Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Admin. send me an address where I can send the letters, etc. regarding Umapati prabhu. Please send thru my personal address.

oh no... I can see it coming.

Vaisnava audience should pray for all involved so the damage is as minimal as possible.

To Veda prabhu; Yes Veda youre absolutely correct, we should all pray for Umapati prabhu, Satsvarupa das, and all the others who are posing themselves off as the guru. We should pray that Krsna provides them with the intelligence to do the right thing and assume their actual positions, as opposed to attempting to maintain "The Profile" of Diksa Guru. The GBC has created a new title for the continuing fallen "gurus to keep the truth within their orbit exclusively. Hence forward, they are to be known as "Retired Swamis". The term is obviously a contradiction and complete nonsense. Translated it means, retired from controlling ones senses. Yet, they still want to maintain their disciples and Guru status. If the Guru cannot control his own senses, how could he possibly instruct others to do so and act in the capacity of Guru? Therefore, he cannot by definition be Guru, and should be known as such The damage control you speak of cannot be minimized. How could it be? He (Umapati) admitted the accusations. Aside from that, why cant they simply speak the truth of the matter. Why is it so difficult to call a spade a spade? Obviously they are, and have been at the point of no return since Prabhupadas physical departure from this world. The damage is so devastating, that minimizing it would be impossible. Furthermore, the more they perpetuate the damage control the hole they put themselves in will naturally get deeper and deeper. Any attempt to do so would be dishonest and absurd. Anyone that buys into it is fool number one. But fear not, the "powers that be" will do everything they can to attempt some sort of damage control and give the same title to Umapati that they gave Satsvarupa. Plain and simple; The Guru does not fall down! Therefore, all of the appointed gurus are conditioned souls like the rest of us and should act as such; Representative of the Uttama adikari Srila Prabhupada. Nothing more and nothing less. Not one single person in authority has come forward to speak the truth regarding these ongoing fall downs. So, that simply implies that they too are implicated in some form or another. Otherwise, someone would have come forward and related the truth about all the unfortunate events that continue to take place, and act accordingly in all honesty. Then and only then, will the once revered ISKCON be rightly situated. That being, continuing Srila Prabhupads mission as He instructed.

Abhiram prabhu, what is it that you can see coming? Please share your foresight.

Are the present "Gurus" Uttama Adikari?"

Also pray for Brahma, Vyasa and poor Bilvanmangala please. Two of them are still present and I suggest that devotees take initiation from them directly in order to avoid confusion of liivng in the real world. But be careful with Brahma, he is not allowed to enter ISKCON temples ... as you all know.

CCD, I dont understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic or what? Why should anyone take initiation from these people you mention directly in order to avoid confusion of living in the real world? What is this confusion of living in the real world you speak of? Dont pull any punches with me, just give it to me straight up Bubba. What exactly do you mean by your comment?

Only for somebody here maybe doesnt know it ... here are some quotes of Srila Prabhupadas intentions regarding his desciples becoming gurus:

It is not that you have become a student and youll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhus mission, not that perpetually... Yes, one should remain perpetually a student, but he has to act as guru. That is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

76-09-01.Jag Letter: Jagajivana
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated July 27, 1976 and have noted the contents with care. I am very pleased that you have taken up this mission of spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. This is the wish of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that, yare dakho tare kaho krsna upadesa, everyone you see or meet, tell him about krsna; amara ajnaya guru haya tara ei desa, and by My command you become a guru and save this land. This was also the mission of my guru maharaj and it is my mission. You will perfect your life if you make it also your mission.

770415rc.bom Conversations
Prabhupada: "Like father, like son." You should be. Gaurangera bhakta..., jane. Everyone. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa. He asked everyone, "Just become guru." Follow His instruction. You become guru. Amara ajnaya. Dont manufacture ideas. Amara ajnaya. "What I say, you do. You become a guru." Where is the difficulty? "And what is Your ajna?" Yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa. Bas. Everything is there in the Bhagavad- gita. You simply repeat. Thats all. You become guru. To become a guru is not difficult job. Follow Caitanya Mahaprabhu and speak what Krsna has said. Bas. You become guru.

68-12-03.Ham Letter: Hamsaduta
Next January there will be an examination on this Bhagavad-gita. Papers will be sent by me to all centers, and those securing the minimum passing grade will be given the title as Bhakti-sastri. Similarly, another examination will be held on Lord Caitanyas Appearance Day in February, 1970 and it will be upon Srimad- Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. Those passing will get the title of Bhakti-vaibhava. Another examination will be held sometimes in 1971 on the four books, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and Nectar of Devotion. One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta. I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self- realization.

Reading that email1 the letter from Praghosa Prabhu makes so much sense, I feel it would solve so many problems at once, if only those in authority would take note. I do not know Praghosa Prabhu but I hope he can get the pocess put in place in ISKCON, it would mean more choice & honesty for everyone.

Heres the bottom line. Throughtout Vedic history we clearly see that between the appearances of great personalities within the Prarampara System, The Krsna Consciousness movement gets reduced to mediocrity. An institution with no real spiritual leadership. Only polititians. Without Prabhupadas physical presence to check these activities, the movement has once again been reduced to a mediocre institution. Equivalent to the Catholic Church for example. The point is, we have yet to see the Uttama Adikari, at least in ISKCON. The appointed Diksa Guru system obviously doesnt work. Can anyone deny? As time passes, these "Diksa Gurus" are dropping like flies. And the persons who don"t come forward with the truth of these matters is as guilty as the perpetrators themselves. The Uttama Adikari doesnt fall down. If people in general choose to accept anything less as their Guru, that is their business. The fact is, one must be qualified to be Diksa Guru, not appointed as such. In any event, its obvious my attempts to help relate this simple understanding is futile. At least kes got it. Its simple. As kes said, " It makes so much sense " Anyway, what can one say? Hare Krsna. All glories to Prabhupada.

yes i am convinced...i will become a ritvik now. thank you!

I dont understand... we take formal initiation from someone formally initiated by Srila Prabhupada and this represents our formal initiation into the sampradaya.

We take shelter of Srila Prabhupadas instruction and read his books scrutinizingly every day.

What else can you do? Do away with the formal initiation?

I honestly do not see the difference between ritvik and "non-ritvik" except that it represents a different group of people who want to be the initiators, or do ritviks representatives claim to be pure devotees?

Everyone knows that the diksa guru can fall down, because this is the material world. And everyone knows that Srila Prabhupada can never fall down, so whats the issue?

Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, although it may indicate that they require some time to rectify themselves (hence the idea of "retirement" from active duty). Have a look at this conversation here, around Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita by Srila Narahari Sarkar: http://www.atmayogi.com/node/384#comment-511

"Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru"
I dismayed and fell to the ground. Do not argue, am brain dead.

"having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru,"
must be "according to time and circumstance", or is that "only in the australlian
yatra" ?

If one choose to take initiation from ordinary condition souls, as I said, that is his unfortunate business. If having a homosexual relationship with anyone, let alone one of your disciples isnt grounds for disqualification as guru than I am certainly perplexed as to what would be. If thats not enough grounds for rejection and without question, disqualification, than all parties involved in that statement have just simply openly displayed the degree of poison they have been injected with to actually buy into such a thing. That has got to be the most absurd statement I ever heard in my entire life. I cannot believe it. Wow! Things are much worse than I had thought. In any event, please enlighten me prabhus and tell me what ARE the grounds for the disqualification of a guru having sexual relationships with his disciples, what to speak of homosexual relations??? "From the anus of Bramha." This is the origin of the homosexuals living entities. They are without a doubt, lower forms of human life. This is stated in Satsta. Therefore, how can such a living entity act as Guru? How can his actions be justified while attempting to act as Guru? He may aspire to be a devotee, if he controls his senses, but if he cannot do so, he absolutely has no business passing himself off as Guru and cannot be accepted as such. He cannot be accepted as Guru in any category, acting, retired, semi-retired, or whatever label they choose for him. There is no argument here. I can only simply pray for anyone out there who thinks along these lines.
Be careful what you say abhiram prabhu, YOUR "guru" may be next.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, [/quote]

prabhu...are you serious????

Follow the link I gave and read the sastra. If you want to continue to discuss you then introduce some sastra as a counter point.

I agree with sita pati - any evidence should be supported by sastra. I do not think you will find much evidence where bhakti-marge sucess is conditioned by material adhikara. But sastra praman is essential for this sort of discussion, not just translations of the translation of tikas or timpanies, you should refer to sruti or smriti to be conclusive. ys

back from the dead....

apart from common sense, what about:

vaco vegam manasah krodha vegam
jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam
etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah
sarvam apimam prthivim sa sisyat
(verse 1)

"A wise and self-composed person who can subdue the impetus to speak, the agitation of the mind, the onset of anger, the vehemence of the tongue, the urge of the belly and the agitation of the genitals can instruct the entire world. In other words, all persons may become disciples of such a self-controlled person."

Just to amplify on that a little bit: This discussion must take place on the basis of sastra, not simply popular sentiment.

The indicated smrti-sastra is Narahari Sarkars Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita, which I linked to in my original posting.

Many people have a misunderstanding about the role and nature of guru.

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakuras initiating guru was Srila Bipin Bihari das Goswami. Heard of him? His name does not appear in the Disiciplic Succession at the start of the Bhagavad-gita. In fact, many of the initiating gurus in our line do not appear there. The reason is that only the most prominent and powerful personalities appear.

What is the implication of this? The implication is that the disciple or student can be more powerful than the guru, and that some gurus are more important in the bigger picture than others. Not all gurus are maha-bhagavat paramahamsas who get in the list. In other words, while every person in that list took initiation from a diksa guru, their diksha guru was not always of the stature to get into the list.

Diksha gurus are human beings. They are also spiritual practitioners of varying strength - hence Narahari Sarkars comparison of them to waves of different sizes. They are all spiritual, but even so, some are more potent than others. Some may be siddhas. Others are sadhakas. Some may fall from the path, or experience difficulty. Therefore Narahari Sarkar has written about this. He gives the process that a disciple should follow when he observes his guru engaged in activity that he should not be engaged in (such as having an affair with a disciple).

He does not say: "This is proof that that person is bogus and they should be rejected at once!"

The mere fact that he gives a process to deal with situation is evidence that such a situation is not only possible, but actually not at all surprising. It is not expected that all gurus are maha-bhagavat paramahamsas, nor do they need to be.

The process is that the guru should be confronted in private and the inappropriate behaviour respectfully brought to their attention, and the disciple should preach to them to rectify their consciousness.

The disciple should take shelter of devotional service, and previous instructions, his own intelligence, or another senior Vaisnava to maintain himself while he waits for the guru to rectify himself.

This says two things: one is that misbehaviour is possible and not an "i guess you werent a pure devotee after all, so you werent a bona-fide guru" affair, and the other is that misbehaviour is not an automatic disqualification (my point).

Narahari Sarkar then explains that if the guru does not rectify himself and develops further symptoms of deviation, mainly based around philosophical misconception, then he should be given up.

Ones guru may be of limited spiritual potency and may struggle, but if he is sincere then having accepted him one should not abandon him in difficult times. However, if he is proud and dishonest, and philosophically deviates, then he should be given up.

Ill take Narahari Sarkars advice over vox populi any day of the week. :-)

Mishra, to your point two things:

Number one is that this says that such a person can become spiritual master of the whole world. It does not say that other persons cannot be spiritual masters. Cintamani is accepted by Bilvamangala Thakura as one of his spiritual masters.

Number two is that we have to distinguish between a temporary deviation and a more serious and sustained deviation. This is the meaning of the Bhagavad-gita verse about the saintly person who commits sinful activity. Things happen because this is the material world and were all human beings. Thats why Narahari Sarkar has written about it the way he has. If someone deviates from this standard, then they have the opportunity to rectify themselves. Thats my point. Let me restate it, taking out the sexual orientation part, because its irrelevant, and highlighting an important point:

"Having a [...]sexual relationship with a disciple is not *in itself* sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, although it may indicate that they require some time to rectify themselves."

I would modify this to say:

"Their having had a sexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to reject your initiating guru; however it does mean that they need to rectify their behaviour in order to continue in that role."

You see, for someone to have sexual relations with a disciple, or some other sensual deviation, and still be able to transmit the philosophy properly they have to be able to say:

"This is the philosophy, and Im out of it. Im having a really hard time with my senses and I cant make the standard."

This person cannot be rejected but should be supported and helped. On the other hand the person who modifies the philosophy to deny that they have a problem and that they are deviating from the standard has to be rejected if they persist.

In this light, based on the publicly available information that I am aware of I would not have rejected Prthu Prabhu had he been my initiating guru, but I would have rejected Harikesa Swami.

Looks like the grhasta guru you mention and others, hided for years his sexual problems, while posing as strict followers. That is called cheating and falls into your last category.

The whole point is that selecting a spiritual master is totally subjective, Now if the disciple in the privacy of his life wants to still worship that person, it is their prerogative. After all, people tend to worship fakes all the time, and that could be the almost sure case, being the world not so plentiful of Bilvamangala Thakurs and advanced prostitutes.

But when is time to generalize, certainly we shouldnt be pointing out the punctual and special cases like the prostitute and Bilvamangala, but to categorically affirm that NO, a person who has had sexual connection with disciples (recent case with a male disciple) is NOT fit to represent our acarya Srila Prabhupada.

Now you can twist the twirl, but in our present context is a definite no, no.

Im still waiting for any clarification (not on jagat-guru but) on regular guru sastric statemnts from smrti/sruti

There are examples of sexual connection between guru disciple in vaisnava line of both Advata and Nityananda lines. Ramacandra Kaviraja on contrary is an example of disciple of the daughter of Srinivasa acarya (who had two consorts) and he started his apa-sampradaya saying that only sannyasi can be a guru.

I wonder if anyone here thinks like that? That only a sannyasi can be a guru and a woman or a young married man can not.

Does anyone here thinks that sudra can not be a guru? (not talking about jagat guru)

ys

Mishra, the point is that the guru is to be given an opportunity to rectify themselves. The situation has to be dealt with with maturity and sensitivity - that is Narahari Sarkars point - not as the pendulum swing of a someone who idolizes the guru as an rockstar / avatara and then fanatically rejects not only their own guru, but practically everyone else as well.

Last night I was reading a commentary on Sri Isopanisad and the author was saying that we should not have an unhealthy dependence on any one of guru, sadhu, and sastra, nor an unhealthy extreme independence from them.

To me I see an unhealthy dependence on guru followed by an unhealthy independence. Guru is one of the three, and he is fallible. Thats why we have three. Hes a person and he has to be treated like one, not like some impersonal machine which is thrown out if it doesnt perform perfectly.

The ISKCON institutional guru aspect creates a strange dynamic as there is public pressure on gurus to "hold the line" publicly.

I think the Guru seminars that they are talking about in the recent GBC meetings will help these guys out.

CCD:

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krishna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya

"Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra -- regardless of what he is -- he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Krishna."

Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 8.128

So this also relates to the Upadeshamrita verse that Mishra prabhu quoted. That verse is conditional. This verse is universal. The qualification to be guru is to know the science of Krishna. The qualification to be jagat-guru is that given in Upadeshamrita.

I was confused for a little while about your introduction of the term "jagat-guru" - at first I thought you meant "Jagat Guru" (Chris Butler) who was a sannyasi and then married the wife of one of his disciples. Anyway, not to muddy the waters more - I understand that you mean "one who is qualified to make disciples all over the world", as referred to by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Upadeshamrita.

Sexual connection between guru and disciple (except in the case of pati-guru, which means the husband, who is the natural spiritual master of the wife) is socially inappropriate.

In Vedic culture women were not initiated by someone other than their husband. The way that ISKCON has things structured right now introduces a socially distorting factor, but thats a whole other conversation.

thanks sitapati pr.

btw sudra means one who is influenced by lower modes.

there is HUGE need in ISKCON for smaller gurus, who DO NOT make disciples all over the place but actually care for them. Yes Sita thakurani and Jahnavi Mata our acaryas, and they were in a relationship with with thier husbands who also gave them the mantra and the seat of an acarya.

Not only husband can intiate a woman, woman gurus initated women at the time. Also father passes it over to his daughters.

BTW one should not think oneself a guru and its better to think oneself fallen and be fallen, then think oneself a guru and act as if one is not fallen.Whould you agree?

Considering Umapati Swami associated intimately with and may have been homosexual before he joined Iskcon, associated with known homosexuals as well as paedophiles (Kirtanananda) for a major part of his time in Iskcon, and as we now know engaged in homosexual acts long after he knew better, do you see any value in him remaing a guru? What is the value of keeping him in that position? What would you suggest as the rectification process for him? Id like to see the devotees here put their money where there mouth is and send their firstborn sons to the study under Umapati Swami. Your son might get engaged in homosexual acts, but dont worry about that because hell be learning about Krishna too and anyway Caitanya Mahaprabhu says Maharaja can be a guru.

Why did Satsvarupa have to retire, while Kesahava Bharati Goswami (who fell with a prostitute), has been be allowed to start giving intiations? (last week at Govardhana) It seems to be an inconsistent standard.

When referring to sudra the quote clearly says shudra can BECOME a guru, not that he remains shudra and guru at the same time.
As you may know shudra goal of life is to become famous, so that might be a hint. Avoid the shudras in the guise of gurus. It might be more than one out there.

"Last night I was reading a commentary on Sri Isopanisad and the author was saying that we should not have an unhealthy dependence on any one of guru, sadhu, and shastra, nor an unhealthy extreme independence from them. Guru is one of the three, and he is fallible. Thats why we have three."

Sitapati, with all respects, you are doing the greatest disservice by writing this. That affirmation is nowhere directly supported by shastra. You can juggle words on anything and make it seemingly plausible, but NO direct shastra quote, "Guru is fallible" backs up your new age concept of guru.

Mishra, have you read Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita? Its a book that tells you how to deal with that very situation - when the guru is engaged in behaviour that is inappropriate. Now why do you think that the author, Sri Narahari Sarkar wrote the book?

Sorry to burst the "Guru is God" bubble, but the guru is a human being.

I know this is changing the subject, but since you brought it up, "In Vedic culture women were not initiated by someone other than their husband. The way that ISKCON has things structured right now introduces a socially distorting factor, but thats a whole other conversation."

In regards to the above statement...if I would have waited for my husband to initiate me, it would not have happened. He had no religious values, and definitely was against ISKCON. Of course, he never tried to understand it either. We were going in two different directions...which I guess was too hard from both ends to endure. I am happy for the most part now serving Krishna and my spiritual master without boundaries of a husband that could not understand my need for God in my life. To be assured if I ever was to marry again, it would have to be a devotee following along the same lines. Please excuse me for changing the subject.

Damodara Priya

Damodara Priya, yes, of course - thats why weve developed this system of women being initiated by men other than their husband. The whole system is mashed up right now.... However, it has its implications. Im not advocating that we should just start mindlessly mimicking the ancient Vedic implementation without taking into account the fact that we live in a completely environment. At the same time, we need to work our way back to a sane human civilization, making necessary adjustments to the insane conditions along the way.

Your assumption that Bhajanamrta is meant to be used as a general textbook for the guru tattva is wrong.

Veda direct us to find and surrender to a guru "as good As God", obviously not a guru-God.

Sri Narahari deals with the situation where a fool selects a less than appropriate "guru", and you take that as a general direction.

Of course it is so good that such book exists because many accept bogus personalities less than as good as God gurus all the time in Kaliyuga.

Those who find themselves under a "guru" and find out that "guru" is not as good as God, in fact it is probably following less than themselves, Narahari gives the instructions to reject in a orderly and vaishnava manner.

You are right in one thing,: it is a book many would have to use in this lifetime, but from that to elevate that to a principle category, that is demeaning and I would dare to say offensive to the real figure of the guru that is as good as God.

Cannot be a "good guru" and "another kind of guru", but on the practical side those instructions are meant to the ones committing the mistake precisely for a lack of understanding of what guru is.

Wanting everybody to upgrade to windows vista cause is the only system you understand, your computer came with, and it is supported by your government, or media, simply shows a lack of understanding of what computer operative system choices are.

The wise will never install Vista, but there is always people that strangely put with all the problems that come with it.

If you are somehow attached to Vista, you will even defend the undefendable and worse of all, being somehow an authority on computers, you will make others fall in all the easily avoidable problems.
Following this example, if you get a decent operative system, you automatically will get rid of the myriad problems coming with Vista.

Vista is not the o.s. to install and guru less than "as good as God" is not the guru you should surrender.

Of course, the choice is in the realm of ones subjectivity and cannot be otherwise, but education in this principle is so important and should be crystal clear.

Sri Narahari is saving you from Vista, telling you the steps to go: "Try to make it work for you and if not, erase it from your hard drive with D:>Format c: and go get Linux or Mac OSX"

Very nicely put Mishra prabhu. Especially the part where you say, " to elevate that to a practical category, that is demeaning and I would dare to say offensive to the real figure of the guru that is as good as god". I dare to agree. It is demeaning and extremely offensive. Therefore, it naturally manifests into Guru-Aparadha, a very dangerous position. Those implicated in this offense go to a place that had to be specially created by Yamaraja. It is known as Kumbhipaka. One who is sent to this place takes with him ten generations backward and forward. Thats the intense gravity of this offense. In any event, I appreciate your wisdom regarding this matter. I applaud you Mishra.

Mishra prabhu, let me repeat my question - have you actually read that book? Because it doesnt seem like you have.

Narahari Sarkar prabhu has not written a book that says "what to do when you find out that your guru is actually not a guru, but just a human being" - he has written a book that talks about what to do in the case where your guru, who is a human being, deviates from the path of sad-acar. He does not say: "Well now, its obvious that you selected someone who isnt a guru." He gives advice on how to deal with the situation in a sensitive and mature manner. He does not say that you should reject such a person as a matter of course, but shows how you can work together to rectify the situation, and what constitutes the "irreconcilable differences" that /would/ lead to rejecting a guru.

The reason why the guru is said to be "as good as God" is because *they are not God*. They are a human being, and they represent and channel the instructions of the Supreme Lord.

This is the meaning of guru-tattva. It is one of the two types of saktyavesa-avatara - it is jiva-tattva embued with the sakti of visnu-tattva.

From Narahari Sarkars Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita:

Verse 59:

"If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava regulative principles then in that case one should in a solitary place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, **but one is not to give him up**. "

You can read the complete text here: http://spirituality.forumup.de/post-169-spirituality.html

This is a very nice book and it describes the fully integrated human experience of bhakti.

To ccd, re the statement of smrti and sruti:

"The Narottama dasa, he has sung so many Vedic songs. Narottama dasas song, although it is written in Bengali, it is considered as sruti, Vedic. "
" All Vaisnavas, songs are like that, Vedic evidence. "
- Srila Prabhupada

So for us, Narahari Sarkars book Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita is sruti/smrti evidence.

There is a nice story by Jayadvaita Swami about one time he noticed some grammar mistakes in Srila Prabhupada translations and he gathered valour and asked Srila Prabhupada himself. Srila Prabhupada answered him, "Guru is not God"
Is that sense that we should not mistake guru-God or as good as God. Guru is not God, so he cannot have supreme knowledge and expertise in ALL.
But to transpolate that to guru being lacking the most basic moral standards and still be considered guru, that is an aberration.
Your emphasis in guru being a human being springs from your practical experience.
My experience is that guru is a supra entity because he is connected with the Supersoul and all Vedas sing those qualities.
I will never accept a guru less than that, you seem to do, its your call, now you probably will need Naraharis book on your shelf.

Mishra prabhu, you speak on the basis of your experience, and thats fine. But this is not about "my experience versus your experience". Im speaking on the basis of Narahari Sarkars book.

My statement that the guru is human springs from the contents of that book, and the instructions that Narahari prabhu gives on dealing with the situation of the guru deviating from sad-acar.

The guru is not to be rejected in this situation. He is to be confronted in a solitary place and the disciple should preach to him for his rectification. This is the instruction of Narahari Sarkar.

Its not my statement. Its the statement of the 40th branch of the Caitanya tree.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]Mishra prabhu, you speak on the basis of your experience, and thats fine. But this is not about "my experience versus your experience". Im speaking on the basis of Narahari Sarkars book.[/quote]

Now, How about a Statement of Common Sense, and also lets be practical, Mishra Prabhu, i Totally Agree With what you have been saying...

Sitapati Prabhu, PAMHO, a guru is a teacher by the very meaning of the word, and Srila Prabhupada was a teacher in every sense of the word for he taught us by example as a teacher should, also he practiced what he preached, as the BG verse Goes "whatever action performed by a great man common men follow in his footsteps and whatever he teaches by exemplary acts the whole world pursues"

Imagine if Srila Prabhupada did such acts? would we have an ISKCON today???
If a guru can perform such acts, what to expect then of the disciples who follow in his footsteps, Basically if a guru deviates he should not be guru, Guru is Human, But he is elevated, if he falls down, how then can he still keep the elevated position?

Thats all...

Mishra; I never said that you were out to win a contest. I simply pointed out the fact that due to your sincerity and common sense you have defeated Sitapatis arguments. I did not, and am not putting Sitapati down in any way. Yes, he is intelligent, very scholarly. Sometimes too intelligent for his own good. Krsna cannot be known via Sanskrit scholarship. He reveals everything to the sincere devotee. Its about sincerity, not scholarship. In any event, Like you Mishra, I hope that everyone who has been following this thread has received a better and higher understanding of the issue at hand. All glories to Prabhupada.

mishra 1 - sitapati 0

I personally think we should call it a game over - with the simple conclusion, that deviant behavior of a "Guru" is Qualification enough to dequalify Him, Simple... as i said above, its simple common sense. Srila Prabhupada is our divine example, and yes at present there really may be some Gurus that are Uttama Adhikari, as they follow and teach by prabhupadas principles, sadly there are others that do not... so that should answer the initial Question.... Topic Closed

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]
The guru is not to be rejected in this situation. He is to be confronted in a solitary place and the disciple should preach to him for his rectification. This is the instruction of Narahari Sarkar. [/quote] just want to add to this... last statement... if the disciple preaches to the guru, doesnt that make him the guru of his guru? which technically still denounces the guruship of a deviant guru...

Gopal Guru prabhu, you argue on the basis of your common sense.

This is not the Gaudiya Vaisnava way. Common sense is to be accepted when it aligns with the statements of guru, sadhu, and sastra, not independently of them as the basis of the philosophy:

"Guru sadhu sastra vakya
tinete koriya aikya"

- Narottama das Thakura

I am not arguing what I think, but simply repeating what Narahari Sarkar has said:

"If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava regulative principles then in that case one should in a solitary place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, **but one is not to give him up**. "

Again I return to my point - we must understand things on the basis of guru, sadhu, and sastra, not mental speculation.

Otherwise I get the feeling that a number of people in this discussion are acting as their own guru, and making up the system according to their "common sense" and "experience". Which is all well and good, but it is not our process. You are not arguing with me, you are rejecting Narahari Sarkars instruction on this matter, and by extension our whole pramana of sadhu and sastra, and becoming your own guru. Congratulations. :-)

uc0u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu continued, "Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the u347 u257 stras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahu257 janas advocate."

Advocating a shastra quote out of context in opposition to what you call "mental speculation" and I call common sense, is none other that our dreaded brother fanaticism, unless you are a self realized soul.

Try to get the whole picture of Srila Prabhupadas teachings on guru tattva and you will see that your conclusion is nowhere to be found, and it is in fact misleading. Srila Prabhupada himself warned us not jump over his teachings to previous acaryas in our line. He could foresee this conversation.

I'b4ll ask you a somewhat personal question if you permit...

What is the understanding of your guru, who he is and where it is situated ?
Is he fallible?, Can he fall down? If you do thing like this, I think you havent understood the guru-disciple principle at all, no matter how many quotes from Sri Narahari you produce.

Is Naraharis book about how to surrender to a fallen guru? How many quotes speak about fallen gurus? But then you forget the millions of quotes extolling the qualities of true guru.

You are focusing in that problem, probably because you are up to the neck on it and you think everybody else will be.
Focus on educating about true guru qualities, and if you find no personality with those qualities, then let there be no initiation. Taking initiation of someone that you think can fall down... well, that is just nonsense.
Better to stay Bhakta John than to buy such a watered-down, filtered, convenient and new age concept of Sri Guru.

I forgot to say that your conclusions are specially negative in ISKCONs context, with so many problems in the guru camp.

Is that your way to "help" purifying our by now wretched record? Now more than ever we have the responsibility to educate specially newcomers on the qualities of guru. So that they not fall into the same mistakes again and again, causing terrible lose of faith and spiritual lives.

But, of course, it could seem more convenient to preach that guru is "a human being"

In case he goes away with the female secretary and some cash, you can always say "see, I told you, no problem, just take another quick initiation and everything will be alright, son"

and to top it off :)
"A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the intermediate platform (second-class devotee) can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance." - Nectar of Instruction 5, Purport

OK, I surrender to you Mishra. Now just write it down in a book, and we can all quote: "According to Sri Mishra prabhu, a 21st century Vaisnava saint..."

:-)

Your quote is exactly what I was thinking of:

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam mahajano yena gatah sa panthah: "The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate."

CC Madhya-lila 17.186

However, I was thinking more of taking shelter of Narahari Sarkar than of your experience and Gopal Gurus common sense, although I do respect both of those - just not to the same degree as Narahari Sarkars.

Narahari Sarkars book is not "out of context". It specifically deals with what to do when the guru deviates from sad-acar. It doesnt get more relevant than that.

The fact that Narahari Sarkar writes about this subject demonstrates that as far as Guru tattva goes, this is part of it. The guru is a human being - he has a human side and is fallible.

The specific instructions that Narahari Sarkar gives are the Vaisnava etiquette for dealing with this situation. He says that the guru is *not* to be given up out of hand, but the disciple should work with them to help them rectify the situation.

You have not quoted anything as counter evidence to this, beyond "common sense", "experience", and vague statements about what "the Vedas say".

I dont buy into the "guru as Superman" or stand-in for "Kalki avatar" riding in on a white horse to take us back to Godhead. There are personalities who are like that, like Srila Prabhupada, but that is not the sum totality of guru-tattva. Thats a sentimental idea that is not backed up by the writings of the personalities in our line.

I am not convinced to give up the shelter of Narahari Sarkar in this regard. He stands as the authority on this matter.

uc0u347 ruti-smu7771 ti-puru257 u7751 u257 di
pa'f1caru257 tra-viddhiu7745 vinu257
aiku257 ntiku299 harer bhaktir
utpu257 tu257 yaiva kalpate

"Devotional service performed without reference to the Vedas, Puranas, and Pancaratras must be considered sentimentalism, and it causes nothing but disturbance to society."

Probably most of what has been said here if not all, it is truth by itself.
But when applied to present context, your emphasis is detrimental to the health of our movement and mine is probably lot healthier for the time being.
A book? I can write down the whole conversation in my blog for posterity, if you graciously so permit. :)

hahaha - I dont know if blogs have the same weight for pramana as books... :-) but please, do as you see fit.

I think understand your angle. We dont want ISKCON to sink to an "anything goes" approach that turns the whole thing into a ludicrous parody of spiritual life. At the same time I think that we have to be realistic and not pin so much hope (and put so much pressure) on the devotees who take the role of guru. The guru, as Srila Prabhupada said, is a peon - he is a postman whose duty it is to deliver the message. The message is the important thing. The postman may go astray, but the message stays the same.

When the guru does fall down, as many in ISKCON have unfortunately experienced, it is the duty of the disciple to help him pick himself up again. Srila Prabhupada once said that he considered all his disciples as being sent by his own Guru Maharaja to help him, so this relates to Gopal Gurus point about the disciple instructing the spiritual master. Yes, sometimes this does happen, as Im sure those of us with kids have experienced - sometimes we find our own children reminding us of what we should be doing... :-)

If the guru cannot or will not pick himself back up, then the disciple has to continue taking shelter of intelligence, scripture, and other saintly Vaisnavas.

As Narahari says, its the same principle as for a husband and wife. The husband may make a mistake, and the wife should not simply immediately divorce him. Instead she should help him to get back on track. Similarly for a father and son, the father may make a mistake, but the son should not renounce his father. He should help him. The relationship between guru and disciple is a familial relationship, a spiritual one. The guru is the spiritual father, and the Vedas are the mother. So the son should help his father if the father comes into difficulty. And if the father should fall from grace completely, then the son should redeem him with his own character.

We all need help, always.

Sitapati prabhu, obeisance at your feet. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Mishra has defeated you. Put your scholarly false ego aside and accept the defeat. "Only one who has implicit faith in the Spiritual Master and Krsna are all the imports of Vedic knowledge revealed".
Very well done, and well put Mishra prabhu. Hari Bol!

I am not for a winning contest. Since day one I read Sitapati on the internet I though he is very intelligent and capable devotee, so I thank him for his time and ellaboration.
I hope this rapport has clarified the guru issue with some fine tuning and reality check above word jugglery, so easy to make when having at our disposition such a vast array of scriptures.
At the end of the day, is the disciple candidate who has to make the right choice and we might helped a bit there.
I have learned a lot in the process, thank you.

Hare Krishna, This discussion was pretty wonderful, and yes as devotees our position should always be of humbleness other wise our actions are futile in the path of spiritual progress, sitapati prabhu gave wonderful and powerful debates, and mishra prabhu too, both of whom are trully very advanced devotees to whom i can not even compare, but im sure that in all probability, this debate aint over...

Just to make one small minor point...

Lord Chaitanya and his rejection of Chota Haridas, that was an instance when Sri Chaitanya was teaching by example, which is much more powerful than sastra (actions speak louder than words) i know that Chota Haridas was not a Guru, however the point is about hypocrisy, Chota Haridas was a Bramhacari but looked Lustfully at woman, what then to speak of Sanyasis who do that? our Gurus who act in a hypocritical manor? i am not saying Reject them, but when we end up helping guru, and instructing him, that goes against the natural order of things, and we should not Give up on them!!! which is different from giving them up!!!

A guru is there in order to take us to Krishna, if he falls down, if our guide on our journey gets LOST how then are we to still accept guidance from him?

in times when our guide gets lost, make sure he still stays on the right path, but in the mean time take shelter of a map (Srila Prabhupadas books) or get another qualified guide who is following the map...

Simple

mishra 2 - sitapati 0

:)

GopalGuru; "or get another qualified guide who is following the map". My question is; Why get another guide who is following the map? The map and the guide are already there simultaneously within Prabhupadas books, teachings, examples, etc. Correct me if Im wrong Bubaji, am I to understand that you mean to say that we should seek out another "guide" in the hopes that he follows the map and doesnt fall down? Then seek out another if the same fate befalls the "guide" you chose and so on and so forth. Until what end prabhu? It all comes down to Srila Prabhupada. This proposal is obviously a waste of time, and the hoping aspect of it is certainly full of anxiety. Furthermore, " make sure he still stays on the right path". It is not the position of the disciple to make sure that his Guru Maharaja stays on the right path. It is the bona-fide Spiritual Master who should make sure the disciple stays on the right path, not the other way around. Therefore, the logical conclusion and intelligent thing to do is play it safe and eliminate the middle men and go directly to the sure thing, the bona-fide Spiritual Master Srila Prabhupada. Then there is no question of hoping he doesnt fall down. Everything is there. " For one who reads my books and follows my instructions with all sincerity, he is automatically my disciple". Prabhupada said this many, many times in many different places, His books, conversations, lectures, letters, classes and so on. Is it not?

as hard and dangerous one can see it is, with so many less than qualified "gurus", the principle stands that one should seek refuge in a living spiritual master.
it is interesting to note that your affirmations come in place like a kind of Protestantism in our movement. "Eliminate the middle man" is not our philosophy. Another thing as I say is the tremendous problems that we face with so many leaders posing as "advanced" while they are actually thriving in the lower modes of nature.
In other words, just because i burned the rice several times, doesnt mean that i should quit eating rice or to say that all rice is useless.
Understand my point? Seeing the debacle some advocate that only Srila Prabhupada can be guru. But that is not correct, he himself told his disciples they should take the burden.
Again that is not to be confused with "we should back up the pseudo gurus trying to make his way from the lower modes" and that is also not to be confused and make a "Protestant" twist on the philosophy.
In a nutshell, my understanding is tad viddhi pranipatena, seek a guru, educate yourself in its meaning and if you dont find, stay where you are, protected by Srila Prabhupada and not fooled by corporate guruism so much in vogue nowadays

Hare Krishna, Priyavrata Prabhu, I understand where you are coming from and i have witnessed it both by others and first hand, and i totally back up mishra prabhu on this one as well, We CAN NOT just say and follow srila prabhupadas books as if Srila Prabhupada is our Guru, the Association needs to be there, the darshana, the intimate instruction, a guru would not give every disciple the same instruction as they are all Different, for example, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu told Sanatan and Rupa Goswami to live renounced lives in Vrindavana, and they did So, they lived under trees, Yet he gave Nityananda Prabhu a totally Different Instruction, He was Ordered to Dress in Beautiful Ornaments and Clothing and Go Preach the Holy Names of the Lord. If it was Possible, then why just stop at Srila Prabhupada, Why not Accept Lord Chaitanya or Nityanada as my Guru?

I can not, Therefore, as Mishra Prabhu gave the analogy of burnt rice, i would say keep cooking, or just go to govindas...
From Srila Prabhupadas Books ALL the Knowledge is available, and surely it is sufficient by all means... But without the Mercy of Guru we will have only Jnana (knowledge) it is only by the Grace of Guru that the true knowledge of parampara is passed down to us and enables us to attain Vijnana (realisation or understanding).

Life is simple for the simple. Guru and Gauranga Ki Jai!
Srila Prabhupada Ki Jai!
All Glories to all the Vaisnava Devotees of the Lord!
All Glories to the Lord!

Mishra; "The principal stands that one should seek refuge in a living Spiritual Master". Where is this instruction? Furthermore, why you say living spiritual master? Is Srila Prabhupada not living? Is He not present in the heart of His devotee? Can He not instruct us from within? Is He also not present in His books, audios, videos, lectures, etc.? As far as eliminating the middle man, yes you are correct Mishra in so much as, this is not our philosophy. However, due to the present situation we are forced to eliminate the "middle man". Because the "middle men" are obviously not qualified to act in the capacity of "Guru" and they continue to prove it. Can anyone deny? You yourself admit that there are so many unqualified persons "posing as advanced". Therefore, why risk it Bubaji? We are forced to bypass them. Otherwise, we accept this great risk. Is it not possible for one to accept Srila Prabhupada as their Guru if they read "His" books and follow "His" instructions in all sincerity?
As you say, "if you do not find, stay where you are, protected by Srila Prabhupada". With all due respect, your statements are contradictory.

Hare Krishna PriyaVrata Prabhu, PAMHO, i am given the impression that you are not actually reading everything Mishra Prabhu and i are saying,

you ask, Where is that instruction?

Bhagavad-Gita: 4.34

tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah

TRANSLATION
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire
from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized
soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

Simple: I would Like for you to go and approach Srila Prabhupada, Inquire from Him Submissively, Render Service unto him, And Come and tell me what instruction He PERSONALLY gives to you... ok?

But as much as i wish it possible it is not...

Priyavrata: Furthermore, why you say living spiritual master? Is Srila Prabhupada not living?

Prabhu as you know the Soul is imperishable and Never Dies, also Lord Krishna Declares, "O arjuna, Declare it Boldly that my devotee never perishes"
So i Declare in essence Srila Prabhupada is Living, But so is every acarya in our sampradaya, and every wonderful devotee that passed on before us and who will in the future.

PriyaVrata: Is He not present in the heart of His devotee?

He is, He Surely is, and so is Krishna as the Paramatma!

Can He not instruct us from within?

Srila Prabhupada, Mentions that the Paramatma already does that, but we are deluded by the material atmosphere that we cannot tell the difference between Paramatmas guidance and our own fickle mind, Guru is there to Bring about the Distinction and understanding to get us back home to krishna, if we cannot understand the difference between Krishna in our Hearts and the arguments of our mind, How are we then to distinguish Srila Prabhupada if he does the same???

Priyavrata: Is He also not present in His books, audios, videos, lectures, etc.?

He is, He Surely is, However as i wrote above on this same Question, it is a simple difference of Jnana and Vijnana.

Priyavrata: However, due to the present situation we are forced to eliminate the "middle man". Because the "middle men" are obviously not qualified to act in the capacity of "Guru" and they continue to prove it. Can anyone deny?

Nope we dont deny it, But then again u are grading the whole community of ISKCON Gurus by a few who were disappointments. you may dissagree by the use of the word "few" as there were many, but in relation to all the gurus in number, those that fell were a few. Count those who have stayed and you would get much much more.

Priyavrata: Therefore, why risk it Bubaji?
All Great Profits were taken with even greater Risks, In life Risks have to be taken if we are to live at all....

