Why is Rocana and others referring to Srila Prabhupada as the “post mortem” “posthumous” “post samadhi” guru ?

Srila Prabhupada: “That is my only request,
that at the last stage don’t torture me and put to death.”
[S.P.Room Conversation November 3, 1977, Vrndavana]

Why a guru has to beg his disciples not to torture him to death? Why?
Can anyone please answer this question?

Why is Rocana and others referring to Srila Prabhupada as the “post mortem” “posthumous” “post samadhi” guru ?

Amar Puri das writes: In his article http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/01-14/editorials11332.htm, the Editor of the Sun Sampradaya Shri Rocana Dasa prabhu writes ;

” Right now we’re in the post-samadhi period of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada……….. ”

No doubt, the Editor Shri Rocana Dasa Prabhu not only promotes the exalted position of our Jagat Guru Srila Prabhupada but similtanously he misrepresents and thus misleads also when he describes in glorification by stating that Srila Prabhupada is in the post-Samadhi which means he is no longer available.

The question is : Is Srila Prabhupada not in Samadhi during and after his manifested Lila ? Where does this concept of pre/post Samadhi come from ?

Does this mean that Srila Prabhupada is physically dead and gone? Can some body please explain and answer these questions because Shri Rocana dasa does not entertain these questions and therefore, do not publish on his web site ? Hari BOL. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

ANSWER AND EXPLANATION FROM PADA:

Rocana prabhu was a big supporter of the post 1977 GBC gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, serving dubious “gurus” like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda and others. He seems to have fallen off their train wreck in the later 1980s, only when the GBC was running out of vouchers and payments to give to their loyalists like Rocana. Meanwhile, we had been writing papers critical of the GBC as were being published in the “Vedic Village Review” and elsewhere, and yet he remained oddly — silent. Although he says he has “reformed” and he wants to join us to promote “The Sampradaya Acharya” Srila Prabhupada, he then goes back to the policy of (which is at least what Atreya Rsi calls it) “stabbing Prabhupada in the back”; the GBC policy of promoting that Srila Prabhupada is the “dead and gone post – samadhi guru.” It thus appears that he has re-joined the GBC since: he is writing a paper giving the GBC’s exact “living guru” arguments, indeed Rocana is using the GBC’s terms such as “post samadhi,” and then he is submitting his “through the back door” GBC paper to be published on the “GBC friendly” web site called “CHAKRA.” Rocana is thus back — to officially attacking the people who want to establish the worship of the Sampradaya Acharya Srila Prabhupada.

Rocana says: “I choose to exclude a number of sections in order to maintain focus on the central theme. In this paper, I hope to clearly explain the degree to which I differ from philosophical exponents of post-samadhi diksa.” (Introduction to Sampradaya Acarya)

PADA: First of all, Rocana correctly says that that Srila Prabhupada is “the Sampradya Acharya,” a term used even by us Prabhupadanugas, and this term was even used in Hansadutta’s “reform” book some years ago. Yet then Rochana suddenly switches hats and becomes a disciple of (the GBC’s guru) Ravindra Swarupa’s saying: Srila Prabhupada is dead, gone, “posthumous,” “post mortem,” and in sum: Srila Prabhupada is now the “post samadhi” diksha guru. And let us not forget that Rocana’s co-writing team members such as: Ravindra /Jayadvaita/ Tamal/ et al., had previously referred to Srila Prabhupada as the “posthumous” guru only a few short years ago. That is, until they received so many complaints from folks like us that they had to change their “posthumous” term to “post samadhi.” So the idea they are painting is clear: that Srila Prabhupada is “post” i.e. “posthumous” and he is thus “dead.” It seems that first Srila Prabhupada was poisoned to make him “dead” physically, and then along came the Tamal/ Gaudiya Matha deviants/ Ravindra/ Rocana/ Kailasha Chandra team who conspired to make him ideologically “dead” with their “guru is (posthumous) dead” dogma.

