Siksa as most important guru

[Guest guest]

> > Pardon me, but this is something quite new for me to hear. That even the

> > direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada got to first obtain an another

> > uttama-bhakta as their siksa guru, in order to get delivered by their

> > own Guru Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada.

>

> If you go back and read the excerpts I posted from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta,

> that is what he says in regard to the disciples of Bhaktivinoda. SBS was

> known as an extremely powerful 'simha guru' who did not compromise, and

> unhesitatingly established siddhanta. To my mind everything he speaks is

> siddhanta. Read carefully (I am afraid to use that word nowadays) and you

> will see he actualy says that.

 

Then I am saddened with the kind of this uncompromising siddhanta.

That our best ISCKON Vaisnavas (I am afraid to use that word nowadays),

the topmost Prabhupada's disciples, are incapable of understanding

Srila Prabhupada's books, left helplessly in this whirlpool of the

material existence by Srila Prabhupada. Till some another Acarya

descends from the Spiritual Sky to deliver them.

 

 

>

> I know this is pretty revolutionary, and I will probably be quite

> unpopular, but I just find that I cant escape coming to this conclusion

> after reading SBS's words.

 

That's why I was surprised to hear it for the first time. As you

say, it is pretty revolutionary.

 

What surprises me now even more is that something like that, which

is of an extreme essential importance, was never told by Prabhupada

to his disciples, nor mentioned nowhere in his books. I mean, that

after his departure, they got to get an another acarya to get the

proper understanding of his books and to get delivered from the

Maya's grip.

 

 

> Maybe I need the help of a pure devotee myself

> to understand what an idiot I am being in coming to this conclusion. But

> those are the stark words of Bhaktisiddhanta. To me this is a principle he

> is speaking of, and as far as I can see, it relates as well to us as it

> did to the followers of Bhaktivinoda.

>

 

In "normal" circumstances I would simply advise to approach

your Guru Maharaja for the clearance. But, you have, apparently,

already made the conclusion on what siddhanta is, from reading

the "Harmonist" article. So, I can't say it anymore.

 

 

> I cant argue anymore than this, but I urge you to study his words again,

> and you will see that this is what he says. ( please dont get on my case

> again about reading and studying)

>

 

.... Or as you have just said it in the very previous sentences:

"To _me_ this is a principle... as _I_ can see.." And as you

are just about to say "_I take_ it to refer to..."

 

 

 

> OK Srila Prabhupada wrote in English, and did a lot of explaining. But the

> principle is there that unless the text written by him is HEARD from the

> lips of a pure devotee, it will not have the same effect, and falls into

> the category of empiric study.

>

 

1. If the result of hearing directly from the lips of Prabhupada

is that now his disciples got to hear again the same from an

another pure devotees, in order to understand and get delivered,

then I don't believe in that "hearing from the lips of a pure

devotee." Prabhupada was not good enough, already. Then the

"principle" of hearing from the lips of a pure devotee is

meaningless. It doesn't prove itself.

 

2. That reading Prabhupada's written words, on one side, and hearing

directly from his lips, on the other, might be of the different

effect, is one thing. But to place the reading of his words (which

would perhaps include also listening SB and BG classes from not

cent percent pure uttama devotees, since they are also reading and

understanding it "on their own") into the category of "empiric

study"... well... I know you have read the article from "Harmonist".

But.

 

 

> I might well be wrong, but I have not seen a text that directly

> contradicts this.

 

But you did not get any *direct* text that will tell you how

Prabhupada's initimate and close disciples got to find now

an another pure devotee, besides Prabhupada, to get delivered.

You *deducted* it.

 

But let's look it from an another angle. What you are implying

with your "direct" implication of BSM's "siddhanta" is that

the chain of disciplic cucsession is automatically broken

as soon as an Acarya passes away. The disciples of departed

Acarya don't have anymore their Guru Maharaja to hear from

directly. They must get another one. Got to be "fresh flesh"

all the time. From the Spiritual Sky. They got to pray to God

to send them one. Till that they are helplessly incapable of

even getting themselves delivered, what to speak of accepting

disciples.

 

 

> And if there is one, it is more evidence that we need

> help to reconcile the different texts of the scriptures.

>

 

So no chance anyway to prove your argument wrong. If there

is no such direct evidence to directly contradict what

you are concluding, then you are "up" with it. And if there

is such, then you are even more "up" with it.

 

 

BTW. "We" is rather a vague expression here. Some may need.

Some may not.

 

 

 

> Regarding the scriptures. I take it that SBS is reffering to any

> literature written by pure devotees, as opposed to speculative literature,

> which may pose as sastra.

>

 

Well, you simply "take" it to mean it so. Otherwise you can't keep

consistent in upholding your conclusions.

 

This "taking" makes you to lead us into the similar trap that

Mayavadi gurus (no any other similarity intended, otherwise!)

falls in when they say in their writings "It's all Maya, illusion".

