Quote
barabara
Initiate;

You, a former devotee, have written that the religious scriptures believed in by followers of this guru say that anyone who blasphemes this guru should be killed?
Are these some of the secret teachings of this group?

I'm just trying to get this straight. I have read this sort of thing before, on other forums.

How do these murderous teachings fit in with other teachings about the qualities of a vaisnava, taken from the Srimad Bhagavatam, 5th Canto, Chpt. 18, Text 13?

How is this reconciled with the group alledgedly having a "pro-life" stance?

How is this consistent with the teaching of ahimsa, or not harming animals, or respect for life?

How can these people claim to be Christians, as they are reported to be doing nowadays?

And yet you say that there is nothing in this cult that would ever wind up on "60 minutes"? This begins to sound more and more like Jim Jones.

Does anyone still doubt that this is a dangerous cult after reading the previous post by initiate?

Quote
devadasi
Initiate,

Thank you for sharing and being brave enough to speak your mind. I remember the pipe incident with Vaishnava dasi, it was a simple accident. But Siddha was so angry he said it was a conspiracy and the result would be she would have to die 10 years early!!!! This is so outrageous I kick my self in the butt for not leaving immediately after this incident!!! Then he said because she would die 10 years early that meant he would die 10 years early because they would both be going back to Krishna together. In other words because she got a little bump on the head we were all condemned for causing them both to leave the world 10 years early!!!!

Concerning Siddha becoming dependent on his followers. I remember an incident when everyone was condemned, I can't remember the exact reason, he got a hair in his soup or something like that, anyway he cut everyone off and would not accept anyone's service. He even tried washing his own cloths. This lasted about two days. He was not capable of doing anything for himself and so he had to forgive everyone to get his house cleaned, clothes washed and meals served.

Concerning offenses and scripture. Many things are exaggerated in the Veda, it says so within the Veda itself. The fear of offense was way overused in Chris's cult in order to keep people under control. Just a fear tactic, the same thing is used in Christianity, the fear of going to hell. But also one will find in the Vedic scripture that nothing is more powerful than service to God, so offenses are overridden by service and in a healthy situation in Krishna Con. it is love not fear that motivates the practitioners. That is why the association of sadhus is recommended. But Siddha never really had any association of sadhus because he already imagined he was one. He was as alienated away from his guru as he was his material father. Prabhupada tried to get him to have more of his association but Siddha refused thinking himself a great sadhu already.

We were told Srila Prabhupada was happy that Siddha did not need his association. Siddha told the story many times that Srila Prabhupada wanted him to come to India with him. Siddha said Prabhupada was very pleased that he did not feel it necessary to go to India with him. In fact Prabhpada said later, 'what kind of a sanyasi does not want to go to India with their guru?' He was very dismayed that Siddha did not want more of his association.

The picture that was painted concerning his guru recognizing him as a pure devotee and blessing his own outside movement was completely concocted by Sidhha and his top men. Maybe his top men really believed it. But all one has to do is go to the Prabhupada Folio (practically every word Prabhupada said is recorded) one will find that in fact Prabhupada denied the idea that Siddha was a pure devotee, Prabhupada says himself, 'I never said that, (that Siddha is a pure devotee), that is a concoction.' He says in another letter, 'Siddha has his own philosophy.' In a room converstation Srila Prabhpada is trying to convince one of his diciples NOT to be part of Siddhas group and he succeeds. The devotee was asking if she could join with Siddha and Prabhupada tells her emphatically NO.

Everyone knows it was practically a sin to use the word 'Prabhu' (master) Tusta himself would not allow anyone to call him that even his godbrother and people outside of Siddhas cult were asked not to call him that. That was a direct insult to Srila Prabhupada as Prabhupada himself told Tusta everyone should be referred to as Prabhu, (master).

