Srila Prabhupadas advise about Guru tattva

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In other words, jumping on a certain bandwagon mentality to spiritual life

can

> simply become another method of avoiding personal issues.

>

> ys,

>

> Sthita-dhi

 

I believe a lot of this obsession with the uttama guru is simply extended false

ego.

[Guest guest]

On 28 Jun 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

 

>

> I believe a lot of this obsession with the uttama guru is simply extended

false ego.

>

>

 

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.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

<<

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>> There is a common nominator for both proponents of rtvikvada and

>> the proponents of Narayana Maharaja. Besides that both parties

>> claim how the solution of ISCKON's problems is in their "hands",

>> there is the same sad underground base

>> that they both build their doctrine on. That is:

>>

>> "Srila Prabhupada failed."

>>

>I think even further underground might be the message: "Since some think I've

>failed, there's no way I can tolerate anyone else succeeding."

 

How about considering the possibility that devotees are leaving ISKCON for

some very good reasons, such as maltreatment, cheating, lying, lack of

support etc. ISKCON does not have a good track record of caring for

devotees. Once someone has been "courted" into joining, the tone often

changes from one of encouragement to one of intolerance, criticism and

judging. If we took better care of each other, I don't think devotees

would be so eager to look elsewhere for Vaisnava association. Most

ex-ISKCON devotees with whom I've talked, were not initially attracted to

either ritvik philosophy or to Narayan Maharaja. They were just escaping a

painful environment and those groups were there with open arms. Because

they were treated better in these other camps, the attraction developed

later.

 

If we want to lay blame, I suggest we don't just point fingers, but that we

simultaneously take one hard look in the mirror.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> How about considering the possibility that devotees are leaving ISKCON for

> some very good reasons, such as maltreatment, cheating, lying, lack of

> support etc. ISKCON does not have a good track record of caring for

> devotees.

 

Anybody can leave as he/she wishes it. That is something we can

understand. But I don't think this is being the issue here.

 

 

> Once someone has been "courted" into joining, the tone often

> changes from one of encouragement to one of intolerance, criticism and

> judging. If we took better care of each other, I don't think devotees

> would be so eager to look elsewhere for Vaisnava association. Most

> ex-ISKCON devotees with whom I've talked, were not initially attracted to

> either ritvik philosophy or to Narayan Maharaja.

 

 

The issue is that a personal choice of leaving ISCKON and joining

any of other "camps" is being politicized up to the extent of

condemning everybody else who does not do as "supposed". What you

got here is different fractions claiming to be the "rays of sun" on

the dark horizon of ISCKON. All are simply struggling over taking

the rains of ISCKON into their hands. What this has to do with

"leaving" ISCKON?

 

 

> They were just escaping a

> painful environment and those groups were there with open arms. Because

> they were treated better in these other camps, the attraction developed

> later.

>

 

That is nothing to blame anybody for. If Srila prabhu is one of

these that you are describing here (an escapist from bad treatment),

then let it be so, ad let it be known then. We are all able to

understand. But why make a dogma out of it?

 

 

> If we want to lay blame, I suggest we don't just point fingers, but that

> we simultaneously take one hard look in the mirror.

 

This is to be suggested to all, when it comes to blaming. What

we have here is basically the blame of entire ISCKON as a dry

field, no good association, no sincere devotee left, all falling

down... Gurus bogus. Leadership bogus and incapable. No spiritual

strength. Prabhupada gone somewhere (he is not LIVING guru anymore).

No source of a vital spiritual strength there. Blackblackblack.

 

Still, you might notice that none said a "peep" regarding those

who found their reasons to "escape". The fingers were pointed on

something else.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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

 

I observed this with Kirtananada. Even well after he himself knew it was time

to

move on, he continued to sit in the Vyasa sana because many of his disciples

demanded he provide that strength to them. The vine is a pleasant analogy - I

used the more tactless expression "vampire disciples".

 

That my guru needs to be an uttama can easily be seen as extended false ego. I

am

not perfect, but my guru is and I am so great because I have associated with

him

and seen his greatness where others haven't.