"All" but their words in their writings that we got to accept as.

 

So, Bhaktisiddhanta's siddhanta (according to you) would be:

 

- All sastras must be explained by pure devotees.

- Any literature written by pure devotees is Sastra.

- Hence anything written (by pure devotees) must be heard

from pure devotees in order to get reconciled.

(anything but Bhaktisiddhanta's "Harmonist")

 

What bring us into that trap that you would like me not to

talk about. What can I do. Sorry.

 

 

> Prabhu, I am not trying to be difficult, I sincerely wish to get to the

> bottom of this.

>

 

I believe you that you are not trying to be difficult. I belive

that you belive in your conclusions.

 

> Suppose SBS is right, it means we have to do some heavy

> rethinking. Myabe that is what ISKCON needs.

>

 

I guess BSM is right. But suppose you could be wrong in your

understanding and explaining of him.

 

In the case of the later, the possibility of offending senior

Prabhupada's intimate disciples (including your own Guru Maharaja),

by "revealing" them that they got now to find an another acarya in

order to get to Prabhupada's mercy to get delivered from Maya, could

be quite expectable.

 

Apparently you haven't present your revolutionary idea (as you

call it so) to any of your spiritual authority for consultation.

You are just about to assume the role of a siksa guru to all

of them. To instruct them the "siddhanta" of KC philosophy,

as found in the "Harmonist" article.

 

 

> One thing. If the words of SBS are actualy applicable to us, this is

> irrefutable ritvik defeating philosophy. As long as we seem to say that

> you need a guru, but be careful in case he falls down. And that if your

> guru falls you dont have to be reinitiated you can take shelter of

> Prabhupadas books, then that is simply a kind of ritvik argument, and it

> makes us very weak in the face of the ritvik idea.

>

 

No.

 

Prabhupada did not fall down. His disciples have had his personal

association (like your Guru Maharaja, to name one of some).

To try now to "apply" those words of SBS on them (that they

got to get now another uttama-adhikari Guru to get delivered)

is in no way an "anti-rtvik" argument.

 

As far as everybody else, the *initiation* from a nitya-siddha is

not said to be the "visa" for the Spiritual world. Both we (the

"official" ISCKON) and the ritviks agree on that taking the shelter

of Prabhupada's siksa is available for those who are initiated

into the process of bhakti-yoga. And if there are any pure devotees

anywhere around, then there is no prohibition by one initiated by

someone less than uttama (be it even a guru who eventually fell

down) to take siksa from.

 

It is rather the opposite, that the demand on initiation from a

nitya-siddha Guru as the only and exclusive way to go back to

Godhead, that brings us a step closer to rtviks. In that case

I will rather go for accepting that formal rtvik initiation

from a priest, in name of Prabhupad, than wait some another 20

years till some of ISCKON Gurus pass away in the midst of Krsna-katha

in Mayapur, to be told: "See, he was the right one!"

 

 

 

> Dont forget that we have been fed philosophy that propped up zonal

> acaryism, and now still does not let us realise where our gurus are really

> at. I feel sure that many of Harikesa Swamis disciples thought he was a

> mahabhagavata, why? Because they were not instructed in the basics of

> siddhanta.

>

 

Instructed by "whom"? By Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja's article

in "Harmonist", like you are being "instructed" now?

 

 

 

What does it matter for me wether I believed that HKS was

maha-bhagavata or not? How I was supposed to react? To

say, "Ah, I just read Harmonist, you are not a bona fide uttama

guru, so you tell me to follow principles, to chant 16 rounds

of Maha Mantra, to produce Prabhupada's books and serve Krsna,

to worship Radha-Krsna, to read Prabhupada's books, follow

sadhana.........!? Forget it! First you got to get another

nitya-siddha Acarya for yourself to get the proper understanding

of what Prabhupada meant in his books, before I accept you as a

bona fide guru! You heard for the basics of siddhanta, didn't

you?" ???

 

Yes, I believed. THUS I listened to all those wonderful instructions

that made my life somewhat meaningful. He *engaged* me in Krsna's

service. He *gave* me that what I would still have to wait for,

if it would be up to your prayers (to sent us a nittya-siddha

Acarya). See, this Maya make us to belive into something that

is not, so that we can serve Krsna better. Isn't that far-out?

And isn't that the whole point of having a *bona fide* guru,

to engage you in the service of Krsna (the pious activities,

as you would say).

 

 

And what brings us back to the "private" territory -- Why not

look rather into own hearth whether you belive that your Spiritual

Master is a bona fide guru ("uttama-adhikari") or not (I don't

expect nor I ask you to comment on that, leaving it to you).

You accepted him in the time of our being fed up with the

philosophy of zonal acaryism, same like I accepted mine (though

several years later).

 

 

 

 

ys mnd