Answer to Allegations Made Against H.H. Narayana Maharaja

[Guest guest]

> > As for the disciples of other gurus, there were many instances when

> > devotees asked their diksa-guru for permission to take siksa from or

> > simply association of NM or other advanced senior vaisnavas, and the

> > diksa-guru said "no" without giving any proper philosophical

> > explanation. In such a case, as stated in Jaiva Dharma, the disciple may

> > reject his diksa guru and take shelter of that advanced vaisnava because

> > his diksa guru is envious of the vaisnavas and has the false ego. So the

> > devotees did it and NM had to give them shelter. Why should he be blamed

> > for that?

>

> Could you please write an exact quote from Jaiva Dharma? This what you

> have writen sounds quite heavy. As far as I know one can reject spiritual

> master only if he is hopelessly fallen or becomes a mayavadi. Otherwise it

> is recommended that if a spiritual master has a temporary falldown

> disciples should wait for him to come back. What to speak if a spiritual

> master is in a good standing!

 

The quote you requested is given below. I have JD only in translation of

Kusakratha Prabhu. I would like to also see other translations of this

passage. But still it's clear here that the guru who is a "hater of

Vaisnavas" may be rejected, because by being envious towards the Vaisnavas

he loses his "good standing". The same point is given in the

Bhakti-sandarbha of Srila Jiva Gosvami (Annucheda 238):

 

"A guru who is envious of pure devotees, who blasphemes them, or behaves

maliciously towards them should certainly be abandoned remembering the verse

'guror api avaliptasya' (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, 179.25). Such an envious

guru lacks the mood and character of a Vaisnava. The sastras enjoin that one

should not accept initiation from a non-devotee (avaisnavopadistena...

Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.366). Knowing these injunctions of the scriptures, a

sincere devotee abandons a false guru who is envious of devotees. After

leaving one who lacks the true qualities of a guru, if a devotee is without

a spiritual guide, his only hope is to seek out a maha-bhagavata vaisnava

and serve him. By constantly rendering service to such a pure devotee, one

will certainly attain the highest goal of life".

 

If a guru without a good reason forbids his disciple to have a sadhu-sanga

or siksa, which the disciple desires, the guru may be classified as a

Vaisnava hater.

 

Srila Prabhupada confirms that one should not be forced to search both diksa

and

siksa guru in the boundaries of an institution:

 

"A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the

scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no

limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may

accept. ... It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide

spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Gosvami

advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or

customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to

find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in

spiritual understanding." (CC Adi 1.35 purp.)

 

Here is the quote from the Jaiva Dharma.

 

Vijaya-kumara: The disciple is not allowed to reject his diksa-guru. But if

the diksa-guru is not qualified to teach, how can he instruct the disciple?

 

Babaji: At the time of choosing the spiritual master, the prospective

disciple should test to see whether the spiritual master has traveled to the

farther shore of the Vedic scriptures and the science of the Supreme Lord.

The spiritual master must be qualified to teach all aspects of the spiritual

science. The disciple is not allowed to reject his diksa-guru.

 

However, there are two circumstances where the disciple must reject his

diksa-guru. If at the time of choosing a spiritual master the disciple did

not test to see whether the spiritual master was a Vaisnava or learned in

the spiritual science, the disciple may reject the spiritual master. Or, if

it is seen that in the course of his activities the spiritual master does

what he should not do, then the disciple may also reject the spiritual

master. Again and again the scriptures give testimony to prove these points.

In the Narada-pacanratra (quoted in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.101) it is said: "A

spiritual master who speaks wrongly, without logic, and a disciple who hears

wrongly, without logic, both go to a terrible hell for a long time that

seems not to end." It is also said (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, Asvopakhyana

179.25): "A spiritual master who is materialistic, who does not know what

should and should not be done, and who follows the wrong path should be

rejected." It is also said (quoted in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144): "A person

who accepts mantra initiation from a non Vaisnava goes to hell. A person

initiated in this way should accept initiation again, this time from a

Vaisnava spiritual master."

A second reason for rejecting the spiritual master is this: If at the time

of choosing the spiritual master, the spiritual master was a Vaisnava and

learned in the spiritual science, but by bad association the spiritual

master became an impersonalist and a hater of Vaisnavas, then that spiritual

master should be rejected. If one accepts a spiritual master who is neither

an impersonalist, nor a hater of Vaisnavas, nor sinful, but is not very

learned, then that spiritual master should not be rejected. One should honor

that spiritual master. However, with the spiritual master's permission, one

should approach another Vaisnava, serve him, and learn from him the

spiritual science.

 

end of quote

 

I would like to see the proper explanation of the following passage from

this quote:

 

"If at the time of choosing a spiritual master the disciple did not test to

see whether the spiritual master was a Vaisnava or learned in the spiritual

science, the disciple may reject the spiritual master."

 

Can any experienced devotee comment?

[Guest guest]

It is unfortunate that the Gaudiya Math also made gigantic mistakes.

They however were not able to correct or have reformation. Their

mistakes finished any hope of having a "GBC" as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

had requested. Maybe, just maybe, we are doing a little better than

that. History will tell.

 

> The GBC is not infallible -- individually or collectively. At one point,

> Prabhupada even disbanded the entire GBC when they got out of hand. The Zonal

> Acarya phenomenon happened as soon as Prabhupada disappeared and continued

for

> 10 years, courtesy of GBC resolutions. So this would not the first or even

> second time the GBC has committed grand faux-pas's on a scale that requires

> extensive correction if not reformation, as transpired in 1987.

 

It should also be clearly understood that for better or worse, Both

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada asked their followers to

run their preaching movements via a GBC. That remains a dominant

requirement for governing their societies. The goal is how to do

that and how to follow the GBC. Some devotees decide in their own

judgment that the GBC, and ISKCON are deviated and withdraw to their

own worlds whether it is Narayan Maharaja or something or someone

else on the growing list.

 

This was never the request of Srila Prabhupada to us. If we wish to

create an atmosphere where the GBC individually and collectively are

disrespected and ignored, nothing is solved. The GBC is a post, a

body and a vehicle which was selected by both Srila Prabhupada and

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to guide and govern their societies.

 

So just like a person may feel the President of the country is a

rogue or criminal. He may be rightly or wrongly opinionated, but

either way, if he attempts to disrespect the President, it is taken

as a serious matter by the legal and governing structure of the

country. There is the office or position and there is the individual

and both are protected by the law.

 

We are not free to take the conclusions of our opinions into our own

hands and enact a solution of our own fertile mind's choosing. There

are procedures either in place or which can be put into place by the

right means to deal with problems and problem individuals. If we

refuse to work in that way, we become anarchists and may even be

viewed as enemies of the state which has created these procedures.

 

This is how societies work. They do not work well under anarchy,

they usually self-destruct. In a simplistic view, that is what

happened to the Gaudiya Math. So let us remember to try to not

recreate the same demise in ISKCON.

 

We need to work together and build ISKCON according to Srila

Prabhupada's guidelines and desires. Seek cooperative solutions that

fit under those guidelines and desires. We must abandon the desire

to attack and overturn what we do not like or do not understand.

We must also start to see the good work and dedication are leaders

are showing, just as much as we want them to trust our good

intentions and see our sincere service.

 

 

Your servant,

Ramiya dasa