devotees of the first and second class

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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...?

[Guest guest]

> 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.'

 

Why necessarily 'my dad is better than your dad'? Isn't it important for the

disciple to understand truly the level of his guru? I would not

for the "all gurus are automatically uttama-adhikari". I know many disciples

(myself included) of former ISKCON gurus, who considered their guru

uttama-adhikari, mahabhagavata, paramahamsa, nitya-siddha, jivan-mukta,

etc., etc., and were very much confused when the guru deviated. Some of them

(in fact, many) have even lost their faith in Srila Prabhupada and the

process of KC. Isn't that an example of self-delusion?

[Guest guest]

On 10 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

> > 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.

>>

 

> Great wisdom, prabhuji. Congratulations. Try to survey how many disciples of

Srila Prabhupada actually consider ISKCON gurus first class, i.e. on the level

of Srila Prabhupada.

>

 

 

The disciple remains subordinate to his master. That is a basic philosophical

understanding. Within Prabhupada's disciplic line, we are all subordinates --

ie. servant of the servant -- duh!

 

 

 

 

>

> As we ourselves may not have the qualification to judge, we can listen to

the opinion of older, more experienced/advanced devotees and compare it to

what is written in sastra.

>

 

 

 

Good point! But I guess only God can forgive us if our perception of certain

'older, more experienced/advanced devotees' does not send transcendental

chills up and down our spines. Not everyone will enter into a xeroxed

relationship with the sames devotees with whom we may have an intimate

connection.

 

ys,

 

sthita

[Guest guest]

On 10 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

> > 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.'

> >

 

>

> Why necessarily 'my dad is better than your dad'? Isn't it important for the

disciple to understand truly the level of his guru? I would not for

the "all gurus are automatically uttama-adhikari".

>

 

 

 

In my mind, this can often take on a quality of wishful fantasy. It is as if a

5 year old is trying to comprehend how much money his father makes, or what is

the true nature of his carear. I mean to a five year old, what is his actual

ability to distinquish between a salary of 50k, or 250k. They both seem like a

lot when compared to the 45 cents in his piggy bank.

 

 

 

> >

I know many disciples (myself included) of former ISKCON gurus, who considered

their guru uttama-adhikari, mahabhagavata, paramahamsa, nitya-siddha,

jivan-mukta, etc., etc., and were very much confused when the guru deviated.

Some of them (in fact, many) have even lost their faith in Srila Prabhupada

and the process of KC. Isn't that an example of self-delusion?

> >

 

 

I would agree, and thus I would recommend, if asked, to look for someone who

is strong and determined in his practice, and who is fixed at the lotus feet

of his own guru maharaja who has faithfully represented the disciplic line.

Ultimately, it is the Krsna factor that makes both Krsna consciousness and the

guru/disciple relationship specifically the dynamic experience that we expect

it to be. It is utlimately Krsna who is reciprocating with us through His

various devotees, and in all circumstances it is Krsna who always remains our

best friend.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>

> 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.

 

So may be said for merely conforming to some vox populi ascertations

on who in particular that more qualified Vaisnava is, and who in

particular are those subordinate and lesser realized classes of

Vaisnavas/gurus are. This guarantees not so much to anybody. Nor

merely propagating oneself as a someone under the guidance of such

claimed "top" Vaisnava guru, and not under some lower Vaisnava guru,

guarantees much either.

 

Of course, it is only the question of your private opinion

about who is "merely conforming to some ecclesiastical

board" and who not. I guess you must have the ISCKON devotees

on the mind, or whom else? Or at least those ones who still are

not agreeing to conform themselves to so-called superior Vaisnava

maha-guru, Narajana Maharaja (or even any other maharaja from GM).

 

So the propaganda machine is in full steam.

 

 

 

> We

> are purified by higher association, not by organizational structure.

 

And? As if in GM there is no some "organizational structure"

existing?

 

If you have (by some chance) concluded that joining some GM camp

means obtaining that "higher association", while remaining in

ISCKON means to associate with some impersonal and empty

"organizational structure" which brings about no purification and

no spiritual advancement, consequently, then again it is all

the matter of -- vox populi. All personal opinions. And if you

don't have such point, then your "information" about our not

getting purified by organizational structure is as well good

as some info about us not being purified by our shoes.

 

 

 

> 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?

 

Yes, this danger is there. However, the "position-name-

fame-profit" danger is certainly not eliminated by merely

some propagation of "mahabhagavatauttama" personal conformity.

 

Don't just tell us now that by merely enrolling oneself into

NM camp one is all of sudden protected from the possibility of

avoiding to surrender, and that one doesn't "rekindle" the anarthas

any longer.

One can avoid surrender to God in the name of *anything*

and *anybody*. Even in the name of conformity to some Narayana

Maharaja. Or to Srila Prabhupada, or even God Himself. Do

we not learn from the past, Srila prabhu, and from the loss of

those who were the personifications of a "personal conformity"?

 

But how about letting people conforming themselves to their

respective spiritual masters in ISCKON? I bet that wouldn't

make you happy either -- it would mean less people leaving

ISCKON for GM.

 

Bloody war for control. When it will be over?

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

At 3:11 -0800 10/10/99, COM: Mundita Mastaka (das) (NE-BBT Russian) wrote:

>

>Isn't it important for the

>disciple to understand truly the level of his guru?

 

I think I agree with you in principle that it's good for disciples to be

realistic, especially in light of recent (last couple of decades) history.

Although it will probably always be painful to lose one's guru, it may help

our spiritual lives from getting completely shattered if he leaves. So

yes, realizing that all current gurus on the planet may be real human

beings (albeit empowered ones) who sometimes make mistakes and who are not

perfect may be good for our mental health *and* for our spiritual lives.

 

However, where I think I disagree with you is that we, in order to do this,

have to ascertain exctly on which level each individual guru is. I don't

think we can ever really know, and it's an exercise that is not likely to

bring bliss to anyone, either individually, or as a society.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi