about the fact that the guru has to represent and be aligned with truth, otherwise he or she can not be called a guru.
Regarding your point that the disciple has to be willing to be corrected and take chastisement, our philosophy is that one should not follow the guru (or anyone, for that matter) blindly. In the purport to the Bhagavad-gita verse 4.34, Srila Prabhupada writes, "In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master; but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries."
What I have heard and understood from Swami Padmanabha is that he had asked his guru for an explanation, and he wasn't given any. Surrender should be done wholeheartedly, and in order for that to happen, one has to be able to understand why one is being chastised. The guru cannot act whimsically or as a tyrant towards the disciple. That's abuse.
And besides that, Maharaja explains that he didn't even disobey his guru's order. His guru rejected him publicly only two days after he had asked him to go to Argentina (he didn't even have the chance to leave that quickly).
Thank you for openly sharing your concerns. Having witnessed and participated in the events in question and heard Swami Padmanabha respond to similar doubts many times, I hope to provide an accurate and thoughtful reply. I also appreciate how delicate this matter might be for you as a disciple of Swami Tripurari. My intention is to answer honestly, without undermining your faith in your Guru, as I see no need or desire to do so. I am not sure if you have ever contacted Swami Padmanabha personally and spoken to him about this. He has always invited devotees to reach out to him directly and privately, so concerns can be addressed on a personal level. So please keep that in mind, if you are unsatisfied by my reply.
/- "You said that 'Sri Guru was not manifesting in front of you anymore,' so how is that consistent with the narrative that you were rejected without reason?"
I see these two points as entirely consistent. Swami Padmanabha’s rejection being based on false accusations of conspiracy, betrayal, blackmail, and other wild and invalid claims, demonstrates that the principle of Sri Guru was not manifest at that time through Swami Tripurari. Sri Guru, as a divine principle, operates in alignment with truth, justice, and ultimately mercy. False accusations and baseless rejections are misaligned with the compassionate nature of guru-tattva. Therefore, it is precisely because the rejection was unjust and unsupported by truth that it indicates Sri Guru was not manifesting in that moment.
/ -"It seems that you did not mind the rejection and so maybe the rejection was not so one-sided."
Swami Padmanabha was deeply affected by the rejection, which began subtly weeks, or even months, before it was made official. Swami Tripurari had started distancing himself in ways that some senior devotees noticed and questioned, though at the time, none of us understood the extent of the rift. The full scope of the distancing only became apparent gradually.
Swami Padmanabha’s persistence in addressing the relationship stemmed from his deep care. He fought to preserve it, engaging in many conversations in the month leading up to his rejection, yet the core issues were never addressed. Instead, the issue that he was originally pointing to got circumvented as new complications arose in its place-such as Swami Padmanabha discovering false accusations circulated about him in emails from Swami Tripurari to his friends. These friends, knowing his character, reached out to him, bewildered by the claims. These mounting layers of misinformation made resolving the issues increasingly difficult and increasingly obvious that there was a problem that was not being directly and honestly addressed.
Despite this, Swami Padmanabha continued to seek, and begged for open and honest dialogue, not out of arrogance, but from a genuine desire to protect the relationship. This required him to paradoxically risk the very connection he was trying to save. However, each time progress seemed possible, he was redirected to someone else, as Swami Tripurari ceased direct communication. Ultimately, all conversations were canceled, culminating in the official rejection.
There was no mutual rejection-Swami Padmanabha’s persistence was an act of deep and genuine care and integrity, seeking clarity and reconciliation at every step.
/ -"There is scriptural reference for Guru rejecting a disciple, Bhaktivinode Thakur in Harinama Cintamani says that disciple can be rejected if he becomes "dusta", deceitfull." :
Swami Padmanabha directly addresses this issue in Radical Personalism (p. 245):
"In his Harinama-chintamani 6.43-47, Bhaktivinoda Thakura (according to some translations) seems to indicate that if the disciple becomes unqualified, then the guru must reject him and, if he does not do so, the guru will fall down. However, we should go to the original Bengali of Sri Bhaktivinoda’s verses. When we do, we discover that he doesn’t use the word rejection but rather the Bengali word danda, which translates as 'chastisement.' If the disciple is unqualified, then the guru will chastise him lovingly. This is very different from the inaccurate translations which basically depict the guru as being forced to reject his disciples so he himself does not fall down."
This clarification underscores that Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s teachings emphasize compassionate correction rather than outright rejection.