Priyavrata: Is it not possible for one to accept Srila Prabhupada as their Guru if they read "His" books and follow "His" instructions in all sincerity?
Can i not do the same for Rupa Goswami, Sanatana, Madvaacarya, Nityananda, Lord Chaitanya, or Why not Krishna Himself, the Direct Speaker of Bhagavad-Gita??

Priyavrata: As you say, "if you do not find, stay where you are, protected by Srila Prabhupada". With all due respect, your statements are contradictory.
Actually it is not, He never said that one should stay there perpetually, just seek, if you do not find, dont give up, follow Srila Prabhupadas Books, expand your knowledge and Faith, After all Srila Prabhupada mentioned that it is by a disciples faith that Krishna SENDS him Guru, so just build and wait... Guru will come...

even if all ISKCON gurus fall, that will NOT change the eternal principle of current link.
and mind you i got initiated in 1981 by one of the "zonal" gurus and have not re-initiated, while some godbrothers took a few reinitiations with whatever gbc sannyasi in charge.
Main reason why I havent re-initiate is because I think my guru should be above me in such a way that I will accept whatever he orders me, if i find i have doubt about this... then I can get some siksha and still be open to disagree... you see?
ISKCON is not the end of the world, is there not a qualified guru in the whole world?
So the equation iskcongurufalldowns=bogus=only prabhupadaismyguru doesnt fit with the eternal siddhanta.
And, where it is said surrendering to proper current link means rejecting or disrespecting Srila Prabhupada?
Granted, there is plenty of personality cult and moving aside SP in many current guru-disciple relations, but THAT is exactly why they are bogus.
Even if there is no one in our lifetime to be our current link, again that doesnt mean we change the philosophy.
And, yes, SP will always give us protection and instructions, one being surrender to a qualified spiritual master.
For me the personality cult type guru-disciple and the onlyprabhupadaisyourguru are the two sides of the same coin, all fighting to have the exclusive truth about guru.
After all, ritvik has to be qualified to represent SP, so both boil down to wanting to have the exclusive right to initiate.
Meanwhile, the newcomers scratch their head vigorously or get off wherever there is more sanity.

it must be agreed then that all of these talks about "ritvik" makes one insane.

Still it is an option, just like Protestantism, that many people will take on, and you cant call them "insane".
Only thing we can do is educate, educate, educate... and for that, discussions like this one are very much needed.

jimmycle; Your statement is insane. Philosophical talks are insane? Is this your contention? Furthermore, why is it that, "it must be agreed" ? Why must it be agreed upon? Sounds like a personal agenda against those who do not subscribe to you views. Which are what by the way? With all due respect.

No one has any right to sit on the Vyasasana and instruct "others" with their own agenda. We respect only the instruction of the founder archarya, rather than deviations from any "appointed" sm.

go to India and search for the sm. I heard that the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya has the most inspiring harinam kirtans (although some may find them a little less desirable.)

you miss the point that nobody can tell anybody who to choose a spiritual master. by doing so you become one of those despicable beings you are talking about. Please come down the vyasasana yourself and lets talk down to earth.

OP I assume that Umapati is in the grhasta ashrama?

were not this body -- --spirit soul. bas. What other philosophy is there need of, prabhu, with all due respect, this is the ONLY philosophy SP gave us in both his vani and vapu, ys.

First, I agree with Mishras statement regarding you missing the point jimmycle.
Secondly Bubaji, why would, rather why should one "go to India and search for the spiritual master"? He is alredy there in the Vani, which is superior to the Vapuh, and is confirmed throughout Vedic sastra.
Srila Prabhupada specifically told us NOT to associate with his godbrothers countless times. They are envious of Prabhupada Bubba. They werent there to help in the begining, and since His disappearance, actually since the early days, they have attempted to usurp Srila Prabhupadas authority, and in a calculated manner, began to dismantel Prabhupadas movement, causing so many disturbances from within.
Srila Prabhupada is the only one who followed the instructions of His Guru Maharaja. That is His greatness, as He Himself stated on many, many occasions.

His godbrothers didnt even wait untill Prabhupada left the planet to begin instructing His disciples. They began stealing Prabhupadas disciples formally when He was too weak to combat them. Aside from that, Prabhupadas disciples desired to consort with His godbrothers even after He gave them "strict" instructions NOT to. Therefore, they are mostly responsible for the havoc that now plagues the present day ISKCON. These events took place in the begining stages of Prabhupadas movement as I stated previously, and have not shown any positive results since then.
To this day they continue to claim superiorty over Prabupada. So much so that they have stolen His disciples, by giving them "re-initiation", and instructing them as their own. That is thievery in the highest order, its highly offensive, and is dispicable to say the very least.Their unthinkable offenses fall under the catagory of "Guruaparadha". An extremely dangerious position.
Why become inplicated in the offense by searching out a spiritual master? Utilize the Vani. l

nvrmind whenever SP speaks, he has something in his mouth so, similarly we have something in our heads which filter out his sublime instruction i.e., your version of the history of Iskcon vs mine. I witnessed 60_% SP disciples who blooped out and the vast exodus to Sridar Swamis camp. There is no way to bridge the gap between the two camps. I had rejected, the depictions of SP in the "Lilamrta" book as "mundane" attempt to bring the Madyam adikari devotee down to our lower platform so as to give permission to so many who rewrite the history of Iskcon. We have to face the question of "legitimacies" and according to who. Srila Prabhupada says...syndrome. For the simple minded....chant Hare Krsna. and your life will be sublime. Similarly, difficult for the difficult minded. YS

India, there are so many temples, especially in Vrndavan. I never said to go and disturb any of SP god brothers. I only suggested that by going to India on a pilgrimage is a means of advancement... if you have the time and are not enamored by grhasta lifestyle.

jimmcle; Please do not proceed to put words in my mouth to justify your own comments. Who said go and disturb Prabhupadas god brothers? If you read my comment carefully you can plainly see that I said no such thing. I said, Prabhupadas god-brothers caused so many disturbances. They never helped Prabhupada, they re-initiated His disciples, criticized Him, and continue to pass themselves off as superior to Him. My point was and is, they have offended Prabhupada by their words and actions, and those who choose to remain in their orbit in any capacity will suffer the same results as the perpetrators themselves. Srila Prabhupada warned us time and time again, NOT to associate with His god brothers.
Furthermore, you never suggested going to India on a pilgrimage as a means of advancement. You stated," go to India and search for the spiritual master".
It is not a question of your version vs. mine. My opinions are completely valueless, as are yours. The god brother issue was Prabhupadas instruction. Thats all. There is no question of interpreting Prabhupadas instructions. Is it your contention that this particular instruction regarding the god brothers is false or inaccurate?
Also, what is this,"never-mind whenever SP speaks he has something in his mouth so, similarly we have something in our heads which filter out his sublime instruction, i.e., your version of the history of ISKCON vs. mine"? Whatever your mind accepts or rejects has no value regarding Lilamrta Bubba, or anything else for that matter. The bottom line is, we either accept Prabhupadas instructions or we do not. Therefore, chant Hare Krsna and your life will be sublime.

I am a vaishnava and by no means an asura. I simply repeat those personal instructions given to me by the SM, which is, "if one who hears these "ritvik" arguments, then he certainly becomes insane." Hare Krsna brhat mrdanga srimad bhagavatam ki jai, srila prabhupada ki jai, maha prasadam ki jai, nitai gaura premanande haribol.

again, you might call them wrong, mislead and millions of adjectives, but "insane" makes you go into a category that is the other side of the same coin for me.
respect is something that we never have to lose, much less on the plea of "spiritual" arguments.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, although it may indicate that they require some time to rectify themselves (hence the idea of "retirement" from active duty). [/quote]

You can chose anyone to be your guru, even an active homosexual, child abuser, wife beater, thief, or a crook. You can, but why would you want to do that? If ISKCON standards sink to such an abysmal level that people like those listed above are accepted as gurus, then we are no better (and possibly much worse) then Gaudiya Vaishnava apa-sampradayas like Auls, Bauls, Sahajiyas, etc.

Kula-pavana Prabhu, I agree with your point, and I would like to point out that it does not contradict what I have said.

Let me put forward one more verse, in addition to my examination of Srila Narahari Sarkaras work on this subject, Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita:

"Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination."

Bhagavad-gita 9.30

Please note that there is a difference between anomalous behaviour in an otherwise saintly person (the situation that Narahari Sarkar describes and that I am addressing in my comment quoted above), which is like a cloud passing before an otherwise illuminating sun, and a person who is by their nature a crook, wife beater, etc, which is the situation that you have described, and which can be compared to a cloudy sky.

Narahari Sarkars guidelines on interacting with a guru who displays anomalous behaviour nicely guide the disciple to be able to make the distinction between the two without a knee-jerk "disillusionment" reaction.

My point, again, is that a person experiencing difficulty is alone not sufficient grounds, according to our Gaudiya Vaisnava traditional etiquette, to reject them as guru. There are grounds and boundaries, and they are explained by Narahari Sarkar. They are not arrived at by consensus of conditioned souls based on their common "sense" and with no reference to sadhu and scripture.

*That* is apa-sampradaya.

Otherwise I do agree with your point that you should carefully examine the character of the prospective spiritual master. Srila Sanatana Goswami in his Hari Bhakti Vilasa recommends that a prospective disciple spend one year living with the guru to ascertain his character. After that year if both are satisfied with each other, initiation can take place. Its not meant to be a spiritual McDonalds where you get dispensed a guru and have no personal responsibility in determining their appropriate qualification for the role.

Sitapati Prabhu:

Ill be direct here:

1. do you consider an active regular homosexual activity as "a cloud passing before an otherwise illuminating sun"

2. how many times in what period of time that becomes a "cloudy sky" Two, three, a dozen times?

3. wouldnt our current case "a cloudy sky otherwise illuminated by a ray of sun"

4. isnt that sale of a reality that doesnt exist, castles on the air?

5. isnt that putting the reality to rest in order to feel great?

6. Just because that person gets caught only one time, does that mean that was a momentary fall-down only?

If you answered yes to at least one of the above, your examples fall short reality and misguide the grass-root devotees. Therefore for the sake of education on guru-tattva adjusted to our society I keep denouncing your wrong application of shastra, your misplaced "vijnana".

"Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, although it may indicate that they require some time to rectify themselves (hence the idea of "retirement" from active duty)."

Thats my original statement. How each person will apply the principles and the situation in each case is different.

I have explained the principles on the basis of sadhu and sastra.

Now if you want to ask me specifically about how these principles apply in the circumstance of H.H. Umapati Swami then I have this to say:

"Ive never even met him, nor do I know anything about him."

In other words, this is not, for me, a discussion about any specific case or set of circumstances. Its about two things:

1. The way in which we should approach the specific problem when our guru deviates from sad-acar, based on sadhu and sastra.
2. How we should approach problems in general - should we be emotional and rely on "common sense" and our conditioned response, or should we refer to guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Im happy to remain in the shelter of sadhu and sastra should guru fall. I dont think that Ill go running off to take shelter of "common" sense instead.

[quote]
My point, again, is that a person experiencing difficulty is alone not sufficient grounds, according to our Gaudiya Vaisnava traditional etiquette, to reject them as guru. There are grounds and boundaries, and they are explained by Narahari Sarkar. They are not arrived at by consensus of conditioned souls based on their common "sense" and with no reference to sadhu and scripture.

*That* is apa-sampradaya.
[/quote]

I am not so sure that based on one or two arguably vague and unspecific comments of previous acharyas like Narahari Sarkar one can conclude like you did that "having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru". There is little doubt that the standards for accepting someone as a guru set by Srila Prabhupada were very, very high. These standards are not negated by references you quoted.

Ultimately it is up a disciple to decide whether his guru is sufficiently qualified to help him on his way to Krsna, but Iskcon as an institution needs to set clear boundaries of acceptable behavior for devotees acting as officially recognized gurus. When you say that an active homosexual person is to be seen as "saksad Hari" by his disciples you are debasing the entire Vaishnava tradition and make a mockery of our doctrine.

"I am not so sure that based on one or two arguably vague and unspecific comments of previous acharyas like Narahari Sarkar one can conclude..."

Kula-pavana prabhu, saying "vague and unspecific comments" does not make sastra disappear in a puff of smoke. Especially when you yourself do not present anything based on sadhu and sastra other than what *really* are vague and unspecific references to it.

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth that I did not say? I dont think you understand the points that I am presenting. I did not say that a guru who is engaged in homosexual behaviour is to be seen as saksad Hari. I said, repeating the instructions of Narahari Sarkar, that he is not automatically to be given up.

Narahari Sarkar has written a book *specifically* about the guru deviating from sad-acar where he *clearly* explains the situation, devoid of mental speculation.

Take a look at this:

"If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava regulative principles then in that case one should in a solitary place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, but one is not to give him up. "
- Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita 59

Theres the direct instruction by Sri Narahari Sarkar. Why do you refuse to accept it?

"This statement of the revealed scriptures is applicable at all times and under all circumstances."
- Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita 61

Thats not so vague is it... however, if it doesnt agree with your conclusion I can understand that its a little inconvenient.

Now please, dont make out that *I am making a mockery* of the entire Vaisnava tradition. Our tradition is to submissively accept the statements of sadhu and sastra, such as Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita, not "make it up as we go along", according to common sense independent of our scriptural tradition. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Narahari Sarkars presentation.

First of all we could discuss whether Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita actually falls under the category of shastra, or scriptural authority universally accepted as valid by acharyas in our disciplic succession, and what precisely does it mean. Especially if confronted with other scriptuaral injunctions or opinions of other acharyas in similar matters (fall downs and guru qualifications).

