Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 >> There is a common nominator for both proponents of rtvikvada and >> the proponents of Narayana Maharaja. Besides that both parties >> claim how the solution of ISCKON's problems is in their "hands", >> there is the same sad underground base >> that they both build their doctrine on. That is: >> >> "Srila Prabhupada failed." >> >I think even further underground might be the message: "Since some think I've >failed, there's no way I can tolerate anyone else succeeding." How about considering the possibility that devotees are leaving ISKCON for some very good reasons, such as maltreatment, cheating, lying, lack of support etc. ISKCON does not have a good track record of caring for devotees. Once someone has been "courted" into joining, the tone often changes from one of encouragement to one of intolerance, criticism and judging. If we took better care of each other, I don't think devotees would be so eager to look elsewhere for Vaisnava association. Most ex-ISKCON devotees with whom I've talked, were not initially attracted to either ritvik philosophy or to Narayan Maharaja. They were just escaping a painful environment and those groups were there with open arms. Because they were treated better in these other camps, the attraction developed later. If we want to lay blame, I suggest we don't just point fingers, but that we simultaneously take one hard look in the mirror. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 1999 Report Share Posted July 13, 1999 > How about considering the possibility that devotees are leaving ISKCON for > some very good reasons, such as maltreatment, cheating, lying, lack of > support etc. ISKCON does not have a good track record of caring for > devotees. Once someone has been "courted" into joining, the tone often > changes from one of encouragement to one of intolerance, criticism and > judging. If we took better care of each other, I don't think devotees > would be so eager to look elsewhere for Vaisnava association. Most > ex-ISKCON devotees with whom I've talked, were not initially attracted to > either ritvik philosophy or to Narayan Maharaja. They were just escaping a > painful environment and those groups were there with open arms. Because > they were treated better in these other camps, the attraction developed > later. There was something that left me "incomplete" upon reading these lines, for several days. What is missing is actually the information on how *exactly* devotees are being treated better in other Vaisnava camps. What is their structure, day-to-day life style, modus-operandi, the organization of society...? How women, children (caws as well as) are specifically taken care of? What is the social arrangement? What does it practically mean "to join Gaudiya Math"? I have spent some years living in the ISCKON communes. I could certainly recall quite few situations that left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Now, since one year there has been just nothing of a kind. It all goes fine. Nice relationships. I am being treated better!! But not that I am in illusion now that it all has changed on better. The simple reason for that is that I live now my own life, independently of what's going on in some ISCKON commune. Yet, I consider myself (and I am considered) to be the part of the "ISCKON camp". Maybe this is one way of having a "smiling" camp where people do not get badly treated -- not to have a society where people would come and get the opportunity to "rub" each with other. In ISCKON *everybody* feels as a victim of the *society* (in the case one feels mistreated, of course). It goes from a "bhakta Joe" till "Paramahamsa Maharaja". But then, the society itself is nothing but - us. What I would like to see is how much Gaudiya Math has advanced in the practical establishment of varnasrama dharma system, the system where all of us would be able to fit in without major conflict situations and stressful experience. If it is a type of organization that offers no solution to these problems, then I would consider it not very reasonable to compare GM camps with ISCKON in term of "better treatment". Because it is going for mixing apples with oranges. ISCKON is pioneering here. As far as I can see, other camps don't even bother about. Some even consider this to be something for unqualified people. So maybe ISCKON should not bother either, and thus get relieved from the whole burden and the blame for mistreating others? Why not just have some gurus giving the classes on the confidential topics of Krsna's pastimes and give initiations to those who come to them for it, and let the rest of the unqualified world make their lifes as they wish? Then none would be mistreated. But I doubt this is what Srila Prabhupada would want. I am not trying to find the excuse for bad things that happens in ISCKON. I am just trying to look upon a wider picture of the situation, when it comes to comparing ISCKON with other camps in term of treating people. Let other camps do the work, then let us see who does less mistakes. But no work brings about no mistakes, but no any other kind of results either. ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On 11 Jul 1999, Vidvan Gauranga wrote: > > > Furthermore, we know that many senior disciples of gurus WHO ARE NOT (yet) considered "FALLEN" are losing faith that their gurus are > > > competent enough to lead them across the ocean of material existence. > This is a silly argument. > Ananta Vasudeva, who was the right hand man of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati Thakura, lost faith in BSST that he was bona fide. But that had nothing to do with the guru, but everything with himself. Respectfully, if my argument is "silly," then your counter-example and the logic behind it is *irrevelant.* Is anyone of ISKCON's gurus even close to the same level as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, a nitya-siddha from even before his birth (ie, his father being Bhaktivinode Thakura)? Furthermore, I am not sure if you are privy to the Ananta Vasudeva's inner psychology, so you would be well-advised not to speculate about that either. He is also your paramguru's godbrother. Therefore don't even dare to offer such a comparison. It is far from being applicable here anyway. But in direct answer to your challenge: Yes, when a disciple loses faith in his guru, there are two basic alternatives -- the disciple is defective or the guru is defective. Note here that I don't say "the guru is 'bogus,'" because there are all sorts of possibilties in between. However, when we speak of determining the *primary* cause of something (ie, a guru's defect or a disciple's defect), for our purposes it is simply a question of preponderance of one side's defect over the other. Very rarely do we find 'perfect' gurus or disciples, but we can examine the *degree* to which someone is qualified or not. Remember, the topic under discussion is the *guru*, so for now, let us focus on that. In the case when the disciple is basicly sincere and bona fide, then it is the guru who is not very realized (eg. kanistha or low madhyama) and incapable of offering "sufficient guidance" (NOI.5). In the "Essence of All Advice," (Upadesamrta) the condensed instruction on guru-asraya, Srila Prabhupada states this very clearly. From that we can infer that a guru who is incapable of giving sufficient guidance will at one point in the disciple's progress become superfluous or disappointing. That is simply axiomatic. How so? If you can't guide me to my desired destination, I cannot keep trusting you to help me, can I? If a teacher doesn't understand the inner purport to the material he is supposed to be presenting, how can he teach a proper understanding of it to his students? His students will become confused. If the guru himself is not free from all anarthas, how can he set an inspiring example of purity? The disciples will lose their inclination to follow, chant or perform devotional service. If the guru is not himself free from doubt and illusion, how can he clear the doubts and illusions of his disciples? It is not possible. They will lose faith. This is a practical point. But you call it "silly." I would simply call this "common sense." But as they say, "common sense is uncommon" -- even in a spiritual society, unfortunately. Unless a guru is himself realized (which means he is directly acting as an instrument of Krsna) or acting in accordance with other more qualified Vaisnavas, he must be defective and subject to all the frailties of a conditioned soul. Your 'silly' servant, Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On 14 Jul 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > Ooops wait. Sorry about the time warp. I forgot that after all the sneering > at > Mac by PC, the PC now has 3.5 floppies, a mouse, graphics interface, drop > down > menus, and color. > Well, all that is ancient history. Where is the MAC now? How pathetic when the thing it brags about the most is the different COLORS its boxes are! LOL! BTW, I'm not a Windoze booster, I'm in the Linux camp. However, Bill Gates' crappy platform has made me rich in consulting fees cleaning up otrhers' messes. So, I ain't gonna bite the hand that fed me...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On 15 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote: > > > Well, all that is ancient history. Where is the MAC now? How pathetic when the thing it brags about the most is the different COLORS its boxes are! LOL! > > If I was a gambling man, I'd a bought into Apple a couple of years ago when it was selling for about 13 bucks a share. It's know aproaching 60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On 15 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > If I was a gambling man, I'd a bought into Apple a couple of years ago when it > was selling for about 13 bucks a share. It's know aproaching 60. > That same $13 bucks would have returned you $300 with Microsoft. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 > > > That same $13 bucks would have returned you $300 with Microsoft. > > ;-) > But then buying Microsoft isn't a gamble, so they say. But I don't think they increased by 400% in value over the last two years. In any event, it's easy being a millionaire on paper when you invest in the past. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 16 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > But then buying Microsoft isn't a gamble, so they say. But I don't think they > increased by 400% in value over the last two years. Dosn't matter what you think. The stock split twice. One share in 1983 is 4 shares now. But don't believe me.................check it out. Bhuta (the Greek) Bhavana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote: > > Dosn't matter what you think. The stock split twice. One share in 1983 is 4 shares now. But don't believe me.................check it out. > > Bhuta (the Greek) Bhavana > And how much did you have riding on MS? .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > And how much did you have riding on MS? Actually I have Zero as in nada, zip, nothing. But only because Bill & Melinda donated $2.74 Million to fund abortions in India. I made my riches day-trading in amazon.com last January. Everything is out of the market now and invested in land at the base of the Selkirk Mountains here in Northern (Free) Idaho. But on a lighter note: Did you hear that Gate's marriage is on the rocks? Melinda doesn't do Windows. ======================================================================== JULY 16, 19:17 EDT Microsoft Valued Above $500B By GEORGE TIBBITS AP Business Writer SEATTLE (AP) — Microsoft Corp. became the first company to be worth more than half a trillion dollars Friday as the software company's stock price surged following a report that it might create a separate stock for its Internet properties. Microsoft's stock was up $5.06 1/4 to $99.43 3/4 a share in trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. With more than 5.1 billion shares outstanding, that gave Microsoft a total market capitalization of about $507 billion. Microsoft's market value far outpaces the No. 2 company, General Electric, which was worth about $384 billion based on Friday's stock prices. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Microsoft, which will report its annual earnings Monday, is moving closer to creating a tracking stock for its Internet businesses to take advantage of the stock market's infatuation with the Internet. A tracking stock is designed to give investors the opportunity to focus on just one aspect of the company's business without creating a separate publicly traded company. The move would be a way to pay for Internet-related acquisitions and attract talented employees seeking the high valuations of Internet companies, the Journal said. Microsoft also received a boost when a federal court jury in Connecticut ruled it had not violated federal antitrust laws in its dealings with Bristol Technology Inc., a small software company. A company spokesman did not immediately return a telephone call to The Associated Press. Microsoft's MSN.com is one of the most-visited sites on the Web, and includes such services as Hotmail e-mail, the Expedia travel site and the CarPoint auto buying service Although critics assail Microsoft's take-no-prisoners competitiveness, investors have favored a company with large profit margins, rapidly growing sales and no debt. Microsoft's phenomenal rise has created countless millionaires and made company founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen two of the richest men on Earth. At current stock prices, Gates would be worth more than $100 billion, based on the more than 1 billion Microsoft shares he was listed as owning in a Feb. 11 proxy statement. Allen, listed as having more than 276 million shares, is worth more than $27 billion. ========================================================================= If Bill didn't have his legal problems in Washington he could purchase Apple from his petty cash fund just to trash it as he's done with countless other companies. I wonder how much of this Windows-bashing is just envy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote: > > > If Bill didn't have his legal problems in Washington he could purchase Apple from his petty cash fund just to trash it as he's done with countless other companies. I wonder how much of this Windows-bashing is just envy. > He already owns stock in Apple. I guess he figures it's a good investment. Or maybe he liked the idea that Jobs chanted Hare Krsna on their cable dramatization. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > He already owns stock in Apple. I guess he figures it's a good investment. He investment in Apple is less than 1% of his wealth. Not much of an investment, IMNSHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 1999 Report Share Posted July 18, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote: > > He investment in Apple is less than 1% of his wealth. Not much of an > investment, IMNSHO. > But it was more than I made last year. And the year before that, too, I think. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 1999 Report Share Posted July 18, 1999 On 18 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > > But it was more than I made last year. And the year before that, too, I think. That's because austerity (and with it, poverty) is the wealth of the brahmanas. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 1999 Report Share Posted July 29, 1999 On 06 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote: > On 28 Jun 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > > It seems that if we can claim our guru is the beshtest of them all, then we must be the besht, too. Life appears much simpler when we feel we can avoid dealing with our painful personal difficulties. > > Ultimately, the guru is not meant to become an excuse for us to avoid > > resolving our personal issues with Krsna. > > In his Cure of Souls series, HG Ravindra svarupa says this same thing nicely: One is supposed to accept a spiritual master as a *means* for spiritual advancement, not as a *substitute* for spiritual advancement. There are several important points at issue here, so let us not confuse them. For successful spiritual life, there must be BOTH bona fide guru AND bona fide disciple. A so-called disciple can be guru-bhogi, guru-tyagi or whatever neurotic, codependent, etc, as you suggest. What we cannot gloss over in this discussion, however, is the absolute need for seeking a bona fide GURU. In his Gurvastakam prayers, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura explains that without the mercy of the spiritual master -- who is a PURE DEVOTEE -- no one can make any advancement in Krsna consciousness. A spiritual master is a PURE DEVOTEE not automatically by some rote definition but by dint of genuine spiritual attainment. Srila Prabhupada explains throughout his books that the guidance of a such a bona fide spiritual master, who is a PURE DEVOTEE, can be of absolute help for a making progressive development in spiritual life. Does any of us doubt this? "PURE DEVOTEE" is technically defined by Srila Prabhupada in accordance with Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's analysis as a *qualified* madhyama adhikari, or one who has reached *nistha* and when *anartha-nivrtti* is complete. Thus, such a truly *purified* soul is literally a "PURE DEVOTEE," because all the *anarthas* in his/her heart have been substantially vanquished by genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness. These *anarthas* include the subtle contaminations of *labha, puja, pratistha, etc* or the desire for profit, adoration and distinction, etc. Until one has factually reached such a steady state of pure devotion, no one can be called a "PURE DEVOTEE" in the literal sense of the term. Devotion is not measured only by judging from outward appearances, mechanical performances, institutional position, popular opinion, etc. One's level of advancement is ultimately tested by internal absorption not by external activity (krsna-bhakti-rasa-bhavita-matih). A so-called spiritual master is not a "pure devotee" merely by dint of taking a big position, accepting disciples or because his followers like to see him in that way. > He also characterizes both the ritvik and "my guru is an uttama adhikari" mentalities as one of overdependence upon another personality. In both cases one is trying to shift all personal responsibilities and duties to Krishna upon another, in the same way a vine grows to depend entirely upon a tree without ever being able to support itself. > Any thoughts? > Gerald Surya It is not a only question of "personality," sentimentality, etc, which is the disciple's defect. The guru must indeed be BONAFIDE -- genuine and trustworthy. The crucial matter for a *disciple* is to seek out a highly advanced Vaisnava and take guidance and direction. From then on, as you note, "the ball is in our court" (to use another analogy). But without the association of highly elevated souls, we are not even sure what the "game" is we are playing or what we are supposed to do with the "ball". Or to return to the vine (creeper) analogy, Prabhupada explains that an unguided neophyte cannot discriminate between the real *bhakti-lata* (devotional creeper) and thus in the course of his *seva* ends us watering the weeds of material desires and offenses instead. My point is that we have to be careful about dismissing the absolute value of seeking out and taking guidance from such a "pure devotee" spiritual master simply because of our previous bad experiences (both individually and collectively) where we don't believe there are really any of them around anymore since Prabhupada's disappearance. Consequently, in ISKCON we have created what has been termed a COVERED RTVIK philosophy, where we cannot properly honor or even recognize exalted souls because of a crippled mentality. By definition, the guru has become *daridra-guru* (as in *daridra-narayana*), or a poverty-stricken conception. A guru in ISKCON is not a guru unless he conforms to the dictates of its institutional management, regardless of *adhikara*, or spiritual acumen. ISKCON has thus established a policy where bonafide