Siksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

On 09 Jul 1999, Vijay Pai wrote:

> Prabhuji,

> I find it ironic that you say the above while still upholding

> Payonidhi prabhu as a terrific example of how someone saw the

> light, accepted a shiksha guru guide, etc. In particular, Payonidhi

> prabhu has _explicitly_ stated on the Krishna-Katha conference

> that he believes that the jIva has fallen. He said this _after_

> "accepting" Narayana Maharaja as a shiksha guru. What kind of

> shiksha is this, that he feels fit to reject whenever he wants

> to? Are you _sure_ that you want to uphold him as an example

> for the rest of us to follow?

 

The example to follow from Payonidhi Prabhu is the ability to be open-minded

and learn from all Vaisnavas, irrespective of institutional affiliations, and

to take lessons from those who are by far our seniors. It is especially

encouraging to observe someone come back from a critical mood to an embracing

one.

 

Learning from senior Vaisnavas, however, doesn't mean swallowing everything

hook, line and sinker. *Siksa* comes in stages and degrees. The relationship

with a siksa-guru is more as a friend, with greater space for differences of

opinion. It depends upon the relationship.

 

As far as the "fall of the jiva" is concerned, I personally remain uncommitted

to any hard and fast position on either side. I simply want to point out the

philosophical implications of ascribing to the "hard" Fall theory promoted by

current ISKCON policy.

 

Progressive spiritual understanding is like a razor's edge. Given the

different things Srila Prabhupada has himself stated on the issue, it would

seem appropriate to maintain a balanced view. This is my (humble) position of

advocacy.

 

Regarding GBC resolutions on the Fall, GBC "managers" have no business

issuing *decrees* about philosophical questions. Only sadhus with sufficient

adhikara have that right. Gaura Govinda Swami was quite correct in his

critique on this point. What is the philosophical value of a vote consisting

of a "majority" of conditioned souls? This is but another example of the GBC

overstepping their position (as "ultimate MANAGERIAL authority") and presuming

authority where they don't have it.

 

Previously, the misconception was that INDIVIDUALLY THE GBC-Zonal Acarya could

act as Srila Prabhupada. Now the GBC's think that COLLECTIVELY, they can act

as ACARYA, Srila Prabhupada. This is ISKCON's version of "old wine in a new

bottle." But without proper aeration during the fermentation process, wine

turns into formaldehdye, a poison. Similarly, without proper higher

association (sadhu-sanga), devotion spoils into some deviant or lesser

understanding. Choose your "wine" carefully!

 

Frankly,

 

Srila dasa