We know of no other bona fide relgion with either Vedic or Western roots that teaches “our guru is the dead and posthumous one.” We also know that if Rocana had come into Prabhupada’s room before 1977 and said, “Who are we going to worship as ‘living’ when you are the — dead, gone and Posthumous one,” he would have been laughed out of the room in derision, but as we know, when the cat is (allegedly) away, the mice will play. Now Rocana asks, “Why worship a dead body like that of the Sampradaya Acharya’s? What about reading my papers, after all, I am living”? He has become Ravindra’s twin brother. Of course people also thought like Rocana even when Krishna was present. “Once this blasted Krishna fellow is out of our hair, then we will declare He is dead and gone, and we will be worshipped as ‘the living Kings, the living expert authorities, the living this and living that,'” because Srila Prabhupada says, they were envious of Krishna even when He was here, plain and simple. And similarly Srila Prabhupada says that the Gaudiya Matha’s “living guru” project was based on the fact that they were “envious of my guru maharaja.” And so Srila Prabhupada says that just like they tried to get rid of Krishna, they may try to get rid of me.

Rocana’s “posthumous guru” idea was thus mentioned many times by Srila Prabhupada as part of the deviant teachings of the post 1936 Gaudiya Matha in India: “As soon as it was announced that guru maharaja is dead, I am so advanced I can kill guru and become guru” (Srila Prabhupada 1976). Thus Rocana’s second idea, that Srila Prabhupada is the “posthumous guru,” is all part of the terminology coined by the GBC’s ideological (siddhanta) leaders, such as the Gaudiya Matha’s deviants and their followers such as Jayadvaita and Ravindra swarupa? Of course the GBC’s advisors such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri Maharajas, and similar others have also said the same thing, they all supported the worship of the GBC’s homosexual and pedophile guru lineage. Their collective idea is that: at least the deviants we are supporting as gurus are “living.” So for the deviants, it is better to worship another deviant than a “a posthumous departed acharya.”

It is an incontestable historical fact that their idea of “worship of a living body” (vapuh vada) subsequently lead to worship of homosexuals after 1936 in India. And later, when their “living bodily guru worship” (vapuh vada) was adopted by the GBC in ISKCON it lead to the same thing, worship of homosexual pedophiles and deviants after 1977. This has all been recorded in the public newspapers, and thus this fact has never been contested by the GBC or their supporters such as Narayana Maharaja. Yet notice, they are still very proud of their deviations and will not admit to their glaring mistake, never mind that their “posthumous guru” dogma has lead to weird and dangerous “living guru” cults, and then the mass molesting of thousands of children, murders, horrific publicity, and the curse of a high rate of suicides amongst their molested children victims, and so on and so forth? In other words, they said that you need to worship a living body, which is not found anywhere in the Vedic writings, then they selected deviants as the “living body” one had to worship. Rocana is essentially stating that he is still in league with this group?

Notice: Srila Prabhupada says that these “living guru” thinkers are in actual fact “killing guru” with their bogus ideology, or siddhanta. They are attacking the acharyas not necessarily with physical weapons like guns. So these “guru killers” ideologues are using their words to attack and kill the acharya. “Our guru, oh yes he is the posthumous one, our guru is the dead and gone one.” That means they are “killing their guru” with their ideology. Either that or Rocana seems to be confused right from the beginning? A “Samparaya Acharya” is someone who is very much relevant now, even if he has departed physically. Whereas Rocana’s adopted GBC terminology juxtaposes the “Sampradya Acharya” with his “dead, gone, posthumous, post samadhi diksha guru” ideas. Mind you, their “posthumous guru” terms do not even exist in Vedic culture or any other bona fide religion? Which bona fide religion preaches that “our guru is — the dead one”? These terms are fabricated concoctions coming from the fertile brains of Rocana’s mentors, the GBC, the Gaudiya Matha’s deviants like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, and others like Kailasha Chandra, Kundali and similar other “post mortem” “posthumous” “post samadhi” guru vadis? Where does Srila Prabhupada use their “post mortem” “posthumous” “post samadhi” terms to describe — any — of the acharyas?

Also notice: what they are really trying to do is to paint those of us who want to worship the bona fide acaryas are some sort of “posthumous” ghost worship cult. One woman told me that their whole terminology of “post mortem” and “posthumous guru” worship mortified her. She said their idea sounds like Rocana’s team is trying to make “Srila Prabhupada’s worship” appear as some kind of Caribbean Voodoo black magic “posthumous” worship cult. They are trying to scare people away from worship of the acharya. “Oh, Srila Prabhupada, yes this is worship of the posthumous.” Read: worship of the acharyas is in the modes of ignorance. Meanwhile, these sophisticated self proclaimed “advanced” devotees have at one time or other promoted the worship of homosexuals and pedophiles as “Krishna’ successors,” including their alleged great independent scholars such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and BV and BP Puri Maharajas, all of the GBC’s various “advisors” over the years. Rocana does not say how he differs from these thinkers? Rocana says we need to worship a living person, not a dead and gone person like Srila Prabhupada. He only differs from the GBC in that his “living guru” has no name, address or apparent real existence? Either that, or the “living guru” of Rocana’s is really: Rochana himself, since Srila Prabhupada says that by minimising the acharyas one is making himself the guru?