Then we could address the notion that not all fall downs might be of the same gravity and hence we may need to exercise some judgement in such situations. Repeated falldowns over a long period of time versus one time incidents may also be a factor in such deliberations.

We may also ponder the consequences to the institution of parampara (in this case ISKCON) once the knowledge of such a guru fall-down becomes public. This is a very important consideration in this case. Like I said: an individual is free to act as they like in this case, but such a freedom is not quite available to the institution like ISKCON. It is NOT a private matter anymore. That is the gist of my objection to your statement.

And lastly, we may want to consider the gravity of a particular situation (fall-down) in the light of Srila Prabhupadas instructions dealing specifically with that sinful activity. Do you want me to quote Prabhupada on homosexuality?

Some Vaishnava shastras (like Hari-bhakti-vilasa) list hunderds of rules, many of which we do not follow. Even Prabhupada did not follow some of these injunctions. Please do not tell me that all scriptural injunctions are the same, and are all to be blindly followed by us.

Here is another verse from shastra as well:

*
The Smriti says, '93It is ordained that one should reject a guru who is arrogant, who does not know duty from non-duty, and who has taken to erroneous ways.'94 [Mbh 5.178.24].

*
And here is a full context of the verses you quote:

Krishna Bhajanamritam of Narahari Sarakara
(transl. Bhrigumuni das)
*
kintu yadi gurur asamaJjasaM karoti, tarhi ykti-siddhaiH siddhAntais tasya rahasi daNDaH karaNIyaH na tu tyAjyaH | gurur daNDaya tarhi cet, tatrApi '96 '93guror apy avaliptasya kAryAkAryam ajAnataH | utpatta-pratipannasya nyAya-daNDo vidhIyate ||'94 anen sarvaM suzobhanam iti ||
*
'93But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: '91A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.'92 By this everything becomes auspicious.'94
*
tatra gurur yadi visadRzakArI, Izvare bhrAntaH, kRSNa-yazovimukhas tad-vilAsa-vinodaM nAGgIkaroti svayaM vA durabhimAnI, lokas vastavaiH kRSNam anukaroti, tarhi tyAjya eva | katham eva gurus tyAjya iti cen na, kRSNa-bhAva-lobhAt kRSNa-prAptaye guror AzrayaNa-kRtam | tad-anantaraM yadi tasmin gurau Asura-bhAvas tarhi kiM kartavyam? asura-guruM tyaktvA zrIkRSNa-bhaktimantaM gurum anyaM bhajet | asya kRSNa-balAd asurasya guror balaM mardanIyam ||
*
'93But if the guru now acts improperly (even after an attempt to correct him), is confused about the Lord, is opposed to the glories of Krishna, does not take part in delighting in His play, is himself intolerably proud, and imitates Krishna, desiring the praise of the world, then he should be rejected. One should not think, '91How can the guru be rejected?'92 Because of the strong desire for love of Krishna, in order to attain Krishna one takes shelter of a guru. If later a demoniac mentality appears in that guru, what is one to do? Having rejected this demoniac guru, one should worship another guru, who has devotion to Sri Krishna. By his power from Krishna, the power of the demoniac guru is destroyed.'94

Thank you for your very nice quotes from sastra prabhu.

The statement from Mahabharata is non-different from the conclusion of Narahari Sarkar. However, he additionally describes the process leading up to that point, a process in which the disciple has some responsibility in relation to the guru and rectifying his behaviour.

The fact of the matter is that people, including gurus, do have trouble. For this reason Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita has been written, and this doubt: "The disciple will discipline the guru?" has been addressed.

In terms of ISKCON, if we are thinking: "Oh, only a perfect pure devotee can be a guru", then the whole thing will not go on as an institution. If we are going to institutionalize bhakti then there will need to be support from all positions in the phalanx. When someone who has the "no objection" ruling (note that it is not an institutional endorsement, rather an absence of objection) then they can initiate. The fact that there is no institutional guarantee means that ultimate responsibility still lies with the prospective disciple, and he should therefore choose carefully.

Sanatana Goswamis advice to personally associate with the guru, living with him for a year and observing him is good.

Even after exercising such due diligence, however, the possibility exists that the guru will deviate from sad-acar. Both theoretically, as we retain free will eternally and anarthas are present up to the stage of bhava, and practically, as we have seen so many gurus fall down.

In the case where a guru experiences difficulty, the responsibility of the disciple is to try to bring him back on track, not to immediately reject him out of hand. If he is not able to be rectified, *then* he should be rejected. This is the conclusion of Narahari Sarkar, and is supported by the following verse from the Mahabharata:
*
The Smriti says, '93It is ordained that one should reject a guru who is arrogant, who does not know duty from non-duty, and who has taken to erroneous ways.'94 [Mbh 5.178.24].

The explanation of this process given by Narahari Sarkar is as follows:

'93But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: '91A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.'92 By this everything becomes auspicious.'94

'93But if the guru now acts improperly (even after an attempt to correct him), is confused about the Lord, is opposed to the glories of Krishna, does not take part in delighting in His play, is himself intolerably proud, and imitates Krishna, desiring the praise of the world, then he should be rejected. One should not think, '91How can the guru be rejected?'92 Because of the strong desire for love of Krishna, in order to attain Krishna one takes shelter of a guru. If later a demoniac mentality appears in that guru, what is one to do? Having rejected this demoniac guru, one should worship another guru, who has devotion to Sri Krishna. By his power from Krishna, the power of the demoniac guru is destroyed.'94

So I restate my original point:

Deviation from sad-acar is not in itself sufficient grounds for rejecting a guru (clarification: this obviously means someone who has previously been accepted as ones guru). Only if this deviation is persistent and unable to be rectified is a disciple justified and required, according to the opinions of sadhu and sastra, to give up such a spiritual master.

We have seen that many institutionally-approved gurus in ISKCON have been madhyama-adhikaris still struggling with various stages of anartha-nivrtti. Such a person *can* help us. Of course it is explained that one can only go so far with such a guru, but if they continue to advance while we advance, they can stay one step ahead. And if we are there to support them if they stumble, then together we can all move forward.

Of course you can find some other guru, but my point is that if you accept such a guru, then the process is clear: he is *not* to be given up out of hand if he deviates from sad-acar. Only if this deviation is persistent and incorrigible is it appropriate to give him up.

The big problem is not that gurus run into trouble - because our acaryas have written about how to handle that.

The big problem is that we are carrying on with this: "Gurus can never fall down!" Right up until a guru falls down, and then we say: "Oh dear, what does this mean? I know - he was never a guru!"

Then we run around in confusion - "but who is a guru? I have to find a guru who can never fall down!"

Once we understand that gurus can and do fall down, we can be more realistic about the situation and how we choose our guru, how we interact with them on an ongoing basis, how to help them to be accountable and avoid the circumstances that lead to difficulties, and how to help them if they do run into difficulties.

This will lead to a more healthy institution than continuing to promote the "infallible guru" myth, which actually contributes to guru falldown.

Narahari Sarkars book is a mature understanding of the environment. This world is not black and white. Of the two classes of beings the fallible ones are in this world. The infallible ones are in the spiritual world. This world is not black and white: its the world of shades of gray. Descending saktya-vesa avataras are not a common occurrence; but that is not an impediment to the process of bhakti.

Krpamoya prabhus post giving the analogy of a doctor (Srila Prabhupada) and assisting nurses (initiating/instructing gurus) is a good one: http://deshika.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/two-ramas-two-gurus-and-a-false-dilemma/

He also wrote this:

"Our contemporary ISKCON Vaishnavas who have assumed the role of guru for their students would never claim to be liberated souls, and are certainly not the best devotees who have ever lived in history. They regard themselves as upakarikas, or '91helpers,'92 in the mission of the acarya. They don'92t claim to be perfect, and no-one makes that claim for them. What they do claim with confidence is that Srila Prabhupada is a liberated associate of Sri Krishna who was sent to this world to deliver the message of Godhead and to travel the world establishing a movement to perpetuate the teachings long after his physical disappearance. If they claim to be anything themselves, it is that they are recipients of his grace, and as such, they feel compelled to share their good fortune with others. And so they travel, preach, inspire, guide and encourage. They also initiate their students who naturally develop a healthy respect and gratitude towards them."

http://deshika.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/thoughts-on-back-to-prabhupada-magazine/

You seem not to be aware of what your presentation means in terms of the current situation and context.
You will keep saying, its not me, its Narahari Sarakaras words!!!
But I doubt He would be raising this point and defend it to death, at this moment of time and particularly in this thread.
With all respects I think you are doing a poor job in helping our vaishnava acaryas to stablish purity and yes, common sense.
In the past, so many rascals got away with the mantra "you are overly intelligent" "common sense is maya" and sadly when we think that could change, you come as new generation repeating 16 rounds of the same.

"This statement of the revealed scriptures is applicable at all times and under all circumstances."
- Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita 61

"I doubt he would be raising this point... at this moment of time..."
- Mishra prabhu

hmm.... seems a little contradictory... which one should I follow?

I do not say that common sense is maya.

I say that common sense should be applied in the context of the statements of guru, sadhu, and sastra, following Narottama Prabhus statement:

sadhu-sastra-guru-bakya
cittete kariya aikya
satata bhasiba prema-majhe

Common sense independent of guru, sadhu, and sastra, however, *is* maya: "Oh, I know, Ill ignore the sastra and the sadhus, and follow my common sense instead - after all, thats worked for me for millions of births..." :-)

As far as the "youre overly intelligent" - isnt that what everyone here says about me? :-)

ok last attempt to make my point clear...
if I state the vedic conclusion valid for all times, etc "Krishna is the eternal autocrat" to a communist audience, would that be logic, helping or even sane?
talking about homosexual practice by a deviated "guru" and you quote Narahari Sarakar.
be careful with context or you could cause havoc with shastra in hand.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]
Once we understand that gurus can and do fall down, we can be more realistic about the situation and how we choose our guru, how we interact with them on an ongoing basis, how to help them to be accountable and avoid the circumstances that lead to difficulties, and how to help them if they do run into difficulties.

This will lead to a more healthy institution than continuing to promote the "infallible guru" myth, which actually contributes to guru falldown.
[/quote]

I agree with you here, but it is a direct result of the way Srila Prabhupada presents the position of a guru in his writings, and the way his disciples acting as gurus adopted after his passing.

If we as a society (ISKCON) adopt a very low standard for our gurus, the new disciples will eventually ask: "Why would I listen to this guy? He is obviously an ordinary man, who has bigger problems then I do?". I talk to new devotees all the time and none of them are even remotely interested in accepting as their guru someone like Umapati, Satsvarupa, or Dhanurdhara. You can quote Narahari Sarkar all you want, but most people are just not buying such reasoning. Im not buying it either. IMO the above passage refers to a more subtle fall-down then having sex with his disciples. Look at that passage:

"But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: '91A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.'92 "

Do you really need arguments and logic to convince your guru that having homosexual relations with his disciples is wrong? If you do, then he is a total ignoramus certainly not qualified for his position. Narahari Sarkar is obviously not talking about such situations. And that is why I said that this passage is somewhat vague and unspecific.

You probably know that I am not a proponent of ritvik-vada in any way, shape, or form. ISKCON has many qualified and devoted gurus who deserve the respect they get. Unfortunately there are also gurus who are guilty of serious abuses and transgressions and which continue to be a serious problem to our society. They are directly responsible for a terrible crisis of faith and the prominence of ritvik-vada among the members of our society. Thus one serious deviation is followed by another.

I find the above discussion shows that we take the persons qualifications to be qualifications of the guru. However guru is just a messenger, an agent. A fully potent agent is uttama adhikari. Not every guru needs to be. In fact not all samradaya acaryas are.

Its a misunderstanding of the philosophy that guru must be purfect to be a guru.

Its a shadow of a mayavadi idea of guru, our idea of guru is perfect servant, not someone who never makes a mistake.

ys

Kula-pavana prabhu said: "If we as a society (ISKCON) adopt a very low standard for our gurus..."

OK, now I get it. You guys are not arguing with my point. You are arguing with something else.

Neither I, nor Narahari Prabhu, are advocating changing any standards. Please read what I have written again carefully - its about "what to do when the guru deviates from sad-acar." In other words, its about what to do when the guru doesnt make the standard.

A person who doesnt make the standard because of deep-rooted anarthas that define their nature and identity (an active homosexual, a wife-beater) is not qualified to become guru. But someone who has already been accepted by a disciple as a guru, and who then manifests behaviour that is non-Vaisnava, must be treated according to the proper etiquette.

Its about ***helping the guru to conform to the standard, not about changing the standard***.

We are discussing the situation where one takes initiation from someone, then later finds their guru engaged in non-Vaisnava behaviour.

Obviously you should not take initiation from someone who is engaged in non-Vaisnava behaviour, but we have seen that living entities can go both backwards and forwards in their spiritual progress, and anarthas and offenses can cause anomalies.

So please dont misrepresent my point. I am not saying that a person engaged in non-Vaisnava behaviour is qualified to be a guru. I am saying that if you took initiation from someone who later manifests non-Vaisnava behaviour, then your duty is to work with him to help him rectify himself. You cannot get an "instant divorce". This is not authorized, and is not spiritually or socially healthy. However, if he cannot and will not be rectified, then you must reject him. That is the point.

As far as choosing your guru is concerned, as Sanatana Prabhu says, it is your responsibility to choose carefully. You should spend one year examining his character, and you should be checking on an ongoing basis that everything is going ok.

Does this make it clearer?

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]Kula-pavana prabhu said: "If we as a society (ISKCON) adopt a very low standard for our gurus..."

