Evidence for guru-related-problems during Lord Caitanya's times

[Guest guest]

> Can you provide us a list of fallen gurus during the time of

> Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

I don't have such a list. Nevertheless, I will simply repeat that the

statement of Srila Narahari Sarakara in Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta is evidence

that there were guru-related problems during Lord Krsna Caitanya

Mahaprabhu's time. Bhajanamrta was published by Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati also.

 

There is also an edition with Hindi translation published by Haridasa Sastri

and if someone doubts that such a statement is there in it, they can check

for themselves. (The texts have been numbered differently in this edition.

Each sentence is not numbered separately, but each paragraph is numbered

separately.)

 

I can only speculate why a list of fallen Vaisnavas who were serving as

gurus wasn't given. One of Ramanuja's final instructions to his disciples

was to never publicize the defects of other Vaisnavas. Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakura says that one of the teachings which was taken by Lord Caitanya from

Ramanuja was on how to serve Vaisnavas. Based on this, we can presume that

this was the mood inculcated by the Lord: to never see or publicize defects

of other Vaisnavas, but to always see their good qualities. Therefore a list

of fallen gurus may not be presented since Vaisnavas wouldn't like to relish

discussing the defects of other Vaisnavas.

 

> According to Caitanya Caritamrta and Caitanya

> Bhagavat all the associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu were all

> nitya-siddhas.

 

"ALL"? What does "associate of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu" mean? Does that

include everyone one who started chanting Hare Krsna? How do we know for

sure who is an associate of the Lord, in the first place?

 

Anyway Srila Narahari didn't say that associates of Lord Caitanya fell down.

The exact statement is this:

 

evam tu drsta bahavah sri-krsna-caitanyavatare (67)

 

evam--thus; tu--indeed; drstah--have been seen; bahavah--many

(cases); sri-krsna-caitanya-avatare--during the appearance of

Lord Caitanya. (67)

 

During the appearance of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu many

examples of this were seen. (67)

 

This comes just after discussing what to do when Vaisnava gurus have

problems. He doesn't say that associates of Lord Caitanya fell down. I don't

think I said that either. I simply said that Vaisnava gurus had problems and

I am simply repeating it on the authority of Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta.

 

> Once taken shelter of Lord Caitanya, there is no question of fallen down.

 

What about Kala Krsnadasa? He was a devotee, who had taken shelter of the

Lord. How come he fell down? Then we have to conclude that he didn't take

shelter of the Lord completely. So that is my point... How do we know if

everyone who started chanting Hare Krsna at that time had taken shelter of

the Lord completely?

 

> If we accept the idea that a guru in good standing may fall down, and

> should not be rejected, then why since 1980, Iskcon devotees whose gurus

> fell down have been told to accept another guru. Nowardays in Iskcon, we

> have devotees who have already got 4-5 gurus in this lifetime.

 

I would suggest that we follow whatever Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta says. Srila

Narahari Sarakara is a direct associate of Lord Caitanya and he says what to

do when gurus have problems. I thought that it is clear from what he writes.

He says that under certain specific conditions, one should reject a guru who

was previously in good standing (but not at present) and accept another

Vaisnava in good standing as a guru. Please consult the text that I had sent

earlier. It is clear.

 

> This is not to support the ritvik idea, but we should be careful in not

> watering down our Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta by propounding that a

> bona-fide guru may fall down.

 

Are you suggesting that Srila Narahari Sarakara didn't know what he was

writing? Or that Srila Bhaktivinoda or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta who published

the book? Or that somehow they have watered down Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta?

I think we have to be very careful before we make such statements. I have

simply presented the statements of Sri Narahari Sarakara. I am not watering

down the siddhanta.

 

> In order to understand the real

> qualification of a guru, we should study the life of the immediate

> followers of Lord Caitanya and all great maha-bhagavats in Srimad

> Bhagavatam.