[Guest guest]

> How about considering the possibility that devotees are leaving ISKCON for

> some very good reasons, such as maltreatment, cheating, lying, lack of

> support etc. ISKCON does not have a good track record of caring for

> devotees. Once someone has been "courted" into joining, the tone often

> changes from one of encouragement to one of intolerance, criticism and

> judging. If we took better care of each other, I don't think devotees

> would be so eager to look elsewhere for Vaisnava association. Most

> ex-ISKCON devotees with whom I've talked, were not initially attracted to

> either ritvik philosophy or to Narayan Maharaja. They were just escaping a

> painful environment and those groups were there with open arms. Because

> they were treated better in these other camps, the attraction developed

> later.

 

 

There was something that left me "incomplete" upon reading these

lines, for several days. What is missing is actually the information

on how *exactly* devotees are being treated better in other Vaisnava

camps. What is their structure, day-to-day life style, modus-operandi,

the organization of society...? How women, children (caws as well as)

are specifically taken care of? What is the social arrangement?

What does it practically mean "to join Gaudiya Math"?

 

 

I have spent some years living in the ISCKON communes. I could

certainly recall quite few situations that left me with a bitter

taste in my mouth. Now, since one year there has been just nothing

of a kind. It all goes fine. Nice relationships. I am being treated

better!! But not that I am in illusion now that it all has changed

on better. The simple reason for that is that I live now my own life,

independently of what's going on in some ISCKON commune. Yet, I

consider myself (and I am considered) to be the part of the "ISCKON

camp".

 

Maybe this is one way of having a "smiling" camp where people do

not get badly treated -- not to have a society where people would

come and get the opportunity to "rub" each with other. In ISCKON

*everybody* feels as a victim of the *society* (in the case one

feels mistreated, of course). It goes from a "bhakta Joe" till

"Paramahamsa Maharaja". But then, the society itself is nothing

but - us.

 

What I would like to see is how much Gaudiya Math has advanced in

the practical establishment of varnasrama dharma system, the system

where all of us would be able to fit in without major conflict

situations and stressful experience. If it is a type of organization

that offers no solution to these problems, then I would consider

it not very reasonable to compare GM camps with ISCKON in term of

"better treatment". Because it is going for mixing apples with

oranges.

 

ISCKON is pioneering here. As far as I can see, other camps don't

even bother about. Some even consider this to be something for

unqualified people. So maybe ISCKON should not bother either, and

thus get relieved from the whole burden and the blame for mistreating

others? Why not just have some gurus giving the classes on the

confidential topics of Krsna's pastimes and give initiations to

those who come to them for it, and let the rest of the unqualified

world make their lifes as they wish? Then none would be mistreated.

But I doubt this is what Srila Prabhupada would want.

 

 

I am not trying to find the excuse for bad things that happens

in ISCKON. I am just trying to look upon a wider picture of the

situation, when it comes to comparing ISCKON with other camps

in term of treating people. Let other camps do the work, then

let us see who does less mistakes. But no work brings about no

mistakes, but no any other kind of results either.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> > One reason is to

> > affirm thier purchasing descisions. Like people who have Apple computers

> refer to PC's as "Windoze"...

> >

>

> You must have heard that on the Wintel conference. Nobody say's such things

on

> the Mac conference. I guess it was already understood!

>

> ys,

>

> Sthita

 

Yes, I remember the old rousing arguments between Mac and PC users.

 

Mac: 3.5 inch floppies are better - they aren't as fragile and they fit in

your

shirt pocket.

PC: Why would you want to put a floppy disk in your pocket?

 

Mac: Icon based operating system is easier to teach.

PC: Text based rules!

 

Mac: A mouse is a useful interface for a computer.

PC: It's inefficient to take your hands off the key board.

 

Mac: Drop down menus make navigation easy.

PC: What's so hard about memorising whole different sets of instructions for

each

different program?

 

Mac: Color is useful on a computer

PC: Color computers are just toys.

 

 

Ooops wait. Sorry about the time warp. I forgot that after all the sneering

at

Mac by PC, the PC now has 3.5 floppies, a mouse, graphics interface, drop

down

menus, and color.

[Guest guest]

On 11 Jul 1999, Vidvan Gauranga wrote:

> > > Furthermore, we know that many senior disciples of gurus WHO ARE NOT

(yet) considered "FALLEN" are losing faith that their gurus are

> > > competent enough to lead them across the ocean of material existence.

