Guest guest Posted October 8, 1999 Report Share Posted October 8, 1999 At 16:40 -0800 10/7/99, COM: Mundita Mastaka (das) (NE-BBT Russian) wrote: >[Text 2683950 from COM] > >> Are you saying that ISKCON gurus are second >> class or lower? >> >> If yes: The you are yourself guilty of what you have been accusing others >> for the past few weeks. > >Excuse me, I know this your question was not directed to me, but I'm curious >what's wrong with saying that ISKCON gurus are devotees of the second class >(madhyama-adhikari)? Of course anyone can say that, but it reduces the power of his argument re. etiquette towards one's godbrothers. That's all. The point Srila was making was that it was OK for Narayan Maharaja to reinitiate disciples of ISKCON gurus (in good standing) if they had: 1) asked their 2nd class or lower guru for permission to take siksa from NM 2) the 2nd class or lower guru had refused this because then, according to Srila, these disciples had every right to reject their 2nd class or lower guru and seek shelter elsewhere. There are several problems with that argument. First of all, there has never been any objective determination re. how is 1st class, who is 2nd class etc. That applies to all current gurus under discussion, including Narayan Maharaja. Secondly, Srila has been telling us that we must not even indirectly criticize anyone. Yet, he is making judgments about gurus whose disciples have been reinitated by NM (my guru is one person to whom this has happened). Thus he is applying a different standard to himself than to the rest of the conference members. Thirdly, there are many reasons for coming to these difficult decisions. Srila is criticizing the current ISKCON gurus for not allowing their disciples to associate with NM. However, the way they see it, they are following Srila Prabhupada's orders. Srila may disagree, but we all have to follow our own hearts and brains. They're convinced that they're right. Srila is convinced that he's right. Ultimately none of us on this forum will be able to judge either one. It's a good idea to stop criticizing. However, this goes both ways. I don't like seeing people criticizing Srila prabhu, Mulaprakriti prabhu, Jadurani prabhu and the many others who have found inspiration from Narayan Maharaja. However, I don't like seeing them criticizing ISKCON's leadership either for doing what they think it's right. Unlike an issue like child abuse, this is not simple stuff. It would probably serve all of us well to be less judgmental. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 1999 Report Share Posted October 8, 1999 > > > And why can it not be that some of them are lower than the second class? No > offence meant, just wondering. Madhyama-adhikari is quite high a level. It > begins with the stage of nistha. Would be very good if we attain it in this > life. Even to become kanistha-adhikari is not so easy because the kanistha, > by definition, should have firm faith in the Deity. > > Your servant. I agree wholeheartedly, and in the past have ironically suggested the formation of a madhyama anti -defamation league. Not everyone is going to hit 70 homers every season. A 40 home run hitter is still pretty good. Why should I be so arrogant as to think I can only be preached to by an uttama? Srila Prabhupada is an uttama who is accessible to everyone as siksa through his books. That's enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 1999 Report Share Posted October 9, 1999 > First of all, there has > never been any objective determination re. how is 1st class, who is 2nd > class etc. That applies to all current gurus under discussion, including > Narayan Maharaja. But at least there was a clear case of many ISKCON gurus (supposedly 2nd class, able to discriminate) taking siksa from NM and regarding him as 1st class guru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 On 8 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote: > > Are you saying that ISKCON gurus are second > > class or lower? > > > > If yes: The you are yourself guilty of what you have been accusing others > > for the past few weeks. > > Excuse me, I know this your question was not directed to me, but I'm curious what's wrong with saying that ISKCON gurus are devotees of the second class (madhyama-adhikari)? If we put emotions aside, why you consider it offensive? > Okay, if we put emotions aside, lets say that those who charge that ISKCON gurus are second class, etc, are simply envious snakes, etc. I mean, anyone can say anything and then claim innocent of offense. In any event, whether elevated devotees are first, second, third or forth, I am note so certain of our own qualifications to judge it all as if we were ranking some sporting event. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 On 9 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote: > > First of all, there has > > never been any objective determination re. how is 1st class, who is 2nd class etc. That applies to all current gurus under discussion, including Narayan Maharaja. > > But at least there was a clear case of many ISKCON gurus (supposedly 2nd class, able to discriminate) taking siksa from NM and regarding him as 1st class guru. If so, that is their perogative. There are others who see the Gaudiya Math guru's as second class and thus prefer to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and his disciplic line. And then there are even others who think much of all this is childish as it can often be an indulgence along the lines of the mentality: 'my dad is better than your dad because he's my dad.' And the beat goes on. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 On 8 Oct 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > Why should I be so arrogant as to think I can only be preached to by an uttama? > > Because, quite frankly, I'm self-convinced I am an uttama, too, and us uttamas gotta hang tight. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 On 07 Oct 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > >> Are you saying that ISKCON gurus are second class or lower? Mundita Mastaka wrote: > >Excuse me, I know this your question was not directed to me, but I'm curious what's wrong with saying that ISKCON gurus are devotees of the second class (madhyama-adhikari)? > > And why can it not be that some of them are lower than the second class? No offence meant, just wondering. > > Madhyama-adhikari is quite high a level. It begins with the stage of nistha. Would be very good if we attain it in this life. Mundita-Mastaka Prabhu has understood my point. A qualified *madhyama-adhikari* means *nistha* or beyond. Actually, a guru is not really qualified as a bona fide guru until he attains the platform *nistha*, when *anartha-nivrtti* is complete. Anartha-nivrtti means far more than just restricting oneself from sinful life, it means one has factually become purified by devotional service so that the unwanted desires in the heart become cleansed -- labha, pratistha, puja, etc. Thus one is in fact a purified soul, a "pure" devotee, freed from material conditioning. He doesn't fall down. He has given up sex life because of a higher taste. *Madhyama-adhikari* is no easy achievement. We would like to see more of them. A lesser realized devotee can also act as a guru (eg, either as uttama-kanistha or kanistha-madhyama) but his guidance will necessarily be insufficient (NOI, 5). The guidance of more qualified Vaisnavas is always to be sought by all subordinate classes of devotees. A lesser realized guru himself benefits by such higher association. When a disciple sees his guru submitting himself to higher direction, the lesser advanced guru's shortcomings become less pronounced and worrisome. This is being in spiritual "good-standing." Merely conforming to some ecclesiastical board guarantees little, however. We are purified by higher association, not by organizational structure. In the name of such institutional conformity, one can avoid surrender and instead rekindle the anarthas -- the desire for position, name, fame, profit, (labha, pratistha, puja, etc.) -- thus we fall down once again. This we have witnessed so many times. Do we not learn from the past and from the loss of so many of our best leaders? Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 > On 8 Oct 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > Why should I be so arrogant as to think I can only be preached to by an > uttama? Becäuse I äm so speciäl - fälse ego mäibe...? 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.