 

Perhaps this is the reason why Bharata Maharaja has been defined in the

Srimad Bhagavatam 5.7.1, in the Sanskrit word-meanings, as a maha-bhagavata

both in the Sanskrit and in English:

 

bharatas tu maha-bhagavato yada bhagavatavani-tala-paripalanaya sancintitas

tad-anusasana-parah pancajanim visvarupa-duhitaram upayeme.

 

sri-sukah uvaca--Sukadeva Gosvami said; bharatah--Maharaja Bharata; tu--but;

maha-bhagavatah--a maha-bhagavata, most exalted devotee of the Lord

 

We must remember that in the Bhagavatam chapter that this verse appears,

Srila Sukadeva Goswami refers to Bharata Maharaja WHEN HE WAS A KING in his

first life as a maha-bhagavata. That means that even when he was a King, he

was a maha-bhagavata. And from further chapters in the Bhagavatam we learn

that Bharata Maharaja fell down because of attachment to a deer, even though

he was a maha-bhagavata even when he was a King.

 

This incident is evidence that a maha-bhagavata can fall down from an

advanced spiritual status.

 

Here is something instructive from Srila Prabhupada:

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Bhagavad-gita 1972

721213BG.AHM

 

Prabhupada: Guru is only one. Guru means, as you explained,

ajnana-timirandhasya jnanajana-salakaya, caksur-unmilitam yena tasmai

sri-gurave namah. One who eradicates the ajnana, andhakara, darkness. In

the darkness, if somebody brings lamp, ajnana-timirandhasya

jnanajana-salakaya... The jnana-rupa, torchlight, he's guru. SO MAYBE OF

DIFFERENT DEGREES, but anyone who opens the spiritual eyes, he's guru.

So... But in the sastra it is said, gurur api karyakaryakam ajanatah. If

I accept some guru, but if later on it appears that he did not know what

is to be done, what is to be not to be done, then Srila Jiva Gosvami

says that such guru: parityago vidhiyate, such guru should be rejected.

But it doesn't matter that degree. Actually, if the guru teaches Krsna

consciousness, THEN HE MAY BE IN LESSER DEGREE, BUT HE'S ACCEPTED AS

GURU. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF REJECTION. Because Krsna is actually

jnana. One who teaches Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, "One

has to know Krsna, one has to surrender to Krsna," this kind of teaching

is required.

 

And if the guru says that "I am Krsna. Everyone is Krsna," then,

"daridra-Krsna, daridra-Narayana," he is not a guru. He's not a guru.

He's misguiding. Misguiding. Avaisnava-gurur na sa syat. This is the

sastric injunction.

 

Here are a few points to gather from this text:

 

1. Guru maybe of different degrees.

 

2. Now, one may think that Srila Prabhupada is talking of various types of

gurus other than diksa-guru, that he is referring to a vartma-pradarsaka

guru or siksa-guru. But Srila Prabhupada then quotes Jiva Goswami "gurur api

karyakaryakam ajanatah" that one should reject a guru who is misguided. Now

the guru who is to be rejected in the context of Jiva Goswami's statement in

the Bhakti Sandarbha is the diksa-guru. That is the context in which Jiva

Goswami brings up this point in Bhakti Sandarbha in the first place. So this

idea that Prabhupada's point about guru being of different degrees in this

context is referring to the same kind of guru who is to be rejected if he is

unqualified--a diksa-guru and not necessarily to a siksa-guru or a

vartma-pradarsaka guru.

 

3. Again Prabhupada says that the guru maybe of lesser degrees and "there is

no question of rejection." The word rejection again reminds us that the guru

can be a diksa-guru (explained under point 2).

 

4. Finally, Srila Prabhupada explains who is not a guru--an avaisnava who

professes to be Krsna. Please note that Srila Prabhupada does NOT say that

one who is Krsna conscious to a lesser degree is not a guru. He accepts his

being a guru in the previous paragraph.

 

YS

VGD