Sentimentalism vs Sadhu's knife

July 7, 1999

>

> The Caitanya-bhagavata explains that if a disciple commits

> vaisnava-aparadha, not only does he lose his position in devotional

> service, but he cause his guru to fall down as well -- unless that guru is

> a *maha-bhagavata.*

Does the Caitanya-bhagavata explain that in the case of such

guru's fall down it is to be understood that the guru has never

been actually a guru at all, that he was a false guru, and that

his disciples have never received any proper diksas? NO, it does

not. Srila das does not explain it either. He simply *claims*

something like that for other people. Because sometimes, see... :

>

> Sometimes, it's painful to cut out ignorance, and that is why a sadhu is

> known to speak in sharp words.

But a real sadhu is able not only to cut in sharp words, but to give

the satisfying and sharp philosophical explanation along it, as well.

Asking too much? I guess so. So one got to simply believe that

who ever cats you sharply, it must be a sadhu. Because a sadhu

does it, sometimes.

-----------------------------

Look at this "pitfall". A guru is guru when to receive the

terrible reactions from a disciple who commits a vaisnava-aparadha,

the mistake that makes a guru to *fall down*. But when it comes to

crediting the same guru for establishing the proper diksa relationship

with *any* of disciples and for connecting *any* of them to the

guruparampara, then he's bogus. Not a guru at al.

I was also told that a guru may fall down also due to the burden

of the heavy karma that he takes from his initiated disciples, so

unless a mahabhagavata, one is advised to be rather very cautions

not to accept too many disciples. Now, another "pitfall" here:

If diksas were bogus and of no value, then *why* and *how* the

bad karma gets only transferred on a guru? And WHY such caution

would be there on the first place if a bona fide guru is

presumed infallible?

Sadhus?

- mnd

Recommended Posts