72-12-14
Ahmedabad
14th December, 1972

Byron's Bay, Australia

My dear Tusta Krishna,

…You speak of pure devotee, that he is saktyavesa avatara, that we should obey him only--these things are the wrong idea. If anyone thinks like that, that a pure devotee should be obeyed and no one else, that means he is a nonsense. We advise everyone to address one another as Prabhu. Prabhu means master, so how the master should be disobeyed? Others, they are also pure devotees. All of my disciples are pure devotees. Anyone sincerely serving the spiritual master is a pure devotee, it may be Siddhasvarupa or others, a-Siddhasvarupa. This must be very clearly stated. It is not only that your Siddhasvarupa is a pure devotee and not others. Do not try to make a faction. ….. But others should not be misled. Anyone who is surrendered to the spiritual master is a pure devotee, it doesn't matter if Siddhasvarupa or non-Siddhasvarupa. Amongst ourselves one should respect others as Prabhu, master, one another. As soon as we distinguish here is a pure devotee, here is a non-pure devotee, that means I am a nonsense. Why you only want to be in the spiritual sky with Siddhasvarupa? Why not all?….

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

I shortened the letter, Tusta asks many questions, all the questions are completely neophyte questions. But even at that time Tusta was regarded as a 'pure devotee', while all others were demoted to being eternally neophytes. Just the big three were the pure ones, Tusta, Katyayani and Sudama. Everyone else the eternal neophyte.


Concerning others being demons, the Veda is clear that every soul will eventually go back home to God, demons, atheists, impersonalist even Siddha are all actually not seen as demons by the very advanced Vaishnava. And all the so-called demons in the Krishna pastimes are actually devotees just playing the role.

Siddha mixed up Christianity with Vaishnavism, not a good mix at all when employing the fear tactics. He just made it up as he went, and he is still making it up as he continues to go on his own way misleading so many.

Quote
just-googling

I also found it odd when the cook in Honolulu said she wanted to commit suicide, and I thought why was she not experiencing any spiritual bliss for serving so dearly the one and only representative of god on this planet? Ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous.

Quote

barbara,
I can't answer your questions. I can see you are trying to make a case and eqauate the group with Jim Jones or something. It really was not dangerous in that way. I don't want to stretch the truth, it's weird enough as it is.

Quote
barabara
Initiate writes:

Quote

barbara,
I can't answer your questions. I can see you are trying to make a case and eqauate the group with Jim Jones or something. It really was not dangerous in that way. I don't want to stretch the truth, it's weird enough as it is.

Isn't it rather presumptuous and rude of you to accuse me of trying to "make a case" because I asked questions about what you had written?
In my opinion, these are alarming teachings.

I know of no mainstream church today that recommends murder as one of three possible responses to blasphemy.

Quote
devadasi

Quote
barabara
Initiate writes:

Quote

barbara,
I can't answer your questions. I can see you are trying to make a case and eqauate the group with Jim Jones or something. It really was not dangerous in that way. I don't want to stretch the truth, it's weird enough as it is.

Isn't it rather presumptuous and rude of you to accuse me of trying to "make a case" because I asked questions about what you had written?
In my opinion, these are alarming teachings.

I know of no mainstream church today that recommends murder as one of three possible responses to blasphemy.

Barbara,

The actual injunction is this.

If one blasphemes God or his representative one should do one of three things.

1. Defeat the blasphemer in argument so that he understands his error and is corrected.

If Number one is impossible
2. Cut out the tongue of the blasphemer (not murder him)

If both are impossible
3. Go out of the range of his speech.

In the history of Vaishnavism number two has never been used. There are no such cases recorded that anyone had their tongue cut out by a devotee because they blasphemed.

The idea is to show how bad it is to blaspheme God or His representative. It is not to be taken literally. Although as pointed out by initiate, a real fanatic might try to do something like that. But I never heard of that happening in Vaishnavism.

However in the history of Christianity it was done in many cases during inquisitions. Cutting out of tongues has been employed in countless cases through the history of Christianity. It is still popular in Islamic countries as well and is done regularly under Islamic law.

I understand your concern but only a real fanatic would take the injunction literally.

Quote

Just by me saying all of this is considered blasphemy and devotees are instructed from the Krishna scriptures to do one of three things if they hear blasphemy of a pure devotee; kill the blasphemer; and if you can’t do this, then kill yourself. If you can’t do that; then run away.

And maybe now there are followers of Siddha crazy enough to go after me, but I really don’t pose a threat to his businesses or income.

Quote

Although as pointed out by initiate, a real fanatic might try to do something like that.