Evidence for guru-related-problems during Lord Caitanya's times

[Guest guest]

>

> If we accept the idea that a guru in good standing may fall down, and

> should not be rejected, then why since 1980, Iskcon devotees whose gurus

> fell down have been told to accept another guru. Nowardays in Iskcon, we

> have devotees who have already got 4-5 gurus in this lifetime.

 

Prabhu, the "idea" (as you call it) is that even a guru who

used to be in good standing may also happen to fall down, due

to certain reasons. This has been just confirmed by Bhaktivinode

Thakura, as we all have seen. Wether one will accept this "idea"

of Bhaktivinode, or not, it is entirely up to one's own consideration

and decision.

 

However, that "he should not be rejected" when he falls down, or

deviates, is nobody's idea. Why are you making yourself busy

defeating nobody's ideas?

 

 

>

> This is not to support the ritvik idea, but we should be careful in not

> watering down our Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta by propounding that a

> bona-fide guru may fall down.

 

It would be good if you could supply us with the references for

what you have just stated to be "our Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta".

Where it is stated that a Vaisnava guru is only that one who is

completely above any possibility of falling down? Please. However,

I know that you are able to offer your considerations (so is everybody

else), like you have just done it below:

 

 

 

> It is often said that spiritual

> life is like a razors edge, and if not applied carefully, one runs the

> risk of being cut.

 

Why the same can't be said for a guru? For someone who, in the

words of Bhaktivinode Takura, "was at the time of one's initiation

a Vaisnava conversant in the Absolute Truth".

 

> Because of our laziness in studying and understanding

> the purports of the scriptures, we become blind to the actual

> qualification of a guru.

 

How do you expect from a prospective disciple to, after he/she

succeeded to properly evaluate the prospective guru's qualifications

as someone who is "a Vaisnava conversant in the Absolute Truth",

to be able to also predict that this Vaisnava guru are going to

get into bad association later on, and thus fall down??

 

I guess it is far easier to accuse others for laziness in studying

and understanding the scriptures. Please do not be upset, but I

honestly doubt you would be able to fulfill this demand that you

are placing infront the rest of us "lazies".

 

 

> A guru must be able to deliver the disciple from

> the jaws of maya.

 

How about guru who is simply "a Vaisnava conversant in the

Absolute Truth"? Would this make you satisfied? Would this

qualification of such a Vaisnava be good enough to qualify him

to connect you to the Guru Parampara and thus to Krsna, Mukunda,

Who is the actual Deliverer of His devotees?

 

 

 

> But a guru who is unsure of his own final destination,

> how can I deliver others, expect to simply cheating others.

 

This is the problem of having b&w vision (sorry to say), where

only an ever liberated nittya-siddha from the Spiritual Sky is

seen as a someone capable of connecting us to Krsna, while everybody

lesser than that is seen simply as a -- cheater!

 

Is the guru who is "a Vaisnava conversant in the Absolute Truth" (in

the words of Bhaktivinode Thakura) "simply cheating others" (in the

words of Isvara das)?? Please notice that neither the guru nor

the disciples nor even Isvara das himself know just nothing about the

unfortunate events that are going to occur some several years

or perhaps decades in the future.

 

 

> A pure devotee

> vaisnava guru does not come dime a dozen. But somebody very rare. We will

> be highly fortunate in this lifetime if we come accross such a person.

 

That's right.

 

In the meantime, we got to live our spiritual lives, right? There

is no harm to begin (get initiated into) with the process of

bhakti-yoga, to receive Hare Krsna Maha-mantra, to get connected

with Krsna... To start getting instructed into KC by more advanced

Vaisnavas who are conversant in the Absolute Truth....

 

However, if some nitya-siddha happens to "come across" our way,

in this life time, there is no prohibition to accept him as a guru.

Right away. I don't see any practical use of some "All Or Nothing"

rule when it comes to making the spiritual advancement, that normally

may take many, many life times before it culminates into the perfection.

I wouldn't consider it a bad deal to already have reached the platform

of a madhyama-adhikari or even kanistha-adhikari Vaisnava.

 

Anybody there out playing "All Or Nothing" game? Refusing to begin

with any actual spiritual advancement unless getting only and

exclusively a nitya-siddha from Goloka Vrindavana (that might well

never "come across" in this life) for a guru? Good luck.

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

"COM: Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2422478 from COM]

>

> > I guess I am just not following this whole subject. Our guru, Srila

> > Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, never fell down. Why are we

> > questioning this? Is Srila Prabhupada no longer our guru? Do pure devotees

> > die?

>

> Srila Prabhupada is certainly our foundational siksa guru. No doubt. And

> whoever he initiated, he is their diksa guru as well. But he is not the

> diksa guru for his grand-disciples since such an idea has no basis in Guru

> and sadhu and sastra.

>

> One of the doctrines of the rtvikists is that a guru has to be one who is

> beyond any chance of fall-down. The evidence provided showed that this

> concept was erroneous.

>

> I hope that clarifies.

>

> ys

> vgd

 

Thank you Vidvan Gauranga Prabhu. Namaste. Jaya Prabhupada!

 

I was pretty clear on this already. My question is why is there so much

emphasis

put on the DISqualifications of a diksa guru? What are the qualifications of

diksa guru?

 

There is a pancharatrika distinction between diksa and siksa guru. We can

understand this from scripture. This distinction is certainly not emphasized by

our acarya in his books.

Indeed, one will not find one mention of the word "diksa" in his most important

publication, the Bhagavad-gita As It Is (or at least I have not found one yet).

So, we have been in

"need" of diksa gurus because the original diksa guru of ISKCON "left" us some

20+ years ago. We seem to be implying, from these discussions, that the diksa

guru can be

"inferior" to a siksa guru or a "pure devotee guru"? He can fall down at some

date but his work of initiating is still OK. This I can kind of understand,

practically speaking,

especially in this age. With this acceptance also comes the "baggage" of our

having to relentlessly defend those who have accepted the title of diksa guru

without good, strong,

mature qualifications. This I can also accept on practical terms, though I do

not "like" it. For want of performing a pancharatrika ritual, which I respect

in

principle completely,

we force ourselves to push through a lower standard based upon relatively

obscure "excuses" from isolated examples in the past. Hardly ideal, which I

also

realize is not always

practical, but nonetheless desirable. Admittance of such a fact is conspicuous

by its absence, and thus defensive postures are always at ready.

 

What would seem more practical, and fully acceptable according to our

parampara,

would be to "relax" the formal pancharatrika programs until true qualifications

are obtained.

Srila Prabhupada was always very favorable to Pancha-tattva Deity worship where

the temple members and "brahmanas" were not of the highest qualifications. The

same result

of KC was promised, but the offenses were avoided. Same as salagrama-sila

worship for which only a very, very few ever proved qualified to worship.

 

Our parampara is clearly a siksa-oriented program. I hope we can all agree at

least on this. If so, a shift towards siksa emphasis throughout the movement

could be quite helpful

in avoiding endless ISKCON diksa vs. "ritvik" debates which I think most

everyone is sick of. Siksa includes primarily studying/discussing Srila

Prabhupada's books, but also

includes all good senior advanced instruction from those Vaisnavas present as

well as those not "present". Siksa clearly transcends "livingnon-living"

considerations and thus

proves its superiority. No one in ISKCON, including Srila Prabhupada, was all

that disturbed that salagrama-sila worship was not taking place in every

temple,

but no one

forced it onto the temple altars without the proper qualifications either. It

is

bonafide worship and very, very nice, but not "necessary" especially in an

unqualified form. Srila

Prabhupada said in Bhagavatam that his western disciples were anxious to start

salagrama-sila worship but that they were not qualified yet and he would

introduce it at a later

date when and if they were qualified. Chanting Hare Krsna, after all, is all

that is necessary (along with engagement in one's sva-dharma! I cannot leave

out

a plug for

varnasrama-dharma :-) ).

 

Of course, the diksa initiating program must continually be worked on and in

that regard there must be some standards set to "cleanse" the current "dirt"

from the program in

ISKCON. We first have to admit that there were and, therefore, probably still

are some, many, most (take your pick) people who are not "qualified" to be

diksa

gurus. That, of

course, depends upon the standards we are going to accept in ISKCON for our

diksa gurus. No one is going to stop us from accepting a low standard for

diksa,

but do we

really want that legacy? Srila Prabhupada always stressed the highest

standards.

If we couldn't follow those standards then the program was temporarily

postponed

until

standards could be raised. Not that we just pretend to be able to follow the

standard and commit offenses (deity worship, etc.) Who are we trying to impress

other than Srila

Prabhupada and Sri Krsna-Caitanya? The Gaudiya Matha? The Hindus? Each other?

We

have lost focus. Simplicity and happiness has fled. Propagation of plain old

Krsna consciousness has been interfered with.

