Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 On 29 Jun 1999, Payonidhi Dasa wrote: > I have stated many times I am not advocating anything that will feel > unacceptabel for some individuals .Then again everything depends on ones level of advancement,like some would never surrender to difficult services. Or say book distribution, or doing Nirjala Ekadasi or chanting and reading more. > Yes, that is personalism. There will be different perspectives and so on within the more general principles of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. But for me a sticking point might remain concerning maintaining a focus on Prabhupada's perspective within his own institution -- judging from some of the things being attributed to various gaudiya camps. I don't think that needs to be a sticking point though, just a matter of basic respect for the principle of what it means to be the founder/acaraya of a particular institution. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 1999 Report Share Posted July 6, 1999 On 28 Jun 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > It seems that if we can claim our guru is the beshtest of them all, then we> must be the besht, too. Life appears much simpler when we feel we can avoid> dealing with our painful personal difficulties. > Ultimately, the guru is not meant to become an excuse for us to avoid > resolving our personal issues with Krsna. In his Cure of Souls series, HG Ravindra svarupa says this same thing nicely: One is supposed to accept a spiritual master as a *means* for spiritual advancement, not as a *substitute* for spiritual advancement. He also characterizes both the ritvik and "my guru is an uttama adhikari" mentalities as one of overdependence upon another personality. In both cases one is trying to shift all personal responsibilities and duties to Krishna upon another, in the same way a vine grows to depend entirely upon a tree without ever being able to support itself. Any thoughts? Gerald Surya > > ys, > > Sthita > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 On 06 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote: > He also characterizes both the ritvik and "my guru is an uttama adhikari" > mentalities as one of overdependence upon another personality. In both cases > one is trying to shift all personal responsibilities and duties to Krishna > upon another, in the same way a vine grows to depend entirely upon a tree > without ever being able to support itself. > > Any thoughts? My guru IS an uttama-adhikari. I'm quite proud and grateful for this. I will still work my ass off trying to learn about and implement daiva varnasrama-dharma into my life and those around me who may be interested. But I am still TOTALLY dependent upon the causless mercy of this uttama-adhikari for any advancement no matter how hard I may think I am working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 On 06 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote: > > He also characterizes both the ritvik and "my guru is an uttama adhikari" mentalities as one of overdependence upon another personality. In both cases one is trying to shift all personal responsibilities and duties to Krishna upon another, in the same way a vine grows to depend entirely upon a tree without ever being able to support itself. > > Any thoughts? > > I would suggest that in our neophyte condition, we might also have developed a similar mentality with regards to what it meant to join a religious instition, as in moving into an ISKCON temple. That the disciple is dependent on the mercy of the Vaisnavas does not mean he becomes co-dependent on their apparent mercy. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 And the mission of your uttama guru is to train you to also become an uttama-adhikari. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and with that in mind hopefully you will find success in your various devotional aspirations. On 06 Jul 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote: > > My guru IS an uttama-adhikari. I'm quite proud and grateful for this. I will still work my ass off trying to learn about and implement daiva > varnasrama-dharma into my life and those around me who may be interested. > > But I am still TOTALLY dependent upon the causless mercy of this > uttama-adhikari for any advancement no matter how hard I may think I am > working. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 << Janesvara > My guru IS an uttama-adhikari. I'm quite proud and grateful for this. I will still work my ass off trying to learn about and implement daiva > varnasrama-dharma into my life and those around me who may be interested. >But I am still TOTALLY dependent upon the causless mercy of this > uttama-adhikari for any advancement no matter how hard I may think I am > working. SthitadhiM>> And the mission of your uttama guru is to train you to also become an uttama-adhikari. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and with that in mind hopefully you will find success in your various devotional aspirations. Yes, this is what i meant. Let me rephrase myself. Summarizing and paraphrasing a Christian psychologist's work for the iskcon context, HG Ravindra svarupa says there is an unhealthy ritvikesque "my guru is a pure devotee" syndrome (distinct from the healthy experience of having a pure devotee guru). Here, certain distinctly personal responsibilities (e.g. following regulative principles and endeavoring for spiritual advancement) are *inappropriately* relegated to the duty of the almighty all-knowing guru. Here, the role of personal doer-ship, one of the five factors of action, in spiritual life is inappropriately minimized. ys GeraldSurya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 On 07 Jul 1999, Mrgerald (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: > there is an unhealthy ritvikesque "my guru is a pure > devotee" syndrome (distinct from the healthy experience of having a pure > devotee guru). Here, certain distinctly personal responsibilities (e.g. > following regulative principles and endeavoring for spiritual advancement) > are *inappropriately* relegated to the duty of the almighty all-knowing guru. > Here, the role of personal doer-ship, one of the five factors of action, in > spiritual life is inappropriately minimized. The GBC certainly hasn't helped matters very much with their long-stubborn stance of not providing occupations according to the FOUR varnas for people to practically engage in "personal doer-ship". "Ritvik-vada" is simply a symptom created by the GBC mis-management paradigm. We will see more "derivations" of Vedic culture until we surrender to the advice of the pure devotee guru to implement varnasrama-dharma. 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.