Furthermore, in the Radical Personalism section titled “On Being Rejected by One’s Guru,” Swami Padmanabha elaborates:
“Even if we consider some slight prospect for a guru disowning his disciple, then the only possible conclusion is that in those cases the disciple must have done something horrific or be a very evil person. In such cases, due to extreme guru-aparadha, or offense to the guru, the so-called disciple would likely abandon the practice altogether or behave horribly as a reaction to their misdeeds.”
This aligns with Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Umapati (November 23, 1967):
“Any good soul who approaches me once for spiritual enlightenment is supposed to be depending on my responsibility to get him back to Krishna, back to home. The disciple may misunderstand a bona fide spiritual master under the influence of Maya, but a bona fide spiritual master NEVER LETS GO OF A DEVOTEE ONCE ACCEPTED. When a disciple misunderstands a bona fide spiritual master, THE MASTER REGRETS HIS INABILITY TO PROTECT THE DISCIPLE and sometimes he cries with tears in his eyes.”
Similarly, Srila Bhakti Sundara Govinda Maharaja conveyed Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s attitude in the following exchange with a devotee, reaffirming this principle:
Devotee: Sometimes I think, Srila Guru Maharaj’s [Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj’s] nature is very strict and my nature is very bad, so he is not accepting me and I am not really getting sadhu-sanga. Therefore, I think I am not a sisya, disciple, of Guru Maharaj. He is giving his mercy, but I am not accepting it, so he is disgusted and does not want me as a sisya.
Srila B. S. Govinda Maharaja: “Srila Guru Maharaj DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO REJECT SOMEONE. If Guru Maharaj accepted me once, in any way, through Hari-nam, through diksa, or through sannyas-IF HE ACCEPTED ME IN ANY WAY, THEN HE MUST LOOK AFTER ME, and today or tomorrow, some result must come to me. This type of faith is necessary. If Guru Maharaj accepted me, if he accepted me in any way, then I must get that in the future. I have no doubt. It may come today or tomorrow, but it must come. HE CANNOT THROW ME OUT. If I commit many offences or commit vaisnava-aparadha, then he will check himself. But when that is removed, the sun will shine, just as when clouds clear from the sky. We must keep this type of faith in our heart, and we must be benefitted by that. I feel this. I am not only telling this by word or by mouth: I feel it.”
These teachings collectively highlight that the ideal course of action for a guru is not rejection but continued care and compassionate correction, maintaining the sacred bond of guru and disciple.
/ "Because what is use of Guru-Disciple relationship if disciple don't want to be corrected and cannot take chastisement . I just don't get how that goes in line with our philoshopy?"
I completely agree-a true disciple must remain open to correction and chastisement from the guru. However, the question remains: what exactly warranted chastisement or rejection of Swami Padmanabha? What actions or behaviors required correction? To this day, no clear or truthful explanation has been provided for his rejection.
If no legitimate reason exists, blindly accepting a guru’s actions in the name of submission risks fostering a culture of blind following and potential abuse. Our philosophy emphasizes sadhu-sanga (association with the saintly) and guru-tattva (the principle of guru) as aligned with divine truth-not uncritical acceptance of arbitrary or unfounded actions.
Claiming he was rejected because he refused correction begs the question: where was the correction? What was being corrected? Without a legitimate basis, such actions stand in stark contrast to the ideals of our tradition.
Again, I appreciate you expressing your view and you are free to contact Swami Padmanabha directly if something remains unclear, however, in case you are unaware, Swami Tripurari has told his students not to contact Swami Padmanabha so you might want to take that into consideration.
@@BhaktirasaSCS Well i was was unfriended on FB by Padmanabha two years ago and didn't get reply to my comment. I will not act that i care too much about that i just don't buy into this narrative of being open and inviting for discussion which the interviewers trying to run like its some new Absolute Truth. I also don't feel entitled that someone have to reciprocate with me if they don't want. It is okey, we cannot artificialy impose our emotions on others. That is mayavada, not radical personalism. Sometimes withdrawal is best way how to fix a relationship. So what is use of saying "oh, i cried so much", but then not being able even to take a bit of distance? It's just show of crying no?
I am not saying he could not question a Guru at all or that he must repent and force himself to submission, i cannot judge subtleties of their relationship nor do i want to becouse its full of subjective projections and it's very double edge and also i am not that pure myself. But I think i understand clearly we should not change a philoshopy and try to relativize everything just because maybe we simply cannot handle some heavy thing about ourselves. And of course we cannot handle that if we have to keep public image, in which case to keep a distance and oiling own machine is for sure most loving and sweet instruction we can get.
