Can guru say some things that Krsna says, but take from other places also?
Social · asked by user [] · 2009-08-01 · 4 answers
I was just hearing Srila Prabhupadas "Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavans Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana", and there is a point regarding gurus, which got me really wondering.
Among other extremely strong points regarding gurus, Srila Prabhupada is stating, "So therefore the conclusion is guru is necessary and guru is he who is representative of Krsna. Otherwise hes bogus."
Then amazingly followed a question, what about those who are partly representatives of Krsna, and partly they add some independent ideas?
Some examples of what came to my mind after years of observing gurus of modern ISKCON: psychology courses, regressions in previous lives, laughing therapies, health courses, institutional authority structures, bureaucracy, mediations, "7 habits of **whatever**" courses, coaching, new-age pop psychology, guided meditations even in public, pushing association of neophytes as vaisnava-sanga, feminism, blind following, flawed guru systems, ..... and so on.... Besides ISKCON gurus "off vyasasana" time, those ideas more and more creep even in their numerous seminars and cousres, and even in Sunday Feast, SB and BG classes.
So, the BIG question about gurus: "Some of them will say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also. What is the position of such persons?"
=============
Pusta Krsna: What about the so-called gurus that take a little bit here and a little bit there?
Prabhupada: So-called gurus, they are so-called gurus. They are not gurus. That is already explained. If one does not speak what Krsna speaks, he is not guru. If you accept so-called guru, that is your misfortune. What can be done?
Pusta Krsna: Some of them will say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also. What is the position of such persons?
Prabhupada: Hes most dangerous. Hes most dangerous. He is opportunist. Hes finding out customer, something here... According to the customer he is giving something, as the customers will be pleased. So he is not guru. Hes a servant. He wants to serve the so-called disciples so that he may be satisfied and pay him something. Hes servant. Hes not guru. Guru is the master. You cannot disobey guru. But if you become a servant, you want to please the disciple by flattering him to get his money, then you are not guru, you are servant. Just like a servant pleases the master. Hes not guru. Hes servant. So our position should be servant, yes, but servant of the Supreme. So guru means heavy. You cannot utilize him for satisfying your whims. That is not guru.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavans Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana
==============
So, Im wondering, are ISKCON devotees still convinced, that their gurus are 100% representatives of Krsna, even when they are "off duty" or "off vyasasana", doing things that make one wonder whether....
If I afford myself a bit of critical analysis of ISKCON gurus I came near to, "off vyasasana", they seem to fit very well above description of those who "say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also". One could easily call them, in Srila Prabhupadas own words, that they are opportunists. "He is opportunist. Hes finding out customer, something here... According to the customer he is giving something, as the customers will be pleased."
But, how about "Hes most dangerous. Hes most dangerous."?
What to do? What is your understanding of this?
Among other extremely strong points regarding gurus, Srila Prabhupada is stating, "So therefore the conclusion is guru is necessary and guru is he who is representative of Krsna. Otherwise hes bogus."
Then amazingly followed a question, what about those who are partly representatives of Krsna, and partly they add some independent ideas?
Some examples of what came to my mind after years of observing gurus of modern ISKCON: psychology courses, regressions in previous lives, laughing therapies, health courses, institutional authority structures, bureaucracy, mediations, "7 habits of **whatever**" courses, coaching, new-age pop psychology, guided meditations even in public, pushing association of neophytes as vaisnava-sanga, feminism, blind following, flawed guru systems, ..... and so on.... Besides ISKCON gurus "off vyasasana" time, those ideas more and more creep even in their numerous seminars and cousres, and even in Sunday Feast, SB and BG classes.
So, the BIG question about gurus: "Some of them will say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also. What is the position of such persons?"
=============
Pusta Krsna: What about the so-called gurus that take a little bit here and a little bit there?
Prabhupada: So-called gurus, they are so-called gurus. They are not gurus. That is already explained. If one does not speak what Krsna speaks, he is not guru. If you accept so-called guru, that is your misfortune. What can be done?
Pusta Krsna: Some of them will say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also. What is the position of such persons?
Prabhupada: Hes most dangerous. Hes most dangerous. He is opportunist. Hes finding out customer, something here... According to the customer he is giving something, as the customers will be pleased. So he is not guru. Hes a servant. He wants to serve the so-called disciples so that he may be satisfied and pay him something. Hes servant. Hes not guru. Guru is the master. You cannot disobey guru. But if you become a servant, you want to please the disciple by flattering him to get his money, then you are not guru, you are servant. Just like a servant pleases the master. Hes not guru. Hes servant. So our position should be servant, yes, but servant of the Supreme. So guru means heavy. You cannot utilize him for satisfying your whims. That is not guru.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavans Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana
==============
So, Im wondering, are ISKCON devotees still convinced, that their gurus are 100% representatives of Krsna, even when they are "off duty" or "off vyasasana", doing things that make one wonder whether....