OK, now I get it. You guys are not arguing with my point. You are arguing with something else.
[/quote]

Yes, and no. I am saying that for your private use you can attempt to rectify your guru despite what the nature of his anartha might be, because it is a private matter. It is your call. But as an institution, ISKCON does not have that option and must clearly specify the rules. For example the rule might be, that if a person recognized as guru has homosexual relations with his disciples, he is OUT of his job, end of story. If his disciples want to continue their relationship with such a person, it is their own private business, but he can not accept any more disciples and act as a guru in ISKCON temples. Otherwise the abuse of position will continue among the gurus because the standards are vague and they are not punished until things get pretty horrible. By that time the damage to the society is already very severe. That is what I call "adopting very low standards for our gurus". When we look at the past cases of guru fall-downs in ISKCON, a very clear pattern emerges, where the management tries to keep a lid on the story for as long as possible, hoping that the guru rectifies his errors, and when that fails (as it always does) the damage is already enormous and the abuses or transgressions are real nasty. To keep a lid on such stories both gurus and their helpers are forced to lie or even to intimidate people to keep quiet. Thus more damage to the institution is done in the name of helping the guru get straight.

a matter of perspective, personal or that of the institution.
As personal is private, we are dealing here with institutional standards.
That was my whole point!
Thank you, Kula Pavana Prabhu for your perspective and thank you Sitapati, by your grace, I have squezed my lemon sized brain on this important subject matter.

there is no such a thing as "institutional standards" of being of "uttama adhikari". it was never an institutional requirement (bar the zonal acharya days).

what we are dealing now with here is a nuclear fallout from the zonal-acaryas times when every guru must be paramahamsa-sannyasi - if he (not she!) is not as KP said - out of job.

guru does not have to be uttama adhikari, paramahamsa etc. anyone can be guru if they know the science of krsna.

we keep mixing in acharya or jagat-guru with regular guru concepts.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]there is no such a thing as "institutional standards" of being of "uttama adhikari". it was never an institutional requirement (bar the zonal acharya days).

what we are dealing now with here is a nuclear fallout from the zonal-acaryas times when every guru must be paramahamsa-sannyasi - if he (not she!) is not as KP said - out of job.

guru does not have to be uttama adhikari, paramahamsa etc. anyone can be guru if they know the science of krsna.

we keep mixing in acharya or jagat-guru with regular guru concepts.[/quote]

Prabhu, with all due respect... since when the ability of following the 4 regs makes one a paramahamsa?
I - and most of the devotees I ever talked to - expect people who act as gurus in ISKCON to at least reliably and verifiably follow the 4 regs and chant 16 rounds. That is definitely a rock bottom standard and requirement. Otherwise, as I stated before, one begins to question what benefit is there in listening to a guy, who cant even fulfill the most basic requirements of our sadhana.

Personally I have nothing against senior matajis acting as gurus - it is just not practiced in ISKCON and that is why I did not address the issue in a gender nutral way.

Kula-pavana prabhu, you present a subtle but potentially dangerous shift in underlying paradigm.

Youve switched from a conception of the self as a person, the guru as a person, and the relationship as a personal one with reference to sadhu and sastra as to how it should go on, to one where the guru is an impersonal institutional figure and the relationship is one that should be dealt with using a master-planning approach based on a logical presentation of the consequences.

I would argue that it is exactly an impersonal "institutional" conception of the guru and the relationship between disciple and guru that is at the root of the problem. It makes people into more than they are and removes the personal accountability that would otherwise help to balance out unhealthy excesses.

We need to get more real, not less real. And we should not abandon sadhu and sastra, rather we should try to find out how we can follow them more closely.

The dynamic of personal accountability described in Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita is *exactly* what is needed. Larger organizations grow from the aggregation of smaller interactions, and these should be guided by sadhu and sastra. This will create a healthy organism, just as the interaction of cells aggregate to create a healthy body.

Stitching large body parts together according to a mental plan can give you something that looks like a organism, but its really a Frankenstein creation, and thats the problem we are facing. In this case we should not abandon sadhu and sastra (which have not really been followed in these matters), but rather go back to it.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]
I would argue that it is exactly an impersonal "institutional" conception of the guru and the relationship between disciple and guru that is at the root of the problem. It makes people into more than they are and removes the personal accountability that would otherwise help to balance out unhealthy excesses.
[/quote]

There is nothing impersonal about requiring that a guru must follow the 4 regs and chant 16 rounds daily if he wants to be considered a guru authorized by ISKCON. You may call it an institutional policy, but please do not use the word impersonal in this context because it is part of our most rudimentary sadhana requirements. Is our sadhana impersonal? Is requiring that gurus in our institution follow the sadhana an impersonal request?

Devotees often use such words as a mere propaganda tactic to "fortify" their position. I have an impression that the phrase: "subtle but potentially dangerous shift" is in that category as well.

Prabhu, this is not rocket science. It is a very simple and honest approach. If a guru is sexually exploiting his disciples, is a liar and a pretender in his attempts to cover up such abuses, he should not be seen as a guru in our society. Period. What on earth is impersonal about that approach?

"The maha-bhagavata is one who decorates his body with tilaka and whose name indicates him to be a servant of Krsna by the word dasa. He is also initiated by a bona fide spiritual master and is expert in worshiping the Deity, chanting mantras correctly, performing sacrifices, offering prayers to the Lord and performing sankirtana. He knows how to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead and how to respect a Vaisnava. When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshiped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru. However, if one is highly qualified but is not a Vaisnava, he cannot be accepted as a guru. One cannot be a brahmana unless one is a Vaisnava. If one is a Vaisnava, he is already a brahmana. If a guru is completely qualified as a Vaisnava, he must be accepted as a brahmana even if he is not born in a brahmana family. The caste system method of distinguishing a brahmana by birth is not acceptable when applied to a bona fide spiritual master. A spiritual master is a qualified brahmana and acarya. If one is not a qualified brahmana, he is not expert in studying the Vedic literatures. Nana-sastra-vicaranaika-nipunau. Every Vaisnava is a spiritual master, and a spiritual master is automatically expert in brahminical behavior. He also understands the Vedic sastras." (CC Madhya 24.330 purp)

Kula-pavana prabhu, again you are speaking to a point other than the one I have made.

There is no disagreement that a spiritual master in ISKCON must be following 4 regs and chanting 16 rounds.

The point is this: when a person who has been doing this, and has been authorized as a spiritual master, and has been accepted by disciples is found to be engaged in avaisnava behaviour, how are is the situation to be handled?

This is the issue that we are discussing. Not "what are the standards for ISKCON gurus". We know what these are. The question is: "how do we deal, in a mature and personal way, when a devotee is having trouble, and that devotee is (our) initiating spiritual master?"

The sastra explains that the duty of the disciple is to engage with their spiritual master in a process to help them get back on track, and that ***they are not to reject them out of hand***. Thats the whole point that started this discussion.

If we want to start to talking about "someone elses spiritual master" or "from an institutional perspective" without considering "what do *I* do when my bona fide spiritual master has trouble" then we have gone from the purely personal realm into a more impersonal, abstract consideration.

If we dont discuss it on the basis of sadhu and sastra, but instead on the basis of "what makes sense" (without reference to the specific guidelines that have been given addressing this situation) then it is a departure from our traditional pramana.

Thats my point about the subtle but dangerous shift. Were not talking about an institution here. Were talking about what you or I should do if our initiating spiritual master deviates from sad-acar. My point is this: take shelter of the process explained by Narahari Sarkar.

It has nothing to do with changing any standards.

Nobody except you, hints we have to change standards implementing Naraharis special circumstances counsels as standard guru-disciple relationships in ISKCON.

Nobody except you said sadhu shastra and guru are not to be taken as basis (you hinted at following at least 2).

And, yes absolutely nobody says, dear Prabhu, that Narahari Sarakar isnt correct.

What I and any sober person says here is that you shouldnt be pulling out Narahari Sarakar in this question context, referring to a recurrent homosexual practitioner posing as "guru".

THAT is the damage you are doing and I denounce.

What in the world has to do that with the current "sannyasi" case?

Are you saying that those disciples have to "chastise" their spiritual master and follow him if he "reinstates" himself? They should immediately reject him and anyone with those same or similar characteristics or be prepared to perpetuate the show-bottle.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]If we want to start to talking about "someone elses spiritual master" or "from an institutional perspective" without considering "what do *I* do when my bona fide spiritual master has trouble" then we have gone from the purely personal realm into a more impersonal, abstract consideration.
[/quote]

What you describe is just as much abstract and theoretical approach to guru fall-down as the strict policy I expect from ISKCON as an institution. I can tell you how I dealt with the deviation an fall-down of my diksa guru but it is irrelevant in this discussion.

You actually expect a disciple to question his or her guru about his behavior or teachings in some solitary place in order to help him turn back on track? In the past that approach was seldom used and it never worked even when guru was chastized by his peers (Godbrothers). Worse yet, many disciples were intimidated, humiliated, thrown out of the temples, or otherwise adversly affected whenever they attempted to question gurus behavior. Sulocana dasa was even murdered for having the "audacity" to criticize Kirtanananda, with his murder directly arranged by the deviant "guru". What you propose is so absurd in the present day context Im actually shocked you are serious about it. Over the years every such fall-down was kept secret for as long as possible by the GBC and Iskcon management in general, and as a result these fallen people kept initiating and preaching as if nothing happened often for several years. That ruined ISKCON reputation and in some respect turned us into a bogus, showbottle religion. What you propose is simply more of the same nonsense we have seen in the past, in the name of "following the shastra"... No wonder few people here agree with you on that issue.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]If we want to start to talking about "someone elses spiritual master" or "from an institutional perspective" without considering "what do *I* do when my bona fide spiritual master has trouble" then we have gone from the purely personal realm into a more impersonal, abstract consideration.
[/quote]

snip That ruined ISKCON reputation and in some respect turned us into a bogus, showbottle religion. What you propose is simply more of the same nonsense we have seen in the past, in the name of "following the shastra"... No wonder few people here agree with you on that issue.[/quote]

I agree with Sitapati that sastra should be one and only criteria or the main measure to which all your personal relationship with guru should be judged. The only thing I do not agree is his insistence on one particular sastra Krisna Bhajanamrita. The guide is set by Srila Sanatana in his commentary on Gopala Bhattas Haribhaktivilasa. There should be no deviation to this standard and that is the reason why we see soo much degradation in ISKCON. Sitapati is right - there should be less emphasis on institution and more on personal responsibility as it was always the case.

Of course there are always social considerations. And that would modify it slightly towards conservative side (for example no gay gurus in the state of Alabama).
ys

To Sitapata; You consistantly say that you are quoting from guru, sadhu and satstra.
(The Standard) Yet, the lack of you quoting the Guru Srila Prabhupada, or even mentioning Him regarding this subject matter disqualifies your statements as being accurate, and therefore incomplete. They are in fact just sadhu and sastra quotes, and quotes from Narahari Sarkar. The Guru (Srila Prabhupada), is a vital component in this equation. Is it not? This absolutely necessary component Guru (Srila Prabhupada) is absent therefore, your statements are moot. Furthermore, having sastra be the exclusive form of measurement for this and other issues is not the prescribed method according to my understanding. If so, please show me prabhu. Hare Hrsna...All glories to Prabhupada.

To ccd; The Uttama Adhikari Guru is absolutely perfect. ( As good as God ). The bona-fide spiritual master can be nothing less than perfect in all aspects. If your standards for guru are somewhat lower, that is your unfortunate business. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Priyavrata, you asked a question. You got the answer.

I feel you are unable to accimilate information or possibly can not understand it. There are three kinds of uttama bhaktas. Not all ISKCON gurus or our sampradaya acaryas are on that level. Please read the quote from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu that was summaried very early by Prabhupada: Though all of the devotees of the different forms of the Lord are in the same category, still it is said that those who are devotees of Lord Krsna are the topmost in the list of all devotees.

Priyavrata das: What category you think _your guru_ falls in from the three examples below?

(1) Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta After giving up the gross material body, those who have perfected themselves through the practice of bhakti obtain sac-cid-ananda spiritual forms, which are just suitable for the service of the Lord as associates (parsadas). Such persons are the best of all uttama-bhagavatas.

(2) Nirdhuta-kasaya
Those who, although still residing within the gross material body made of five elements, have no trace of material desire (vasana) nor any material impressions (samskaras) within their hearts are called nirdhuta-kasaya (those who have thrown off all material impurities). They belong to the intermediate class of uttama-bhagavatas.

(3) Murcchita-kasaya
Those siddha-mahapurusas pursuing the path of bhakti in whose hearts there remains a trace of desire (vasana) and impressions (samskaras) based on the material mode of goodness are known as murcchita-kasaya. Due to influence of their bhakti-yoga, these desires and impressions remain in a dormant or unconscious state. As soon as there is a favourable opportunity, their worshipful object, Sri Bhagavan, somehow causes their desire to be consumed and attracts them to His lotus feet. Such elevated souls belong to the preliminary stage (kanistha) of uttama-bhagavatas

Devarsi Narada is an example of the topmost uttama-bhagavata. Sukadeva Gosvami belongs to the intermediate stage of uttama-bhagavatas (nirdhuta-kasaya). Sri Narada in his previous birth as the son of a
maidservant is an example of the preliminary stage of uttama-bhagavatas
(murcchita-kasaya).

Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu

To ccd; What I assimilate and completely understand is that you are obviously intellectually challenged, morally bankrupt, and totally devoid of any class or tact. Aside from the mundane, you have no clue as to what or who the "Guru" really is based on your statements and comments thus far. You simply quote sastra in an attempt to flex your questionable scholarship. Youre too puffed up and lack sincerity mate therefore, you will never understand who is who and what is what. I certainly wont attempt to help or convince you. How could I or anyone else for that matter do so? You already have all the answers and know everything. I dont want to go down this road with you again ccd. Speaking of which mate, why dont you reveal yourself on this forum? Not your envious nature and foolish comments. Your name.
What I will say and do know is that Guru is one! There is no your guru, my guru. He is one. Hare Krsna... All glories to Prabhupada!