@@natashapuhar9248 of course it seems consistent to you if you hear only one side of story which tries very hard to appear in that way. Are you disciple of Padmanabha Swami?
@@MarpLG You’ve raised an intriguing point about “buying into the narrative.” We use that phrase so often, yet rarely pause to unpack its implications. What does it truly mean to “buy into” a narrative? What is the currency of such a purchase? What parts of ourselves are we investing-or withholding-in this transaction?
Reflecting on this, it seems much of it involves projecting our own story onto others, embracing aspects of their narrative that validate us while rejecting those that don’t. This isn’t about right or wrong, nor is it unique to any one of us. It’s a tendency common to most: judging others from where we stand rather than meeting them empathically where they are. When we do this, we miss opportunities for authentic connection.
How much effort are we willing to invest in truly knowing someone? How open are we to being changed by that connection? Or are we more inclined to stay at a distance, constructing a narrative about someone else’s life based on our own assumptions? We assign characters roles and motivations that may have little to do with their reality. To the extent that we rely on these assumptions, our world becomes more of our own fiction than the truth of shared experience.
To presume we know another’s inner world without actually knowing them-and to feel so certain of this that we box them into simplistic categories-may be one of the greatest barriers to real understanding. And this same dynamic extends to our relationship with God. How much of our “certainty” about the Sweet Absolute is merely a projection of our own mental and emotional framework? Even when we hear about Him from others, our limited understanding of those descriptions inevitably affects the nature of our relationship with Him.
A narrative, then, is only as authentic as our willingness to encounter its characters-human or divine-as they truly are. I appreciate your acknowledgment that it’s impossible to fully judge the subtleties of Swami Padmanabha and Swami Tripurari’s relationship because so much of our perception is colored by subjective projections.
Doesn’t this principle hold true for how we relate to each other? How can we appreciate the subtleties of one another while seeing through the lens of our own subjective projections? This obscures the path to genuine connection. Our ultimate aspiration is to partake in Sri Sri Radha Krishna’s subjective experience, not to project onto Them. In that light, practicing empathy and compassion with one another here and now becomes the starting point. By striving to meet each other as we are, we take a step closer to realizing that divine perspective.
Hes clearly doing his own thing. He would have more credibility when he stops writing his own books, and rather accepts a spiritual authority and demonstrates surrender. Lets see, maybe he will.
According to Vedic shastras, mlecchas cannot be sanyasis. This is no better than cosplay. You can larp any which way you want but this nonsense has no stamp of shastric and divine approval.
What a sectarian comment. So sad to know there are still people who believe one has to have an Indian body that perceives a taste of chilli differently unlike bodies of other nations in order to follow a Vedic path
@TheHappyCoder I don't make the rules. I just tell it like it is. If your new age acharyas have lied to you about what the shastras actually say in order to gain more followers and milk them for money, thats not my fault. ISKCON & Gaudiya math sanyas is inauthentic. Even Hari-bhakti vilas doesn't support it. If you have a problem with this then finding another religion is a viable option.
@@SKP-op4vd Hey genius. The term mlecchas is originally used to designate persons whose language is not intelligible. Do you think the essence of Sanatana sastras is so low that it takes such consideration into account? And by the way, simply by designating someone as "mleccha" you are also contradicting so many statements of the same scriptures, notably those about the fact that everyone should be seen as an eternal soul, whose duty is whether dharma, karma, bhakti, etc.
And if you think only white bodies are playing cosplay by taking the orange robs, then look closer into the Indian monasteries...
Someone may feel called to clarify missing or convoluted points in Maharaja’s story, but I am not here to do that; I just want to share my experience.
I was greatly saddened by the unfolding events and feelings of devotees at the time in our sangha. I also cried many times. But in the midst of the uncertainty, there was a notable clarity within me: my heart was given to my Guru Maharaja, Swami Tripurari. It was a trust beyond rational thinking of “he said this” or “they did that,” and so I understood it to be faith. Faith not in the relative of psychological balance-which is so subjective, and can be easily turned on oneself-but faith in the continual experience of his deep, realized mercy. No one has ever moved me, brought me nearer to Krsna’s feet than my Guru Maharaja. Such is his absorption in his pranesvara, Gopal.
Sometimes, I feel that we have gone too far with "dynamic" and "nuanced" ideas of surrender and service. Faith can make something that seems complex-with all its layers of mental dissection-into something very simple. Faith is all Krsna and Guru ask for.