If I afford myself a bit of critical analysis of ISKCON gurus I came near to, "off vyasasana", they seem to fit very well above description of those who "say some things that Krsna says, but theyll take from other places also". One could easily call them, in Srila Prabhupadas own words, that they are opportunists. "He is opportunist. Hes finding out customer, something here... According to the customer he is giving something, as the customers will be pleased."
But, how about "Hes most dangerous. Hes most dangerous."?
What to do? What is your understanding of this?
user [23] · 2009-08-01
Excellent quote. Its something I always made sense to me but I didnt know Srila Prabhupada had said.user [154] · 2009-08-02
The ideals of the Theosophist as put by H. P. Blavatsky are as follows:-"Let thy Soul lend its ear to every cry of pain like as the lotus bares its heart to drink the morning son.
Let not the fierce sun dry on tear of pain before thyself has wiped it from the sufferers eye.
But let each burning human tear drop on thy heart and there remain; nor ever brush it off until that caused it is removed.
These tears, O thou of heart most merciful, these are the streams that irrigate the fields of charity immortal."
These words can be given practical shape only by those who have dedicated their life for cent per cent service of the Personality of Godhead and without this they will simply remain as golden ideals never to be fulfilled in the kingdom of man. The devotees only think for the fallen and down-trodden, try to pick them up from the mud of material existence and it is they only who try for the permanent benefit of the sufferers from the exploitating and attacking hands of the Grim Material Nature represented by the figure of the Goddess Kalika in destructive mode.
"Charity immortal" can be effected only when we are able to revive ones remembrance of the eternal service of the Personality of Godhead. How this service can be performed is a subject for delineation in another chapter but as the Theosophist says that to become a citizen in the kingdom of God implies responsibility, duty and sacrifice, the responsibility of a Vaisnavite is to revive in the consciousness of every one and all, the transcendental relation of Godhead. The duty is first to engage oneself in the transcendental service of the Personality of Godhead and then to try to engage others also in the same transcendental engagement and therefore there must be sacrifice of life, money, intelligence and word for the propagation and revival of such transcendental activities. Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed His life for this cause and everyone who wants to enter into the Kingdom of God must be ready to sacrifice at least portion of his income if not other things in order to turn this hell into the Kingdom of God. God is Great and He reserves the right of not being exposed to the mundane speculationist and dry philosophers but He appears Himself by His own Will and Independence when He is offered transcendental loving services in all respects. The Sun appears in the morning just out of His own accord and not being bound up by the extraneous effort of the scientist. The scientist will fail to make appear the Sun at night by the discovery of all searchlights and scientific instruments. When He appears, ignorance disappears and one is able to see Him All-Good, All-Knowledge and All-Beautiful and one is also able to see himself too, that he is also all-good, all-knowledge and all-beautiful qualitatively. When he rises one can see the sun in the rays of the sun and not only the sun but also himself and all other things by him. As with the appearance of the Sun the darkness flies away so with the appearance of Godhead by His transcendental Name, Fame, Form, Qualities, etc., ignorance, poverty and wretchedness disappears; that is the verdict of all savants and scriptures.
The Theosophist tries to know the Godhead and His Kingdom in the Pattern by slow degrees in the process of self-effort and by the inductive process of generalisation but the Vaisnavites process is the opposite. He approaches a Superior Authority who knows Godhead and His kingdom and tries to know from him submissively by the process of deduction in a mode of service and relevant sincere questions for knowing the truth. The thirty-fourth sloka of the fourth chapter of Bhagwat Geeta enjoins this in the following words:-
"Learn this (knowledge of Godhead and His Kingdom, etc.) by doing reverence (i.e., by becoming disciple) by counter-questions and by services. The Wise (one who has realised Godhead and His Kingdom) who has seen the Truth will teach (this knowledge) unto thee." [Bg. 4.34]
The process of the Vaisnavite is easier and perfect than the process of the empiric philosophers who try to know God and His Kingdom by dint of their poor fund of limited senses and imperfect knowledge derived from sensual speculation. In ordinary course of our life also we approach to the right person for learning a subject perfectly. We do not approach an engineer if we want to learn the science of medicines. Similarly if we want to know God and His kingdom or if we want to be servant of God, we must approach a real servant of God and must not approach one who is a servant of dog. Unless therefore one has not approached to the feet of one who is transcendentally wise and perfect, it is useless to talk of God and His kingdom.
[This article also appears as the final part of the article "Theosophy Ends in Vaishnavism" in Back to Godhead Vol I Parts I-IV published in 1944]
user [149] · 2009-08-02
Attached is an interesting "Memo to all GBC and Temple Presidents" written in 1972 which provides a possible answer to the question at hand.user [154] · 2009-08-03
Letter is literally illiterate. No wonder Prabhupada did not desire more followers like that...