 

 

If we are going to have diksa gurus we should develop a list of qualifications

from scripture. If we are going to differentiate between a

formal-ritual-diksa-guru (because we feel a need and necessity to perform

pancharatrika vidhi now) and a pure-devotee-siksa-spiritual master then the

list

would have to be somehow different than ones we are all aware of now.

 

We must admit that some oversight was made on many occasions in previous

evaluations of diksa gurus in ISKCON. This is regrettable but nonetheless

factual. We MUST not continue to make the same mistakes. Better to scrap the

whole idea if we cannot correct it. It is NOT imperative that we perform diksa

initiations RIGHT NOW. I like being diksa initiated by Srila Prabhupada, I

admit

this. It is a wonderfully secure feeling. I know he will never fall down. I

want

others to feel the same security with their diksa gurus also. But we cannot

just

pretend.

Srila Prabhupada never said a word to me personally. My association with him

right now is almost exactly the same as it was when he was "present" on this

planet. For all I know, he is just around the corner on a planet close to

earth.

This is not much different than when he was in India and yet still became my

diksa guru somehow. The ritual was performed and my diksa was confirmed. Now I

just have to try to fulfill my duties! The siksa was always the emphasis anyway

and his books are always present. I would have waited a hundred years or a

hundred lifetimes for diksa so long as I had his siksa association.

 

Anyway, somehow we have to develop some diksa guru standards. We cannot

question

that Srila Prabhupada stated the following:

 

 

"One should approach a bonafide guru to inquire about the highest benefit of

life. Such a guru is described as follows... Such a guru does not manufacture

gold or juggle words.

He is well versed in the conclusions of Vedic knowledge. He is freed from all

material contamination and is fully engaged in Krishna's service." S.B.

5.14.13.

 

 

If we have some diksa gurus who are "freed from all material contamination" we

should all be made aware of this fact publically and their names should be

spread far and wide for everyone to take advantage of.

 

 

"...the conclusion is that a spiritual master who is one hundred percent Krsna

conscious is the bonafide spiritual master, for he can solve the problems of

life." Bhagavad-gita 2.8

 

 

Same thing, if we have some diksa spiritual masters who are "100% Krsna

conscious" we would all want and deserve to know this.

 

 

"Sometimes doubts arise in the minds of neophytes about whether or not the

spiritual master is liberated... If someone is one hundred percent engaged in

the service of the Lord,

he is to be understood as liberated. One must understand whether or not he is

liberated by his activities in devotional service, not by other symptoms."

S.B.

3.33.10.

 

 

Are there some diksa gurus who are liberated right now? If so, who are they?

Please do not just say "all of them". This does not matter that much to me

because I have a liberated diksa guru which hardly anyone would argue. But

those

that have suffered at the hands and lips of unqualified "diksa" gurus in the

past deserve a better answer than this, don't you agree? Has there been new

standards developed and distributed widely in writing for every prospective

candidate? Are they posted on Chakra, VNN, etc., for everyone to see?

 

 

 

"... one cannot become a spiritual master unless he is a pure devotee of the

Lord." S.B. 4.29.51.

 

 

These are strong words from our founder acarya. They surely can't be taken

lightly or with some wild interpretation which would again lead us to such

things as zonal acaryas, child abuse, etc., can they?

 

These quotes which I have provided are not meant to disqualify every single

current diksa guru in ISKCON. Though they might if we ALL agree on the

standards

given in scripture, Srila Prabhupada's books. I am not interested in any other

books, personally, because Srila Prabhupada said clearly, "everything is there

in my books."

 

I believe him.

 

 

I beg the intelligent devotees of ISKCON to consider this request to develop an

agreeable set of standards for diksa guru. In my humble opinion, those

qualifications for a pancharatrika diksa ritual officiating guru can and

obviously must be different than those given above for a guru on the standard

of

my guru maharaja. But I take it personally when those without the above

qualifications assume titles for which they have no claim. They are devotees

and

godbrothers but, without the qualifications while accepting such titles, they

are sinful pretenders and only serve to minimize my guru's excellence. If we

want someone to perform rituals they still need training and standards. Let's

get it in writing for ALL to agree upon. If some current diksa gurus do not

fulfill the qualifications, we MUST be mature enough and compassionate enough,

on them and their "disciples", to re-engage them in meaningful and honest

occupations in accordance with the daiva varnasrama-dharma institution (which

is

another whole story).

 

 

Ys,

 

jd