sadhus and gurus outside of ISKCON can not recognized or accepted. Various GBC resolutions state this both explicitly and implicitly. MISKCONceptions arise not only because of individual sentimentality or feelings of dependence but also because of ingroup social psychological dynamics. "As far as I (we) are concerned, there aren't truly bona fide gurus outside of ISKCON. Because in the Gaudiya math, they are not strictly following Prabhupada..." So the arguments tend to go. To the misguided soul, however, wishing to "follow Prabhupada's mood" may in fact mean "preserving the ISKCON mood," which may mean, to a large degree, following a social illusion. Please don't read me wrong. I am NOT advocating everyone to leave ISKCON or break up the institution. But I am hoping devotees will put down their blinders and truly take "personal responsibility" for their own spiritual lives. Because if enough devotees care to open their eyes, the managers of ISKCON must respond. As the "International Society for Krsna Consciousness" founded under the guidelines established by Srila Prabhupada in its original Charter, ISKCON should facilitate the bonafide process of *sadhu-sanga*, not outlaw or suppress it. Only when we gain the opportunity to associate with genuinely qualified PURE Vaisnavas can we fully understand the purport to *guru-asraya*, not before. Otherwise, it is an *abhasa*, or a "semblance" of the process -- or worse, a make-show, as we have too often seen. In the beginning stages, our chanting of *nama* is also necessarily an *abhasa*, but at a certain point, it should become real. Seek out PURE DEVOTEES and accept nothing less than the "real thing." Our spiritual life is "depending" upon it. Aspiring to become the servant of a Vaisnava, Vaisnavanudasa, Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 1999 Report Share Posted July 29, 1999 > > My point is that we have to be careful about dismissing the absolute value > of seeking out and taking guidance from such a "pure devotee" spiritual > master simply because of our previous bad experiences (both individually > and collectively) where we don't believe there are really any of them > around anymore since Prabhupada's disappearance. Good point, Srila prabhu. It should be told to everybody who thinks like that for ISCKON, that in order to find such a "pure devotee" one got to turn to some other places (Gaudiya Math, for example). Though, those who don't believe certainly may go anywhere they belive to find such a "pure devotee". > > Consequently, in ISKCON we have created what has been termed a COVERED > RTVIK philosophy, where we cannot properly honor or even recognize exalted > souls because of a crippled mentality. By definition, the guru has become > *daridra-guru* (as in *daridra-narayana*), or a poverty-stricken > conception. A guru in ISKCON is not a guru unless he conforms to the > dictates of its institutional management, regardless of *adhikara*, or > spiritual acumen. Though the system of guru approval in ISCKON may be seen possessing the characteristics of an institutionalized guru-post (something that has its both some positive and perhaps more negative sides, and something that is under constant improvement), there is something else in your writing that may be pointed out. That is, though the system may be having its faults, you have mirrored that faults into individual characteristics of gurus in ISCKON. Your complain is that exalted souls can't be recognized due to a "crippled mentality". But your own mentality shows no trace of evaluating the personal adhikara of every and each guru in ISCKON. You seam to be judging them all according to the kind of system they are existing under. Confirming to the "dictates of its institutional management" is what you got everywhere. In Gaudiya Math, for example, the guru (or rather, the acarya) **is** the institutional management. You seam to be failing to recognize the set-up of ISCKON as lead down by Srila Prabhupada, where there is the GBC as the ultimate managing authority, and not a particular guru. Thus you are actually criticizing the way how Srila Prabhupada founded ISCKON. > ISKCON has thus established a policy where bonafide > sadhus and gurus outside of ISKCON can not recognized or accepted. The policy of ISCKON members not going to other sadhus (to Gaudiya Math, specifically) for accepting siksa/diksa from, was established by Srila Prabhupada himself. But none is prohibited to go to an another Math and accept there anyone he/she finds to be his/her eternal spiritual master. It is up to God to direct you to the right person of your life. You can't reasonably blame anybody to be interfering in between the Supersoul and the individual soul, can you? Otherwise, you can start with blaming Srila Prabhupada for his explicit instructions to not go to "outside sadhus" for accepting them as our gurus. > Various > GBC resolutions state this both explicitly and implicitly. If so, then they follow in Srila Prabhupada's footsteps. Can't blame them for that, can you? - mnd 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.