Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 "WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote: > [Text 2330316 from COM] > > > Why try to perform diksa if we are not doing it > correctly? Do not the qualifications for guru apply to diksa guru (freed from > ALL material contamination, 100 percent Krsna conscious) ? We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not that He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that everyone should take initiation. Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any possibility that we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just don't think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi. The example seems to be that even though one's diksa guru might not be 100 persent free of ALL material contamination, the disciple can still achieve spiritual success. Lord Caitanya's external means of achieving spiritual success was to reject speculation on Vedic literature and focus on His diksa guru's advice to always chant Hare Krsna. We're not Lord Caitanya, so we need more guidance than He was given. Thus, He has kindly provided a Pure Devotee to give us siksa instruction. Nevertheless, the diksa guru has an important role to play in putting us on the path to Krsna consciousness. Personally, I never had much taste for studying Prabhupada's instructions. In what I intended to be a show of loyalty, I once told my diksa guru, "Actually, I don't need all these other things. It is sufficient for me simply to listen to the tapes of your lectures." He became very sober and replied to me, "If that's what you are thinking, I feel very sorry for you. If you simply follow what I say, you will get a very narrow version of Krsna consciousness. To get a full understanding, you have to study Srila Prabhupada's instructions. Otherwise, your spiritual life will be very limited." Prabhupada was not personally present to guide my first steps in spiritual life, but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me indispensible personal guidance. My understanding from this is: Don't minimize siksa, but don't minimize diksa either. Krsna has sent the guru -- in whatever form -- to guide you in spiritual life. But, also, don't be a blind follower. As Srila Prabhupada states in the Bhagavad Gita, "Everything must be accepted with care and caution." your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not > that > He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that everyone > should take initiation. > > Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any possibility > that > we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just > don't > think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi. I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access to my books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara Puri - our parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi sannyasi? I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He did not want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in Bengal? > The example seems to be that even though one's diksa guru might not be 100 > persent > free of ALL material contamination, the disciple can still achieve spiritual > success. I was asking a question when I suggested that the diksa guru have the same qualifications Srila Prabhupada gives for "guru" (100 percent KC, etc.) Maybe not. The "guru" obviously should be an uttama-adhikari. That is the instruction. Maybe a diksa guru does not have to be an uttama-adhikari because he is acting in an official ritual? > Prabhupada was not personally present to guide my first steps in spiritual > life, He wasn't "personally" present for thousands of his disciples either. > but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me indispensible > personal guidance. We used to call such a person our "senior godbrother". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 "WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote: > [Text 2331097 from COM] > > On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > > > We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not > > that > > He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that > everyone > > should take initiation. > > > > Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any possibility > > that > > we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just > > don't > > think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi. > > I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access to my > books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara Puri - our > parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi sannyasi? Hmmm. I don't have my books here, either. A discussion without books -- sound dangerous. But-- I think you are correct about this. And in that case I have made an offense against Isvara Puri, so I hope he forgives me. > I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He did not > want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in Bengal? But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So this is another kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going to approach a hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have *some* spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that even though Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL material contamination." ********************** Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says "Siksa as most important guru." So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And, how is he more important than Srila Prabhupada. We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more important than our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more important than a certain siksa guru. And -- from another perspective -- the guru is one. In that sense Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and the un-named librarian who instructed Srila Prabhupada to print books are equally important, because they are simply two different means that Krsna has sent to deliver the same message. Although in another perspective, it is obvious that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is more important. Still, when the librarian spoke to Srila Prabhupada, he took it as a message from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. So, in that sense, it seems important to remember that it is a matter of perspective. -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is the most important guru. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 COM: Hare Krsna dasi (Brunswic > We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more > important than > our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more > important > than > a certain siksa guru. The diksa guru may ( and in most cases is) be a siksa guru to the disciple. -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is the > most > important guru. > > your servant, > > Hare Krsna dasi It just seems to follow from the following verse. Elevating is more important than regulations, isn't it? See Delivering the wives of the brahmans in Krsna book. The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life iscalled the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the sastras is called the diksa-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the siksa-guru. Factually the qualifications of a spiritual master depend on his knowledge of the science of Krsna. It does not matter whether he is a brahmana, ksatriya, sannyasi or sudra. <p>>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 8.128 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 COM: Hare Krsna dasi (Brunswick, Maine - USA) wrote: > [Text 2331238 from COM] > > "WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote: > > > [Text 2331097 from COM] > > > > On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > > > > > We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a > mayavadi -- not > > > that > > > He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example > that > > everyone > > > should take initiation. > > > > > > Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any > possibility > > > that > > > we would say that he was "freed from ALL material > contamination"? I just > > > don't > > > think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi. > > > > I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access > to my > > books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara > Puri - our > > parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi > sannyasi? > > Hmmm. I don't have my books here, either. A discussion without books > -- sound > dangerous. But-- I think you are correct about this. And in that > case I have > made an offense against Isvara Puri, so I hope he forgives me. > > > I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He > did not > > want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in > Bengal? > > But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So > this is > another > kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going > to > approach a > hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have > *some* > spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that > even though > Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL > material > contamination." > > ********************** > > Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says > "Siksa as > most > important guru." So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And, > how is he > more > important than Srila Prabhupada. > > We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more > important than > our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more > important > than > a certain siksa guru. > > And -- from another perspective -- the guru is one. In that sense > Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati and the un-named librarian who instructed Srila Prabhupada > to print > books are equally important, because they are simply two different > means that > Krsna has sent to deliver the same message. Although in another > perspective, > it > is obvious that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is more important. Still, when > the > librarian spoke to Srila Prabhupada, he took it as a message from > Srila > Bhaktisiddhanta. > > So, in that sense, it seems important to remember that it is a matter > of > perspective. > > -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa > is the > most > important guru. > > your servant, > > Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So this is > another > kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going to > approach a > hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have *some* > spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that even though > Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL material > contamination." Actually Kesava Bharati was considered the disciple of a Vaisnava and he was also the incarnation of Sandipani Muni, or some say, Akrura. > Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says "Siksa as > most > important guru." I didn't give the header its name. Although I do agree with it. So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And, how is he > more > important than Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada is my siksa guru. I have never had another guru (qualified) in my life. He is not more important than himself. Or did you have something else in mind with your question? > We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more important than > our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more important > than > a certain siksa guru. One or the other has to have the qualifications of being completely freed from material contamination and 100% Krsna conscious. Why would we ever want to change that? To be cheated? > -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is the > most > important guru. Ask our resident poet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 Thus the Lord accepted the sannyäsa order of life after full consideration. PURPORT There was no need for Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu to accept sannyäsa, for He is God Himself and therefore has nothing to do with the material bodily concept of life. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu did not identify Himself with any of the eight varëas and äçramas, namely, brähmaëa, kñatriya, vaiçya, çüdra, brahmacäré, gåhastha, vänaprastha and sannyäsa. He identified Himself as the Supreme Spirit. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, or for that matter any pure devotee, never identifies with these social and spiritual divisions of life, for a devotee is always transcendental to these different gradations of society. Nevertheless, Lord Caitanya decided to accept sannyäsa on the grounds that when He became a sannyäsé everyone would show Him respect and in that way be favored. Although there was actually no need for Him to accept sannyäsa, He did so for the benefit of those who might think Him an ordinary human being. The main purpose of His accepting sannyäsa was to deliver the Mäyävädé sannyäsés. This will be evident later in this chapter. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Ädi 7.33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 > > > > but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me > indispensible > > personal guidance. > > > We used to call such a person our "senior godbrother". How do you make me into a "junior godbrother" of my diksa guru? (just curious) ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 1999 Report Share Posted May 21, 1999 "WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote: > [Text 2334354 from COM] > > On 20 May 1999, Samba das wrote: > > >If the > > spiritual master were able to deliver him from anywhere why would he say > > come back to deliver. > > So just how is it that Srila Prabhupada DOES deliver his disciples, Prabhu? Is > he coming back soon? Why are you deliberately mis-understanding his logic? He asked "Why does Srila Prabhupada state that the disciple should not make the spiritual master come back to deliver the disciple, if the guru does not have to be physically present to give diksa?" He is talking about in the event that the disciple does not follow the instructions given, and somehow takes a new material body. Instead of responding logically to his question, you have swept his whole question off the table, and countered with a cleverly insulting question. Janesvara prabhu, your sarcasm is becoming quite tiresome. And the tinge of bitterness in it makes it appear, that quite the contrary to your claims of complete satisfaction in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada, that you are envious of those of his granddisciples who are enjoying the opportunity to personally serve their diksa guru and go to him with their specific questions about spiritual life. I am sure this is not what you intend, but the more you protest that only you have a satisfying relationship with your guru, because all those who have taken his disciples as their gurus are vulnerable to cheating, then the more it appears that you are actually not at all satisfied with your relationship with your diksa guru. You are feeling some lack, and you can't stand it that others are not feeling that lack. This is how you are making it sound. As a mother, I would say that maybe you need to take a little time out from this discussion and come to terms honestly with all the different aspects of your relationship with Srila Prabhupada and how you feel about it. Otherwise, your comments will be simply a disturbance. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 1999 Report Share Posted May 21, 1999 > > Pardon me, but this is something quite new for me to hear. That even the > > direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada got to first obtain an another > > uttama-bhakta as their siksa guru, in order to get delivered by their > > own Guru Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada. > > If you go back and read the excerpts I posted from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, > that is what he says in regard to the disciples of Bhaktivinoda. SBS was > known as an extremely powerful 'simha guru' who did not compromise, and > unhesitatingly established siddhanta. To my mind everything he speaks is > siddhanta. Read carefully (I am afraid to use that word nowadays) and you > will see he actualy says that. Then I am saddened with the kind of this uncompromising siddhanta. That our best ISCKON Vaisnavas (I am afraid to use that word nowadays), the topmost Prabhupada's disciples, are incapable of understanding Srila Prabhupada's books, left helplessly in this whirlpool of the material existence by Srila Prabhupada. Till some another Acarya descends from the Spiritual Sky to deliver them. > > I know this is pretty revolutionary, and I will probably be quite > unpopular, but I just find that I cant escape coming to this conclusion > after reading SBS's words. That's why I was surprised to hear it for the first time. As you say, it is pretty revolutionary. What surprises me now even more is that something like that, which is of an extreme essential importance, was never told by Prabhupada to his disciples, nor mentioned nowhere in his books. I mean, that after his departure, they got to get an another acarya to get the proper understanding of his books and to get delivered from the Maya's grip. > Maybe I need the help of a pure devotee myself > to understand what an idiot I am being in coming to this conclusion. But > those are the stark words of Bhaktisiddhanta. To me this is a principle he > is speaking of, and as far as I can see, it relates as well to us as it > did to the followers of Bhaktivinoda. > In "normal" circumstances I would simply advise to approach your Guru Maharaja for the clearance. But, you have, apparently, already made the conclusion on what siddhanta is, from reading the "Harmonist" article. So, I can't say it anymore. > I cant argue anymore than this, but I urge you to study his words again, > and you will see that this is what he says. ( please dont get on my case > again about reading and studying) > .... Or as you have just said it in the very previous sentences: "To _me_ this is a principle... as _I_ can see.." And as you are just about to say "_I take_ it to refer to..." > OK Srila Prabhupada wrote in English, and did a lot of explaining. But the > principle is there that unless the text written by him is HEARD from the > lips of a pure devotee, it will not have the same effect, and falls into > the category of empiric study. > 1. If the result of hearing directly from the lips of Prabhupada is that now his disciples got to hear again the same from an another pure devotees, in order to understand and get delivered, then I don't believe in that "hearing from the lips of a pure devotee." Prabhupada was not good enough, already. Then the "principle" of hearing from the lips of a pure devotee is meaningless. It doesn't prove itself. 2. That reading Prabhupada's written words, on one side, and hearing directly from his lips, on the other, might be of the different effect, is one thing. But to place the reading of his words (which would perhaps include also listening SB and BG classes from not cent percent pure uttama devotees, since they are also reading and understanding it "on their own") into the category of "empiric study"... well... I know you have read the article from "Harmonist". But. > I might well be wrong, but I have not seen a text that directly > contradicts this. But you did not get any *direct* text that will tell you how Prabhupada's initimate and close disciples got to find now an another pure devotee, besides Prabhupada, to get delivered. You *deducted* it. But let's look it from an another angle. What you are implying with your "direct" implication of BSM's "siddhanta" is that the chain of disciplic cucsession is automatically broken as soon as an Acarya passes away. The disciples of departed Acarya don't have anymore their Guru Maharaja to hear from directly. They must get another one. Got to be "fresh flesh" all the time. From the Spiritual Sky. They got to pray to God to send them one. Till that they are helplessly incapable of even getting themselves delivered, what to speak of accepting disciples. > And if there is one, it is more evidence that we need > help to reconcile the different texts of the scriptures. > So no chance anyway to prove your argument wrong. If there is no such direct evidence to directly contradict what you are concluding, then you are "up" with it. And if there is such, then you are even more "up" with it. BTW. "We" is rather a vague expression here. Some may need. Some may not. > Regarding the scriptures. I take it that SBS is reffering to any > literature written by pure devotees, as opposed to speculative literature, > which may pose as sastra. > Well, you simply "take" it to mean it so. Otherwise you can't keep consistent in upholding your conclusions. This "taking" makes you to lead us into the similar trap that Mayavadi gurus (no any other similarity intended, otherwise!) falls in when they say in their writings "It's all Maya, illusion". "All" but their words in their writings that we got to accept as. So, Bhaktisiddhanta's siddhanta (according to you) would be: - All sastras must be explained by pure devotees. - Any literature written by pure devotees is Sastra. - Hence anything written (by pure devotees) must be heard from pure devotees in order to get reconciled. (anything but Bhaktisiddhanta's "Harmonist") What bring us into that trap that you would like me not to talk about. What can I do. Sorry. > Prabhu, I am not trying to be difficult, I sincerely wish to get to the > bottom of this. > I believe you that you are not trying to be difficult. I belive that you belive in your conclusions. > Suppose SBS is right, it means we have to do some heavy > rethinking. Myabe that is what ISKCON needs. > I guess BSM is right. But suppose you could be wrong in your understanding and explaining of him. In the case of the later, the possibility of offending senior Prabhupada's intimate disciples (including your own Guru Maharaja), by "revealing" them that they got now to find an another acarya in order to get to Prabhupada's mercy to get delivered from Maya, could be quite expectable. Apparently you haven't present your revolutionary idea (as you call it so) to any of your spiritual authority for consultation. You are just about to assume the role of a siksa guru to all of them. To instruct them the "siddhanta" of KC philosophy, as found in the "Harmonist" article. > One thing. If the words of SBS are actualy applicable to us, this is > irrefutable ritvik defeating philosophy. As long as we seem to say that > you need a guru, but be careful in case he falls down. And that if your > guru falls you dont have to be reinitiated you can take shelter of > Prabhupadas books, then that is simply a kind of ritvik argument, and it > makes us very weak in the face of the ritvik idea. > No. Prabhupada did not fall down. His disciples have had his personal association (like your Guru Maharaja, to name one of some). To try now to "apply" those words of SBS on them (that they got to get now another uttama-adhikari Guru to get delivered) is in no way an "anti-rtvik" argument. As far as everybody else, the *initiation* from a nitya-siddha is not said to be the "visa" for the Spiritual world. Both we (the "official" ISCKON) and the ritviks agree on that taking the shelter of Prabhupada's siksa is available for those who are initiated into the process of bhakti-yoga. And if there are any pure devotees anywhere around, then there is no prohibition by one initiated by someone less than uttama (be it even a guru who eventually fell down) to take siksa from. It is rather the opposite, that the demand on initiation from a nitya-siddha Guru as the only and exclusive way to go back to Godhead, that brings us a step closer to rtviks. In that case I will rather go for accepting that formal rtvik initiation from a priest, in name of Prabhupad, than wait some another 20 years till some of ISCKON Gurus pass away in the midst of Krsna-katha in Mayapur, to be told: "See, he was the right one!" > Dont forget that we have been fed philosophy that propped up zonal > acaryism, and now still does not let us realise where our gurus are really > at. I feel sure that many of Harikesa Swamis disciples thought he was a > mahabhagavata, why? Because they were not instructed in the basics of > siddhanta. > Instructed by "whom"? By Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja's article in "Harmonist", like you are being "instructed" now? What does it matter for me wether I believed that HKS was maha-bhagavata or not? How I was supposed to react? To say, "Ah, I just read Harmonist, you are not a bona fide uttama guru, so you tell me to follow principles, to chant 16 rounds of Maha Mantra, to produce Prabhupada's books and serve Krsna, to worship Radha-Krsna, to read Prabhupada's books, follow sadhana.........!? Forget it! First you got to get another nitya-siddha Acarya for yourself to get the proper understanding of what Prabhupada meant in his books, before I accept you as a bona fide guru! You heard for the basics of siddhanta, didn't you?" ??? Yes, I believed. THUS I listened to all those wonderful instructions that made my life somewhat meaningful. He *engaged* me in Krsna's service. He *gave* me that what I would still have to wait for, if it would be up to your prayers (to sent us a nittya-siddha Acarya). See, this Maya make us to belive into something that is not, so that we can serve Krsna better. Isn't that far-out? And isn't that the whole point of having a *bona fide* guru, to engage you in the service of Krsna (the pious activities, as you would say). And what brings us back to the "private" territory -- Why not look rather into own hearth whether you belive that your Spiritual Master is a bona fide guru ("uttama-adhikari") or not (I don't expect nor I ask you to comment on that, leaving it to you). You accepted him in the time of our being fed up with the philosophy of zonal acaryism, same like I accepted mine (though several years later). ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 1999 Report Share Posted May 22, 1999 On 21 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > Why are you deliberately mis-understanding his logic? He asked "Why does Srila > Prabhupada state that the disciple should not make the spiritual master come > back > to deliver the disciple, if the guru does not have to be physically present to > give diksa?" He is talking about in the event that the disciple does not > follow > the instructions given, and somehow takes a new material body. Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have gone back home. I, personally, do not feel that means "physically". Some people seem to have lost faith that things get done in Krsna consciousness through "non-physical" means more often than not. Actually I've always found that to be the essence of the instructions. > Instead of responding logically to his question, you have swept his whole > question > off the table, and countered with a cleverly insulting question. You may have taken it that way but I did not mean it in that way and honestly I do not think Samba Prabhu took it that way. He's a big boy, Mom. And he answered it quite maturely and intelligently. We do not agree on everything but, I think, we have a mutual respect for each other. > Janesvara prabhu, your sarcasm is becoming quite tiresome. Sorry. I'll keep an eye on it, Mataji. This is not the easiest of subjects to deal with after all. But it is highly important I think. > And the tinge of bitterness in it makes it appear, that quite the contrary to > your > claims of complete satisfaction in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada, > that > you are envious of those of his granddisciples who are enjoying the opportunity > to > personally serve their diksa guru and go to him with their specific questions > about spiritual life. Now, now Mother. Don't get your sari in an uproar over Janesvara dasa. Them's are fightin' words. I have no problem with anyone having a personal service relationship with their accepted guru. I do have a problem with someone trying to stop someone else from having a "non-personal" service relationship with Srila Prabhupada, my guru maharaja, because they say he is "gone" and therefore inaccessible. I also feel some compassion for those who HAVE been cheated by bogus gurus and who are wanting to take shelter of a guru who has an unquestionable record of pure devotion. I would like encourage them to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and feel confident that he will protect them AND give them siksa/diksa if they so deserve. > You are feeling some lack, and you can't stand it that others are not > feeling that lack. This is how you are making it sound. Are you taking psychology courses now? I have had some very nice correspondence with disciples of my godbrothers on this conference and privately and I do not discourage any of them to give up their good service relationship with their chosen guru. I do suggest that they keep vigilant in their review of their gurus qualifications and not put blinders on as so many have done before. > As a mother, I would say that maybe you need to take a little time out from > this > discussion and come to terms honestly with all the different aspects of your > relationship with Srila Prabhupada and how you feel about it. Otherwise, your > comments will be simply a disturbance. Suggestion noted. Hare Krsna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 1999 Report Share Posted May 22, 1999 > Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have > gone back home. and since you can not go back to Godhead without being a 100 % pure there can be no failure for his granddisciples to simply cling on to the lotusfeet/instructions of those faithful disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Your servant Gunamani d.d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 1999 Report Share Posted May 22, 1999 On 22 May 1999, Gunamani dd wrote: > > Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have > > gone back home. > and since you can not go back to Godhead without being a 100 % pure there > can be no failure for his granddisciples to simply cling on to the > lotusfeet/instructions of those faithful disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Do you feel you cannot also cling to Srila Prabhupada's lotus feet? "I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically, as I am getting personal guidance from my Guru Maharaja." (Conv. 7/14/77) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.