Hare krsna,
This is Syamala Dasi. I began attending Swami Tripuraris classes at the age of 14. 12 years later I became a disciple. I spent lots of time at his ashrams and the sanga was my family. I find your words "missing information" and convuluted" a bit hard to digest. As someone who was there, so to speak, for what transpired, and can agree that it was painful for everyone, the words seem a bit harsh. I found Padmanabha Swamis answer to be objective and kind. You further go on to explain that faith is what kept you with Gurumaharaj. Does that mean the ones who left are faithless? While i did experience a faith crisis and cried harder than I ever have in my life, my faith now feels stronger than ever. While Swami Tripurari was told he could not listen to Sriddhar Swami or he would no longer be in ISKCON, i feel a similar occurance had happend in our own sanga. There was no world in which Padmanabha Swami would not be directly in my life. His lectures are an anchor for me. Sri Caitanya Sanga felt beautiful with both amazing swamis sharing. For that to be ripped apart and to have to decide felt wrong. I believe a resolution could've been found and the opportunity was not given. Not only that, but dear senior vaishnavas, who had dedicated their lives to the sanga were cast aside. As Padmanabha Swami stated it was the hardest time in our lives. So faith was also enough for me to walk away.
@@MvP19877 Pranams Syamala. Yes, it is natural that you find some of my words hard to digest, as I may have found some of Swami's words hard to digest. That is my point: we see the world based on our faith. And so I just wanted to share my experience, as an example of what most of my god siblings experienced, to say that Swami's view is not objective just because he has a big platform and feels compelled to publicly share and explain everything that happened; in contrast, my Guru Maharaja has not felt compelled to defend or explain himself but simply carries on in his service to his gurus. I find that example much more inspiring and in line with the example of our acaryas.
You say, "There was no world in which Padmanabha Swami would not be directly in my life." That is what I felt for my Guru Maharaja. So no, I don't think those who left are faithless; I think they had developed more faith in Padmanabha Swami, especially from spending lots of personal time with him during the pandemic when my Guru Maharaja was not traveling much. Swami offers a teaching with lots of emphasis on psychological balance, empathetic communication, and therapy; clearly some devotees feel encouraged by this. I am not sure how you can apply this emphasis to the teachings and examples of the previous acaryas-who clearly placed suddha-bhakti so far and above any relative concerns-but I guess that is why he is trying to "revolutionize" Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
Anyways, I clearly have my differences of opinion. But I did have a dream last night where Swami and I had a nice exchange. I understand this process has been very difficult for him and his followers. I want to share my gratitude for the service that Padmanabha Swami had in our sangha. I do believe he was sincerely trying to serve my Guru Maharaja during those years, and I appreciate his approach to seeing the divine inspiration he received from his previous gurus. I will try to see what he imparted to me in the same way 🙏
@@MvP19877Dear Syamala, you seem to lack some understanding... There is absolutely nothing similar between Swami Tripurari following Sridhar Maharaj and Padmanabha Swam ileaving his guru. Tripurari Maharaj did not reject Still Prabhupada. Quite opposite, he followed Srila Prabhupadas instruction to hear philosophy from Sridhar Maharaj. For this he was expelled from managers of Iskcon at the time. He never rejected his guru and was never rejected by him. Meanwhile Padmanabha Swami rejected Swami Tripurai and because of that was mutually rejected by him. Not as a revenge but because Swami Tripurari saw he was not able to guide Padmanabha Swami in any way anymore. Disciple means discipline. Let's not forget that it is Krishna who acts as Sri Guru. Krishna sends us a person that can help us most. Not a person who will please us most, praise us most ect. To make progress on the spiritual path one has to be ready for the pain of erasing one's anarthas and then the pain of separation on higher stages of one's practice. Through our guru Krishna shows us what we have to work on. We might neglect that voice to maintain our mundane understanding of wellbeing friendship, loyalty. But that won't be spiritual life anymore. Mama Maya duratyaya says Sri Krishna. Without surrendering to him one cannot get out of ilusión. That's why we have to pay attention to Krishna in his form as our guru. Krishna might test us as he likes. And Padmanabha Swami failed his test unfortunately. But it's up to Krishna to give the test and we are lucky if we are given an opportunity to take it again. I pray that Padmanabha Swami understands his mistake and gets an opportunity to surrender to Sri Guru once again in this lifetime.
@KishoreKrishnaDas-y7p Hello Kishore,
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for responding to my message. While we seem to be on two different pages with how things transpired, as well as our personal feelings about Padmanabha swami, i hope that we can just appreciate the common ground. Ultimately our goals are the same and what I hope can remain in the forefront is appreciation of everyone's spiritual journey. We are all trying. While differences arise, Krsna remains in our hearts