Siksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

> Anyway, whatever his intentions might be, one evident thing is at

> least that he speaks bad in *public* to *uninformed* and *unconcerned*

> audience about entire ISCKON and all ISCKON leaders and gurus.

 

> So, judge for yourself what no-cooperation with Narayana Maharaja

> ISCKON is to be blamed for.

 

> ys mnd

 

Thankyou for the clarification. Now I understood everything better.

ys Harsi das

[Guest guest]

On June 22, Harsi das wrote:

> I think we better leave it up to Krsna, to decide WHO was or is a bonafide

or NON bonafide spiritual master, otherwise it may happen that we dont know

WHO or WHAT we are talking about...

 

I suppose my caution to Mahanidhi prabhu also extends to you, judging by your

former spiritual master (HKS). On that note, it would seem well warranted for

you to become a little more introspective and soul-searching as how you will

fill the vacuum in your lif that has now become more apparent since Harikesa

Swami's apostasy (spiritual demise).

 

In Upadesamrta, Srila Rupa Goswami enjoins a serious spiritual aspirant

(krsneti manasadrieyta...) to properly associate with devotees by learning how

to discriminate between the various classes of Vaisnavas -- kanistha adhikari,

madhyama adhikari and uttama-adhikari. In his purport to this critical verse,

Srila Prabhupada points out the importance of accepting the 1st class Vaisnava

as one's spiritual master. If one has mistaken a 2nd or 3rd class devotee

(kanisthas can also be very impressive) for a uttama, besides being

unfortunate, this indicates the candidate has not yet realized the practical

purport to Rupa Goswami's instruction. One therefore NEEDS the compassionate

association of a truly qualified sadhu to advance progressively on the path of

spiritual understanding.

 

In this connection, Rupa Goswami's instruction also applies to Srila

Prabhupada's disciples as well as to other disciples of ISKCON gurus who have

accepted a guru who is not sufficiently qualified, even that guru may not be

considered "fallen" by GBC standards. The GBC approval system certifies a

prospective initiating guru merely as "not fallen," but this says little about

his actual qualification to guide and act as sad-guru. Dynamic association

with highly advanced sadhus (siksa-gurus) is absolutely necessary at every

stage of our spiritual life, especially for neophyte practitioners.

 

Prabhupada's disciples are in no less of a perilous condition being bereft of

the manifest siksa-guru in their life. Welcome to the lonely hearts club! But

let's not remain there... Find highly advanced devotees and associate with

them.

 

As a final note, I always considered Harikesa Prabhu my friend and benefactor.

However, we can mince no words when it comes to a proper philosophical

understanding: Harikesa Prabhu is not, nor ever was, a genuinely qualified

(ie, "bonafide") spiritual master, a sad-guru, capable of delivering his

disciples to perfection (realizing their nitya-svarupa). That Harikesa

performed wonderful service, helping and inspiring thousands of followers

along the path and was a guru of sorts (eg, vatma-pradarsaka, etc.) no doubt.

But a *bonafide* guru?

We can definitively say not. Judge by the result: what is he doing now?

 

Speaking frankly,

 

Srila dasa

 

 

> > It is a great offense to call an honest man a thief.

> > From my own experience and observation, I can confidently state that you

don't know WHO or WHAT you are talking about. Please be careful.

 

> > For someone as yourself who made the grave error of mistaking and

accepting a NON bona fide guru for a spiritual master, you display a decided

lack of humility, remorse and introspection.

[Guest guest]

On 26 Jun 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

>

> I suppose my caution to Mahanidhi prabhu also extends to you, judging by

your former spiritual master (HKS). On that note, it would seem well

warranted for you to become a little more introspective and soul-searching as

how you will fill the vacuum in your lif that has now become more apparent

since Harikesa Swami's apostasy (spiritual demise).

>

 

 

In my opinion, this attitude is extremely obnoxious -- and follwing humbly in

your line I plea I am only speaking the harsh truth. Who are we to judge the

vacume or non-vacume in the life of another Vaisnava? Who is to say those who

took diksa from one devotee had absolutely no sense of siksa with Srila

Prabhupada or any of his other senior men?

