Siksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

On 30 Jun 1999, Gokula das wrote:

> I asked the first to visit what his new name was and he replied that he told

NM that he liked his existing name. NM then had asked him who gave him this

name. He told him that he received his name from Bhavananda to which NM said

"oh, this is not good. Anyway I will take this name and purify it and give it

back to you."

 

> Can a name of Krsna become impure?

 

SB 6.2.32 purpt "In our KC movement, we therefore change a devotee's name to a

form that reminds him of Visnu…. Therefore change of names at the time of

initiation is essential. The KC movement gives one an opportunity to remember

Krsna somehow or other."

 

Our relationship with Krsna and His name is imparted to the disciple by the

bonafide diksa-guru through the process of initiation. Prabhupada states in

his original KC record album that the holy name is "more efficacious" when

heard from the lips of a pure devotee. Conversely, the Name can be "more

polluted" by receiving it from a less reliable or untrustworthy source. For

instance, when a Mayavadi guru teaches his followers to chant "Govinda,

Gopala," are they uttering the pure name? We have to consider where did they

receive the name from? What associations do they make? "So'ham.I am

that." All bogus.

 

Similarly, the mundane person, when he hears the name "Radha," may simply

remember the barber's daughter. Therefore, the names of Krsna can seemingly

be contaminated according to their context.

 

Consequently, one's degree of realization and sense of identity as "Krsna

dasa," or "Radha dasi" is intrinsically affected by the quality of

relationship with one's guru, who provides divya-jnana into the heart. By

previous association with one's former fallen guru, that remembrance as "Krsna

dasa" is certainly polluted. Therefore, the previous connection with a certain

name and identity requires "purification" if not a complete change by a

suddha-bhakta.

 

Does that sound okay?

 

[iSKCON gurus typically change names at re-initiation without so much as an

explanation of how or why.]

 

> The second who came to visit gave me a personal invitation from NM to come

and see him. I refused the invitation. He them said that if I came I would be

allowed a personal darsan. I again refused. He then asked me why I did not

want to hear from NM to which I replied that his philosophy differed from

Srila Prabhupada's. He questioned how and I replied "about the origin of the

soul coming from the spiritual world." He then said "this philosophy of the

soul coming from the spiritual world is sinful, this is apasiddhantic.

Prabhupada only preached like that to allow for our western christian

mindset."

 

> This statement about the christian mindset does not make sense as christians

would feel more comfortable with the origin in the material world rather than

falling from the spiritual world concept.

 

As far as the fall of the jiva, it is the ISKCON conception that reflects a

distinctly Judeo-Christian flavor, ie falling from "the Garden of Eden."

Being a conditioned soul myself, I cannot speak definitively, but I would

humbly suggest the possibility that it is your understanding that is

backwards.

 

> Was Srila Prabhupada teaching apasiddhanta?

 

Srila Prabhupada, of course, was not teaching apasiddhanta, it is we in ISKCON

who are. We have missed the point. In one purport Prabhupada clearly states

that the CONCLUSION is that a conditioned soul cannot properly understand how

the soul falls into this material world. Throughout his writings, Prabhupada

has offered various explanations, but the fact is that Prabhupada himself

seemed ambivalent on the issue because the phenomenon itself is not

comprehensible to a conditioned soul. If anything, Prabhupada preached a

conception that would harmonize with our Christian background and at the same

time be very encouraging for us. Brilliant preaching, I call it.

 

But if we get stuck on that particular explanation - as it seems ISKCON

has -- it becomes an apasiddhanta where we begin to draw all sorts of false

conclusions from it. ie, such thinking that we just "automatically" return to

Goloka, etc.

 

> I reject the fruit as unpalatable, I reject the tree.

 

You certainly have the right to make your own life choices, but you would be

well-advised not to make public statements condemning superior Vaisnavas just

because they APPEAR to have different opinions than Srila Prabhupada's. But

even at that you haven't fairly investigated the matter.

 

The real difference is what *YOU* UNDERSTAND Prabhupada meant and what you

THINK Narayan Maharaja has said. But have you thoroughly examined his writings

and that of ALL the Gaudiya Mathas (they all concur on this "fall of the jiva"

point) to get a sufficient background for making a sound judgment? From your

highly dismissive statements I think you are not even justified in coming to

ANY CONCLUSIONS.

 

This is the meaning when I suggested you are being *disingenuous*: "not

straightforward or honest." You are misleading yourself and others by airing

unwarranted opinions.

 

Even if we admit there are some supposed philosophical differences between NM

and SP (I am convinced there aren't), we must be very careful about slandering

superior Vaisnavas. Caitanya-bhagavata warns us not to take sides when there

are (apparent) disagreements between senior Vaisnavas; rather, we should take

it as a "pastime." Because by taking sides and criticizing the other senior

Vaisnava, we commit vaisnva aparadha and fall down from devotional serivice -

all in the name of "defending Prabhupada's philosophy," a philosophy we may

very well not know ourselves.

 

Forgive me if my words seem sharp, but your postings clearly show that you

need to become more conversant on these issues before you speak so strongly

against senior Vaisnavas.

 

Daso'smi,

Srila dasa