Priyavrata wrote:<<already have all the answers and know everything.>>

It was you who asked the question in the first instance. . .

I just wanted to hear you confirmation on what level "you think" your guru is (being the topmost uttama adhikari) is he:
(1) Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta
(2) Nirdhuta-kasaya
(3) Murcchita-kasaya

I assume you think he is Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta, uttama-uttama, e.g. on the same level as Devarsi Narada thus more advanced then Vyasadeva, Sri Narada and Sukadeva Goswami.

Interesting institutional philosophical positions:

1. Guru can enjoy in a materially and spiritually deviant way and still be considered a guru.
2. For being envious of Krishna, the jiva is kicked out of Vaikuntha.

Put the two together and you get a philosophy that says: In the material world a jiva can be a sense enjoyer and still be a guru, but in the spiritual world, for a moment of enviousness the jiva is sent to millions of lifetimes of punishment.

Is this the Vaisnava philosophy?

ccd: you want us to tag and categorize the whole parampara?
fools go where angels dont dare....
deena: as sad as it is, THAT is what transpires and is being mostly perceived by the inquisitive people of the world about us.

Kula pavana prabhu,

The reason why the dynamic of confronting the spiritual master hasnt worked in the past is because people have had an unrealistic and impersonal "institutionalized" conception of the guru. This can elevate him to a status that he actually doesnt have, and change all his personal relationships into fake ones.

If you spend one year mutually examining the character of your guru personally, as Srila Sanatana Goswami recommends in Hari Bhakti Vilasa, then you will have a personal relationship, and one that can develop up to respectful friendship, as described in the Bhagavatam.

Then, yes, you can work with him if he experiences some difficulty.

Otherwise, if he is some remote poster pinup guru then, sure, I agree that you will not have much luck confronting him, and that will have to be left to your senior godbrothers who are close to him.

As the recent article on Sampradaya Sun points out, the covering of this personal dynamic and its replacement with some impersonal institutional dynamic is responsible for many later distortions.

So I advocate for following our tradition. You have a personal relationship with your guru. You personally examine his character, and if he has trouble you stick with him and help him out until it reaches the hopeless point, then you walk away.

This is 2008 and there are devotees that you can work with like that. There are still rock star acaryas as well, but its up to each individual to find their guru personally.

Off-loading that responsibility on an "institution" is not a good idea, because yes, the institutional rubber stamp is no guarantee.

Deena prabhu:

"Guru can enjoy in a materially and spiritually deviant way and still be considered a guru."

Im not sure if that was in reference to something that I said.

My point is that a human being in the role of guru may deviate, but can be rectified.

This relies on having a proper personal setup, which means the relationship between guru and disciple should be personal, and not institutional.

I think if we want an institutional, impersonal guru then we really do need some uber-acarya.

However, in practice we are better off working with someone in a realistic fashion, and luckily our tradition provides that in the form of Sanatana Prabhus Hari Bhakti Vilasa and Narahari Sarkars Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita.

sitapati prabhu, let me ask you a few questions:
do you think your diksha guru is uttama adhikari?
if the answer is no, why you choose to surrender your life to a person not in that level?
do you think he can falldown?
I ask you that because that is my problem, if I think that such and such devotee can fall down if I have a minimal doubt about that, I prefer to take siskha to be on the safe side.
Bear in mind that the question is not for judging personal choices which I totally respect.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]Interesting institutional philosophical positions:

1. Guru can enjoy in a materially and spiritually deviant way and still be considered a guru.
2. For being envious of Krishna, the jiva is kicked out of Vaikuntha.

Put the two together and you get a philosophy that says: In the material world a jiva can be a sense enjoyer and still be a guru, but in the spiritual world, for a moment of enviousness the jiva is sent to millions of lifetimes of punishment.

Is this the Vaisnava philosophy?[/quote]

There is notion of perfection put on guru, as if he MUST be perfect to be guru. Thats a mayavadi idea of an omnipotent guru.
[quote] [/quote]
There is no requirement of perfection from guru besides representing the perfect in parampara. So requirement is to represent Krsna and know science of Krsna. Some gurus who are sampradaya acaryas are uttama adhikaris, they can not fall. All, until the stage of prema can fall due to bad association. Symptom of bhava is that even if one falls - he very quickly comes to the same platform.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]ccd: you want us to tag and categorize the whole parampara?
fools go where angels dont dare....[/quote]
Siddhanta Sarasvati did just that and presented his version eliminating names of intermediate gurus, some of whom had obvious weaknesses of being kanistha symptoms. I think if someone is a kanistha, he should not be in the parampara list even mantradiksa from him is valid.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]
So I advocate for following our tradition. You have a personal relationship with your guru. You personally examine his character, and if he has trouble you stick with him and help him out until it reaches the hopeless point, then you walk away.

This is 2008 and there are devotees that you can work with like that. There are still rock star acaryas as well, but its up to each individual to find their guru personally.

Off-loading that responsibility on an "institution" is not a good idea, because yes, the institutional rubber stamp is no guarantee.[/quote]

There are no guarantees, period. Either from the institution or from our own initial verification. That verification must happen on both levels (institutional as well as individual), and must always be there, not just in the beginning, as things always change.

The "rock star guru" style was invented by Srila Prabhupadas disciples for their guru because this is what they were used to: observing rock or movie stars and their groupies. Srila Prabhupada accepted that style because he wanted to impress upon their disciples the importance of following a guru. He even changed the tradition to include a daily guru-puja ceremony, which was to be performed in front of the Deities, clearly going against the scriptural injunctions. How do you think that affected the perception of guru later on? Was it in line with our tradition? How many of SP disciples got to spend a year with him in close contact? Was authorizing his disciples to initiate on his behalf (chanting on their beads, chosing names, etc.) in line with our tradition? How about using taped Gayatri mantra for second initiations?

Srila Prabhupada departed from the tradition in numerous important ways, underscoring the need to evaluate our tradition in a dynamic way, and setting presedents for his disciples. Yes, this 2008 and we definitely need to learn how to judge things by the results they produce, because not all of these things proved themselves to be useful.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]sitapati prabhu, let me ask you a few questions:
do you think your diksha guru is uttama adhikari?
if the answer is no, why you choose to surrender your life to a person not in that level?
do you think he can falldown?
I ask you that because that is my problem, if I think that such and such devotee can fall down if I have a minimal doubt about that, I prefer to take siskha to be on the safe side.
Bear in mind that the question is not for judging personal choices which I totally respect.[/quote]

For me this is also the crux of the issue. It is clear that there are different categories of guru, but why surrender to a person not on the highest level? Is it not better to be on the safe side, ask advice from such a prabhu, help out with his projects, associate with him etc? What is the reason for taking diksha? Why the rush? What does is it add to the relationship?

My take is:

.--> wrong philosophical assumptions --> thwarted social milieu --> peer and social pressure

I might be wrong, that is why I ask Sitapati Prabhu.

[quote]For me this is also the crux of the issue. It is clear that there are different categories of guru, but why surrender to a person not on the highest level? Is it not better to be on the safe side, ask advice from such a prabhu, help out with his projects, associate with him etc? What is the reason for taking diksha? Why the rush? What does is it add to the relationship?[/quote]

My realization in this regard is this:

Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship.

So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear.

Ultimately madhyama-adhikari is a feature of the abhasa stage of perception of reality. All the people in these pastimes are krishnas eternal servants with their eternal identities and relationships.

So its not that we will take initiation from a madhyama or an uttama adhikari, although these circumstantial appearances will be there. We will take initiation from our eternal spiritual master. That is why he should not be given up out of hand. When he is "rejected", this is also a pastime. The relationship is eternal.

Real mercy and respect for the soul Kirtananada "Swami" would be NOT to honor him as guru, on the plea of our eternal identity with Krishna cause that drives him to continue to think he is guru, that he is right after ALL the wrong he did and does, philosophically, managerially, and morally.

Please, read the real story about KS abandoning Srila Prabhupada in the early days, his deviant philosophy and practices, his continuous fall-down, devotees and child abuse, etc. Forms part of history and you seem not to accept or learn from that.

You mix pears and apples, here. We have to be taking decisions based on our level of understanding not on some platform that we do not even dream of having in this life.

What you are doing is violence on him and he should count you and people like you as enemies for his spiritual ultimate advancement.

Following your train of though would be contrary to our philosophy, more concrete, a deviation.

This is comically, the mood you have imbibed from him, that borders into sahajahism.

Sorry to be so direct, but I do it in pursue of REAL spiritual advancement.

Do you remember the example of the tiger? It is a pure spirit soul, but who will be sane to embrace it?

Lord Caitanya did, but He is God and could also do so many things we cant.

If you became initiated by KS, that is your misfortune, do not try to asses that as some kind of pastime, but again it is normal to try to asses some kind of good out of it, as we identify our guru with ourselves .

The only good KS has done to you is that now you know who NOT to approach as spiritual master.. or maybe not even that.

Houston, we have a problem. Come down to earth, spaceship.

[quote][cite] sitapati:
Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship.

So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear.

Ultimately madhyama-adhikari is a feature of the abhasa stage of perception of reality. All the people in these pastimes are krishnas eternal servants with their eternal identities and relationships.

So its not that we will take initiation from a madhyama or an uttama adhikari, although these circumstantial appearances will be there. We will take initiation from our eternal spiritual master. That is why he should not be given up out of hand. When he is "rejected", this is also a pastime. The relationship is eternal.[/quote]

There are so many unfounded assumptions here that one can only marvel at the successful brainwashing done in Iskcon during the "zonal acharya" era...

1. The idea that "nitya siddha" K-swami came here as part of his leela to deliver fallen souls is preposterous. One needs to only examine his activities and mood to determine he is a very, very conditioned jiva.

2. The idea that every guru we have in this material world is our "eternal spiritual master" has zero shastric support and makes no sense whatsoever considering that it takes many lives to reach the spiritual world (bahunam janmanam ante).

3. The idea that we fell from a direct relationship with Krsna and now require another servant to re-establish that link is illogical and has no basis in shastra. It is just another Iskcon myth.

Seems to me that your sentiments are seriously clouding jour judgement, Sitapati prabhu...

Guys, youve missed the point that I am making with this statement.

Kulapavana prabhu, I feel that you have not understood what I said.

First of all, it has nothing to do with "Zonal Acarya brainwashing".

I did not say that Kirtanananda Swami "is a nitya-siddha who came here as part of his lila to deliver fallen souls."

What I am saying is this: you and I are relating with each other right now. We are doing that as a mixture of our present conditioned nature, and our underlying identity as krsnera-nitya-dasa, which is becoming progressively revealed to us. We are in the abhasa of nitya-lila right now. That is the nature of devotional service in the material world. As Swami B.V. Tripurari comments on the verse: "Of the non-permanent there is no factual existence, and of the eternal there is no change" - whoever is around us in ISKCON right now is going to be there forever, so we had better figure out how to get along.

Just as in the unmanifest lila there are no demons, similarly in the spiritual sky there are none of the inebrieties that appear in our relationships in this world. However, the same persons are there in their pure state, and the spiritual relationships that are glimpsed in their shadow form in this world, are fully manifested there.

Yes, Kirtanananda has his place in the spiritual world, and so do you, and so do I.

This is my point.

So while it may appear that a person is a madhyama-adhikari or other designation, this merely indicates the degree to which they have woken up to their spiritual identity. These designations are circumstantial and temporary. They change over time.

you are so transcendental Sitapati, you should send your kids to KS temple, maybe they could take part of some pastimes with him there. After all we will join in the spiritual world and laught about it.

When you said:

"Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship. So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear."

you made it clear that you believe we all fell from Krsna-lila where K-swami has a superior position and thus he now acts as a guru for your wife - and that is precisely what the "zonals" were always preaching.

I have just to express awe of sitapati for being so risky, as to suggest that an alleged child molester can enter the spiritual world.

And even I think its terrible thing to be in his situation and with the size of his ego, I have to agree that since there is no eternal hell (unless you are a Christian or a tattvavadi) and since even very sinful person can get there by the mercy of Krsnas devotees, its not impossible to imagine that KS will be eventually in the spiritual sky. Im quite sure its not going to be Goloka, but serving in some capacity to a tad ekatma rupa maybe. Maybe he will become a cow or something there, for thinking himself to be a guru.

In fact to assume that this is impossible is to minimize the power of the bhakti marga. We should never do it. Its a constant theme in ISKCON, what do you do with child molesters, do sastra apply to them, of course if anyone did anything to my kids I will just kill them, based on sastra. Wonder if that is a vasnava aparatha?

But say kirtanananda gradually, in his next life comes to the point of becoming a kanistha adhikari - a pure brahmana or a pujari. Maybe from that point on he can elevate himself, that is unless Madhvacarya was right and there is such a thing as eternal hell. Maybe he can even become a madhyama adhikara in a life or two, then he can become even a decent guru for someone... strange thing, reincarnation, you never know who you are talking with...

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]When you said:

"Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship. So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear."

you made it clear that you believe we all fell from Krsna-lila where K-swami has a superior position and thus he now acts as a guru for your wife - and that is precisely what the "zonals" were always preaching.[/quote]

Dear prabhu, again I do not think that you have accurately understood or represented my position.

As for what I "believe" in this respect....

Different acaryas have described the nature of the jivas contact with material nature in different ways at different times to different audiences because not everybody will be satisfied with the same answer.

I do not believe anything in this regard, although I have studied the different presentations given in various circumstances by Srila Prabhupada, by GBC scholars, by Bhaktivinode Thakura in Jaiva Dharma etc...

The point I am making here is simply this: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.