 

That we might take diksa or siksa from one devotee does not justify an

offensive attitude towards others. Have we learned nothing from our experience

within ISKCON in the early '80's?

 

 

 

>

> In this connection, Rupa Goswami's instruction also applies to Srila

> Prabhupada's disciples as well as to other disciples of ISKCON gurus who

have accepted a guru who is not sufficiently qualified, even that guru may not

be considered "fallen" by GBC standards.

>

 

 

I believe better to allow the prospective disciples judge such things for

themselves, based on guru/sadhu and sastra. Not that we proclaim everyone

unqualified excect for our favorite personal choice.

 

Fortunately, all these unqualified Prabhupada disciples had an uttama guru,

and thus they are surely saved. Without a doubt, getting the association of

such 'saved' devotees could be considered auspicious even by ISKCON's most

voracious critics.

 

 

 

> The GBC approval system certifies a prospective initiating guru merely as

"not fallen," but this says little about his actual qualification to guide and

act as sad-guru.

>

 

 

The GBC is not in the business of labeling the relationship between the

devotees and both Krsna and Srila Prabhupada as either 'pure' or 'impure'. But

it does appear to be an activity that you seem to maintain full enthusiasm

for. The guru/disciple relationship is both a personal and intimate exchange.

The GBC is not attempting to beaurocratize this most significant relationship.

 

On the other hand, the GBC has stated they will recognize such relationships

within the institution if at least a certain minimum standard of Vaisvava

behaviour is properly maintained. They are not presenting themselves as

bestowers of gurudom as if they held some exclusive franchise on behalf of

Lord Caitanya.

 

 

 

> Dynamic association

> with highly advanced sadhus (siksa-gurus) is absolutely necessary at every

stage of our spiritual life, especially for neophyte practitioners.

>

 

 

I am concerned that you appear to want to make it your mission to convince

those of us working within ISKCON that we are not getting spiritual

nourishment within our current association. It almost appears as if you wish

to become our orginizational big brother. Some may be satisfied, others may

look elsewhere, that is okay by me. But a certain righteous canvassing

mentality is somewhat awkward to place within the confines of Vaisvava

ettiquete.

 

 

> Prabhupada's disciples are in no less of a perilous condition being bereft

of the manifest siksa-guru in their life. Welcome to the lonely hearts club!

But let's not remain there... Find highly advanced devotees and associate

with them.

>

 

 

First, we minimize both Prabhupada and the Vaisnava siddhanta to say one is

bereft of his spiritual masters association simply due to a physical absense.

Even when Prabhuada was on the planet, expecially during his later years while

in the West, he was not so readily available in his physical form. He did say

he was available to his disciples by other means.

 

That you find yourself in Prabhupada's association with someone who is not

Srila Prabhupada is your personal experience, apparently. I find it hard to

believe Prabhupada is limitting his association through only one such venue.

It is definitely not my experience.

 

 

 

> Harikesa Prabhu is not, nor ever was, a genuinely qualified

> (ie, "bonafide") spiritual master, a sad-guru, capable of delivering his

disciples to perfection (realizing their nitya-svarupa). That Harikesa

performed wonderful service, helping and inspiring thousands of followers

along the path and was a guru of sorts (eg, vatma-pradarsaka, etc.) no doubt.

But a *bonafide* guru?

>

 

 

There are many levels from which devotees can offer instructions. That

Harikesa was not an infallible pure devotee was apparent to many long before

the current debacle. That he attempted to serve Srila Prabhupada according to

his utmost capacity was also always appreciated by the senior Vaisnavas. Krsna

remains God, and Prabhupada remains the founder/acarya of this particular

ISKCON institution.

 

 

> We can definitively say not. Judge by the result: what is he doing now?

>

>

 

Let Prabhupada judge in the ultimate sense. Harikesa Prabhu is his initiated

disciple, not ours.

 

ys,

 

Sthita