In short, their real agenda is to say that the worship of Srila Prabhupada is really some kind of ignorant “tama guna” ghost worship of a “post mortem” departed person, like the people who worship ghosts. Meanwhile, while they have blocked the door to the worship of Srila Prabhupada, they have opened to door, certainly as a collateral result, to the worship of homosexuals, pedophiles, and murderers. So they are blocking the door of worship the bona fide acharya and thereby they are directly or indirectly opening the door to worship of all sorts of unqualified persons, and deviants, as has occurred. Again, this is what happened in the Gaudiya Matha. Notice too, that they are vehement bullies in their process of stopping the worship of Srila Prabhupada, which is why Srila Prabhupada says that these Gaudiya Matha thinkers are “envious of their guru,” they made false replacements for their guru and “they insisted on it.”

Srila Prabhupada was also very angry when “Time Magazine” asked on the cover “Is God Dead”? He was furious. And since Krishna is also one of our parampara’s acharyas, Rocana’s team is thus lumping even Lord Krishna in as one of their “post samadhi diksha acharyas”? Why are we saying that God is (post mortem) dead! Ravindra Swarupa says, “If Srila Prabhupada is still living, write him a letter and see if he replies.” Similarly, the communists in Bengal also ask the same question, “If there is a God, then write Him a letter and see if He replies”? So Srila Prabhupada says that the communists as well as these “Brahma Sampradaya Renegades” are really atheists. Moreover these renegades seem to take some kind of glee that God and Guru are apparently absent. “Yes, the bona fide acharyas are all post mortem. Write them a letter? Of course, if you write a letter to us ‘living’ Brahma Sampradya Renegades or us communist atheists, we can reply.” So they are sometimes killing Guru by poison, and when that does not work, by their poisonous rhetoric, “Guru and God are posthumous.” Of course there are many other similar branches of renegades from the Brahma Sampradaya who try to say, “Krishna died five thousand years ago, He is dead and gone, He is an ordinary mortal,” and so on. Same idea, “Krishna is posthumous.”

Similarly, there is no other “tradition of religion” except for Rocana and his fellow GBC, Gaudiya Matha deviants and other associates like Kundali and Kailasha that refer to their guru as “the former, posthumous, post, dead and gone one.” “He reasons ill who thinks vaishnavas die” says Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. So Rocana is giving the same identical arguments and he even incorporates the concocted terms as the deviants, “Guru is (post mortem) dead.” Again, this is the identical argument used by deviants from the Gaudiya Matha, the GBC and their clones like Kundali and Kailasha — all along? So they are all renegades from the Brahma Sampradya since no other bona fide acharyas or their bona fide followers have EVER reffered to ANY previous acharyas as the “post (dead and gone) samadhi diksha gurus,” because for starters Krishna is one of the “previous acharyas.” So they are saying that “God is dead” since He is another “post samadhi guru” in their equation. And thus they are simply infuriating Srila Prabhupada thereby: “Krishna is another post (dead) samadhi guru.”

[PADA: To sum, it is an insult to constantly imply, as Rocana’s team does every day, that Srila Prabhupada is now the post mortem, i.e. dead, gone and de facto irrelevant guru? Worse, Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada’s idea of worship of the bona fide acharyas makes him a sort of detestable “ritvik pundit.” Rocana also says Srila Prabhupada is a deviant from the Vedas, since Srila Prabhupada says we must worship the bona fide acharyas whereas Rocana says: “this is not found in the tradition.” Rocana also complains that Srila Prabhupada’s idea to make a Governing Body (and have some of them acting as priests) is exactly what the Christian Church does, so Rocana complains that Prabhupada is a mundane relgioninst. Rocana is directly attacking Srila Prabhupada as the real deviant. Thanks pd]

All about Rocana’s foolosophy:
http://www.harekrsna.org/gbc/black/rocana.htm