The eternal identity of the personality that we see in this moment as Kirtanananda Swami is that he is an eternal servant of Krishna. His identity as Kirtanananda Swami and the activities that he has performed are circumstantial and temporary. Thus they have no permanent existence.

Of the five factors described in the Bhagavad-gita, four are eternal and only karma is beginningless (as confirmed in Vedanta-sutra) but not eternal.

Therefore the identity of each living entity is eternally nitya krishna dasa. Including Kirtanananda Swami.

As far as whether the specific identity of the living entity, their svarupa, is inherent or imparted - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati claimed that his guru told him that his spiritual form would be revealed to him through the chanting of the maha-mantra, thus making siddha-pranali initiation unnecessary.

So from this our philosophical understanding is that the svarupa of the jiva is already present. Whether we are using the "fall from the spiritual world" narrative, or the generated from tatasha-sakti and nitya-baddha (eternally conditioned) narrative - our understanding is that each of us has within us our eternal spiritual identity, and self-realization is the process of re-discovering that.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I have just to express awe of sitapati for being so risky, as to suggest that an alleged child molester can enter the spiritual world.

.[/quote]

I said that he has an eternal spiritual identity and that others have an eternal relationship with him in terms of their eternal spiritual identity.

As far as whether "a child molester" (alleged or actual) can enter the spiritual realm, the power of Bhakti is such that it can destroy more sins than you can commit. Thats not a license to commit sins on the strength of the Holy Name, but the statement that you just made "that a child molester can enter the spiritual world" is trivial. Mrgari the hunter is an example of a person of extremely sinful nature who was redeemed and entered the spiritual world by the power of Bhakti, specifically Nama prabhu and sadhu-sanga. Ajamila is another.

"sita pati uvaca: "As far as whether "a child molester"
(alleged or actual) can enter the spiritual
realm, the power of Bhakti is such that it can
destroy more sins than you can commit."

analysis: the "alleged or actual" quote (a gratuitous innocent until convicted foil tossed into the discussion) reveals either a complete and utter naivete of the facts
or a deliberate disingenous presentation. could it be that sitapatis good wife did not practice the obligatory one year period of association that he has so vocally demanded all adhere to in order to receive the benefits of the relationship with such a "spiritual leader"? is he willing to send his spiritual responsibility, his son prahlad, into k swas newly established den of iniquity that he operates from in hrsikesh? "eternal relationship, eh?"


"Thats not a license to commit sins on the strength
of the Holy Name, but the statement that you
just made "that a child molester can enter the
spiritual world" is trivial."

response; yet, under the present circumstances, that is EXACTLY what these charlatans are using Srila Prabhupadas mission for. they have attemted to trivialize the offenses that they , and those others they have chosen to protect, have commited. we should even tolerate rape of our own person, without protesting, but we SHOULD NEVER EVER ALLOW THOSE KINDS OF OFFENSES
TO HAPPEN TO THOSE WE CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR "PROTECTING". anyone who does this and claims to be "a kastriya" or even "a devotee" is kidding themselves, and others, and should be seen as a pretender. child rapers are not to be "forgiven" as "an example" until a number a conditions(remorse, restitution, etc.) have been fully met and the child abuse settlement and the distressing fact that little or no individuals were prosecuted for such heinous activity is one of the most unseemly blights on the ISKCON of 2008. committing sinful activity on the strength
of the chanting of the Holy Name is the GREATEST OFFENSE, and many do that to this day.

"Mrgari the hunter is an example of a person of extremely sinful
nature who was redeemed and entered the
spiritual world by the power of Bhakti,
specifically Nama prabhu and sadhu-sanga.
Ajamila is another. "

response: Srimad Bhagavatam examples, dhruva and bharata, achieving success in one and three births, are noted for their rarity. even the cited example, ajamila, did not "go back to Godhead", as the ISKCON myth sometimes portrays events, rather he was simply recycled into the
jiva pools that flow from The Godhead. the false representation that some individuals are "free from karma", or "able to take the karma of the entire universe" is both utterly false (and therefore a lie, whether one intended it as such or not) and of dubious spiritual origin. good luck pursuing such a line of thinking.

> even the cited example, ajamila, did not "go back to Godhead", as the ISKCON myth sometimes portrays events, rather he was simply recycled into the jiva pools that flow from The Godhead.

No. See SB 6.2.44

> the false representation that some individuals are "free from karma", or "able to take the karma of the entire universe" is both utterly false (and therefore a lie, whether one intended it as such or not) and of dubious spiritual origin. good luck pursuing such a line of thinking.

About liberated persons: SB 4.30.36, 5.1.2, 6.14.5, CC 1.1.58, etc.
Upadesamrta 1 - guru qualification, HBV 1.77 - guru taking discipless karma

<<sitapati prabhu: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.>>

The problem we have with this simple definition, is that based on it you draw a conclusion that Mrigari the Hunter definitely goes back home to Godhead, something one can get only after hundreds of lifetimes of austerity OR pure chanting of the holy names following the mercy of a Vaisnava. Its not just because your svarup is krsnadasa, therefore you will end up at Goloka, its only if you be so nice as to act on this and achieve the svarupa-siddhi, only then you will join other rare souls there, by their mercy. We should not ever think that its automatic.

So just because every child molester is by his svarupa a servant of krsna, he will go back to Godhead- a wrong attitutude, as there is long road from svarupa to svarupa-siddhi, when you get the rupa. Huge huge difference..

Its not impossible for bhakti, but is not a guaranteed effect of a namabhasa or a namaparadha. No material impediments can stop you, but lack of association with Vaisnavas and lack of desire resulting in pride. My only objections to kirtananada is not his transgressions, but his absolute lack of deep remorse and presence of pride, its only on this basis I assume its impossible for him to develop such rare position as the one of personal associates of Krsna, rare indeed.

Its not that Upadesamrita 1 is the only definition of the qualities of the guru. By that definition a mayavadi sannyasi will be guru of everyone. No, its just a warning to those who want to imitate Rupa, but live like monkeys on the Radha-kund, after all Siddhanta sarasvati following Bhaktivinoda rejected association of the child abusers and pedophiles who pretend to be gurus there.

On the other hand a honest and humble kanistha or madhyama vaisnava is a nice guru, of course its better to have an utttama guru, but who is qualified to follow the footsteps of Madhvacarya?

VEDA prabhu: did see SB 6:2:44, but only in context, that is, after reading these
previous verses

SB 6:2:39

TRANSLATION

Because of a moments association with devotees
[the Vishnudutas], Ajamila detached himself from the material
conception of life with determination. Thus freed from all material
attraction, he immediately started for Hardwar.

PURPORT

The word mukta-sarvanubandhanah indicates that after this incident,
Ajamila, not caring for his wife and children, went straight to
Hardwar for further advancement in his spiritual life.

SB 6:2:40
In Hardwar, Ajamila took shelter at a Vishnu temple, where he executed
the process of bhakti-yoga. He controlled his senses and fully applied
his mind in the service of the Lord.

SB 6:2:41

Ajamila fully engaged in devotional service. Thus he detached his mind
from the process of sense gratification and became fully absorbed in
thinking of the form of the Lord.

SB 6:2:43

Upon seeing the Vishnudutas, Ajamila gave up his material body at Hardwar
on the bank of the Ganges. He regained his original spiritual body, which
was a body appropriate for an associate of the Lord.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]<<sitapati prabhu: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.>>

The problem we have with this simple definition, is that based on it you draw a conclusion that Mrigari the Hunter definitely goes back home to Godhead, ...[/quote]

CCD, I feel you have missed my point here. I am not talking about the process of liberation. I am talking about the fact that everyone has their eternal spiritual identity. The fact that it is eternal means that it exists *right now*. Just like we can see that some days the sky is cloudy and we cannot see the sun, the sun is still there shining purely, it is simply obscured by the clouds, which are not an intrinsic characteristic of the sky, but rather something temporary passing in front of the sun.

Similarly, a person, whoever they may be - Mrgari, Kirtanananda, Sita-pati das, CCD, Janmastami prabhu, whoever, is eternally a pure spirit soul, uncontaminated and with an eternal intrinsic spiritual identity. Due to circumstances that pure spiritual nature and identity is obscured by the passing of karmic clouds - *but it is still there* above the "clouds".

My point is that as we enter into devotional service in practice, which is what we are doing, the clouds begin to thin, and our eternal spiritual nature begins to shine through, and we begin to perceive vaguely not only our own spiritual identity, but also our eternal relationships with others.

Over time and lifetimes of practice the iniquities are purified and the relationships remain.

If you hung out with Kirtanananda Swami in this lifetime, guess what - youll be hanging out with him forever.

Luckily hes a pure spirit soul underneath the karmic conditioning and in the nitya-lila there are no pastimes with demons or demoniac mentality, which are features of this world.

For the power of the Name to liberate the living entity, and a Vaisnava conclusion (as opposed to ISKCON myth) about what happened to Ajamila, I suggest reading Antya-lila chapter 3 of Sri Caitanya-caritmarita, the discussion of the glories of the Holy Name by Namacarya Srila Haridasa Thakura:

http://vedabase.net/cc/antya/3/en1

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite] Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship....So its not that we will take initiation from a madhyama or an uttama adhikari, although these circumstantial appearances will be there. We will take initiation from our eternal spiritual master. That is why he should not be given up out of hand. When he is "rejected", this is also a pastime. The relationship is eternal.[/quote]

The assumption here is that one is automatically initiated by their eternal spiritual master life after life. However, this is not true. It is highly likely that you have not met them yet, having instead accepted someone that compliments your consciousness. For example:

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, Of course, to search out a guru is very nice. But if you want a cheap guru, or if you want to be cheated, then you will find many cheating gurus. But if you are sincere, you will find a sincere guru. Because people want everything very cheaply, they are cheated." (Science of Self Realization, Ch. 2. Choosing a Spiritual Master-Saints & Swindlers.)

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite] The point is this: when a person who has been doing this, and has been authorized as a spiritual master, and has been accepted by disciples is found to be engaged in avaisnava behaviour, how are is the situation to be handled?[/quote]

The assumption here is that Kirtanananda has been authorised to act as guru according to the sastric paramapara standards, i.e : "When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshiped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru. (Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya Lila 24.330, Purport)

But if one accepts as bona fide authorisation one that was approved by some dubious personalities according to a dubious procedure during an extremely dubious and severely politically motived era in Iskcons (documented) history, then I say that person is destined to find himself in the same quagmire than Kirtananadas and many others) disciples find themselves in.

Is it so difficult to reject a proven pedophile, active homosexual, philosophically deviant, nuts case as KS?
Can we condone criminal behaviour as transcendental in the name of being "devotees" and ultimately pure spirit souls?
Oh my, gross ignorance, what is next, virgins in heaven as prize?
It must be something wrong in the "disciple", some kind of sentimentalist distortion of the philosophy, passing as transcendental, to convince oneself that he/she is right, no matter what.
Pull one verse of the millions we have out of context and it will approve ANY activity, even murder.
This is such dangerous tendency, and sitapati is in charge of an ashram? Oh my. God save me.
Anybody, get this lad out of the dangerous street even if a slap is needed, it seems that his "spiritual master" is not capable of it.

It all saddens me so much... Reading the entire Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita, Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta, lectures, letters.. .. i find nothing that even begins to reflect the behavior written about here. If Guru, Shastra, and Saddhu are not in harmony, where is the Truth ? I am so fallen... really... What can i say here though... except that if we fall... we admit that we fall... that we are fallen.. that we are not qualified... that we are not living up to the simple standard set bu His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada for his disciples ... Srila Prabhupada sopke the following in his lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.17 given in Vrndavana on October 28, 1972 : "...So similarly, those who are executing devotional service, but at the same time cheating... Cheating means outwardly very devotional, inwardly doing all sinful activities. Such living entity is given the chance to become a hog and dog in Vrndavana so that the reaction of the sinful activities, they get this body; at the same time, due to their touch with the dust of Vrndavana, they become eliminated of all sinful activities and liberated. So these hogs and dogs, theyre also very important. They are not ordinary thing. But this is the explanation...." This gives me something to think about...

1968 April 26 : "It is not possible to say everything in this letter, but you may know he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1968
by letters at April 26, 2008 01:06 PM

is it about Bon Maharaja? I have heard he went off the bhakti path into academic mayavada and included Vivekananda as course material in his schools?

[quote][cite] borokrsnadasa:[/cite]is it about Bon Maharaja? I have heard he went off the bhakti path into academic mayavada and included Vivekananda as course material in his schools?[/quote]

Bon Maharaja was directly authorized to initiate by his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and that is the only opinion that matters. The charge of "going into mayavada" in his case is totally baseless, regardless of what course materials were used in his school. You only need to read his books for proof of his devotional status.

Its interesting. Are you saying that Bon Maharaja was uttama adhikari, madhyama adhikari or kanistha adhikari? That is a very good example for this discussion on someone who Prabhupada (and other godbrothers) would call pakkamayavadi and still he was authorized? I have nothing against Svami Bon, but should we not examine the case a bit closer before saying - all that matters is that he was authorized. Any evidence on the authorization since we have heard that it was not the style of both acaryas to appoint anyone?

I have no clue (or need to judge) as to what caliber of a devotee was Bon Maharaja. At the very least IMO he was an upper madhyama adhikari, based on his activities and writings that I am familiar with. Rumours and accusations are just that, unless a proof is presented. BSST authorized some (2?) of his sannyasi disciples to give initiation to their own disciples even while BSST was still present in this world. Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj was one of them (he initiated a first Western disciple in GM, an Australian named Burchett) and Bon Maharaja was another.

I might add that this information is based on the book Spiritual Successors of the Six Goswamis, by Muralidhar das, as well as various accounts from GM sources.

My god 144 replies!!! I dont know what you are talking about!

many things, but the theme, as usual :)

Close this merry-go-round thread for lenght reasons. :)