 

> This is a silly argument.

> Ananta Vasudeva, who was the right hand man of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

> Sarasvati Thakura, lost faith in BSST that he was bona fide. But that had

nothing to do with the guru, but everything with himself.

 

Respectfully, if my argument is "silly," then your counter-example and the

logic behind it is *irrevelant.* Is anyone of ISKCON's gurus even close to

the same level as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, a nitya-siddha from even

before his birth (ie, his father being Bhaktivinode Thakura)?

 

Furthermore, I am not sure if you are privy to the Ananta Vasudeva's inner

psychology, so you would be well-advised not to speculate about that either.

He is also your paramguru's godbrother. Therefore don't even dare to offer

such a comparison. It is far from being applicable here anyway.

 

But in direct answer to your challenge: Yes, when a disciple loses faith in

his guru, there are two basic alternatives -- the disciple is defective or the

guru is defective. Note here that I don't say "the guru is 'bogus,'" because

there are all sorts of possibilties in between.

However, when we speak of determining the *primary* cause of something (ie, a

guru's defect or a disciple's defect), for our purposes it is simply a

question of preponderance of one side's defect over the other. Very rarely do

we find 'perfect' gurus or disciples, but we can examine the *degree* to which

someone is qualified or not. Remember, the topic under discussion is

the *guru*, so for now, let us focus on that.

 

In the case when the disciple is basicly sincere and bona fide, then it is the

guru who is not very realized (eg. kanistha or low madhyama) and incapable of

offering "sufficient guidance" (NOI.5). In the "Essence of All Advice,"

(Upadesamrta) the condensed instruction on guru-asraya, Srila Prabhupada

states this very clearly. From that we can infer that a guru who is incapable

of giving sufficient guidance will at one point in the disciple's progress

become superfluous or disappointing. That is simply axiomatic. How so?

 

If you can't guide me to my desired destination, I cannot keep trusting you to

help me, can I?

 

If a teacher doesn't understand the inner purport to the material he is

supposed to be presenting, how can he teach a proper understanding of it to

his students? His students will become confused.

 

If the guru himself is not free from all anarthas, how can he set an inspiring

example of purity? The disciples will lose their inclination to follow, chant

or perform devotional service.

 

If the guru is not himself free from doubt and illusion, how can he clear the

doubts and illusions of his disciples? It is not possible. They will lose

faith.

 

This is a practical point. But you call it "silly." I would simply call this

"common sense." But as they say, "common sense is uncommon" -- even in a

spiritual society, unfortunately.

 

Unless a guru is himself realized (which means he is directly acting as an

instrument of Krsna) or acting in accordance with other more qualified

Vaisnavas, he must be defective and subject to all the frailties of a

conditioned soul.

 

Your 'silly' servant,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jul 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

 

> Ooops wait. Sorry about the time warp. I forgot that after all the

sneering

> at

> Mac by PC, the PC now has 3.5 floppies, a mouse, graphics interface,

drop

> down

> menus, and color.

>

 

 

Well, all that is ancient history. Where is the MAC now? How pathetic when

the thing it brags about the most is the different COLORS its boxes are! LOL!

 

 

 

BTW, I'm not a Windoze booster, I'm in the Linux camp. However, Bill Gates'

crappy platform has made me rich in consulting fees cleaning up otrhers'

messes. So, I ain't gonna bite the hand that fed me......

[Guest guest]

On 15 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

>

> Well, all that is ancient history. Where is the MAC now? How pathetic when

the thing it brags about the most is the different COLORS its boxes are! LOL!

>

>

 

 

If I was a gambling man, I'd a bought into Apple a couple of years ago when it

was selling for about 13 bucks a share. It's know aproaching 60.

[Guest guest]

On 15 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> If I was a gambling man, I'd a bought into Apple a couple of years ago when

it

> was selling for about 13 bucks a share. It's know aproaching 60.

>

 

 

That same $13 bucks would have returned you $300 with Microsoft.

 

;-)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> That same $13 bucks would have returned you $300 with Microsoft.

>

> ;-)

>

 

 

But then buying Microsoft isn't a gamble, so they say. But I don't think they

increased by 400% in value over the last two years.

 

In any event, it's easy being a millionaire on paper when you invest in the

past.

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> But then buying Microsoft isn't a gamble, so they say. But I don't think

they

> increased by 400% in value over the last two years.

 

 

 

Dosn't matter what you think. The stock split twice. One share in 1983 is 4

shares now. But don't believe me.................check it out.

 

Bhuta (the Greek) Bhavana

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> Dosn't matter what you think. The stock split twice. One share in 1983 is

4 shares now. But don't believe me.................check it out.

>

> Bhuta (the Greek) Bhavana

>

 

 

And how much did you have riding on MS?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> And how much did you have riding on MS?

 

 

 

 

Actually I have Zero as in nada, zip, nothing. But only because Bill &

Melinda donated $2.74 Million to fund abortions in India. I made my riches

day-trading in amazon.com last January. Everything is out of the market now

and invested in land at the base of the Selkirk Mountains here in Northern

(Free) Idaho.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But on a lighter note: Did you hear that Gate's marriage is on the rocks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melinda doesn't do Windows.

 

 

========================================================================

JULY 16, 19:17 EDT

 

Microsoft Valued Above $500B

 

By GEORGE TIBBITS

AP Business Writer

 

SEATTLE (AP) — Microsoft Corp. became the first company to be worth

more than half a trillion dollars Friday as the software company's stock

price surged following a report that it might create a separate stock for

its Internet properties.

 

Microsoft's stock was up $5.06 1/4 to $99.43 3/4 a share in trading on

the Nasdaq Stock Market. With more than 5.1 billion shares

outstanding, that gave Microsoft a total market capitalization of about

$507 billion.

 

Microsoft's market value far outpaces the No. 2 company, General

Electric, which was worth about $384 billion based on Friday's stock

prices.

 

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Microsoft, which will report

its annual earnings Monday, is moving closer to creating a tracking

stock for its Internet businesses to take advantage of the stock

market's infatuation with the Internet.

 

A tracking stock is designed to give investors the opportunity to focus

on just one aspect of the company's business without creating a

separate publicly traded company.

 

The move would be a way to pay for Internet-related acquisitions and

attract talented employees seeking the high valuations of Internet

companies, the Journal said.

 

Microsoft also received a boost when a federal court jury in Connecticut

ruled it had not violated federal antitrust laws in its dealings with

Bristol Technology Inc., a small software company.

 

A company spokesman did not immediately return a telephone call to

The Associated Press.

 

Microsoft's MSN.com is one of the most-visited sites on the Web, and

includes such services as Hotmail e-mail, the Expedia travel site and

the CarPoint auto buying service

 

Although critics assail Microsoft's take-no-prisoners competitiveness,

investors have favored a company with large profit margins, rapidly

growing sales and no debt.

 

Microsoft's phenomenal rise has created countless millionaires and

made company founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen two of the richest

men on Earth.

 

At current stock prices, Gates would be worth more than $100 billion,

based on the more than 1 billion Microsoft shares he was listed as

owning in a Feb. 11 proxy statement. Allen, listed as having more than

276 million shares, is worth more than $27 billion.

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

If Bill didn't have his legal problems in Washington he could purchase Apple

from his petty cash fund just to trash it as he's done with countless other

companies. I wonder how much of this Windows-bashing is just envy.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

 

>

>

> If Bill didn't have his legal problems in Washington he could purchase Apple

from his petty cash fund just to trash it as he's done with countless other

companies. I wonder how much of this Windows-bashing is just envy.

>

 

 

He already owns stock in Apple. I guess he figures it's a good investment. Or

maybe he liked the idea that Jobs chanted Hare Krsna on their cable

dramatization.

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> He already owns stock in Apple. I guess he figures it's a good investment.

 

 

 

He investment in Apple is less than 1% of his wealth. Not much of an

investment, IMNSHO.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

 

>

> He investment in Apple is less than 1% of his wealth. Not much of an

> investment, IMNSHO.

>

 

But it was more than I made last year. And the year before that, too, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 18 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

>

> But it was more than I made last year. And the year before that, too, I

think.

 

 

That's because austerity (and with it, poverty) is the wealth of the

brahmanas.

 

 

 

;-)