Show us your references.

[Guest guest]

>Agreed, depending on what you mean by "perfect." A lower grade devotee is

>also perfect, in one sense, if he or she fully follows the perfect, fully

>self-realized soul. That is, this lower grade devotee can also give

>substantial and relevant instruction that is perfect. However, this person

>(although perfect in this limited sense of not giving imperfect

instruction)

>will not be able to give the best instruction at every time, and thus is

>certainly not perfect in this sense. Since to really be the perfect Guru

>one

>must be able to give perfect instruction at every time, such a lower class

>devotee, although "perfect," still cannot be the perfect Guru.

>

 

Let us take the case of Suniti and Dhruva Maharaj. Suniti told her son to

approach Vishnu. Srila Prabhupada furthermore classifies her as a guru, so

her example is appropriate. Was her instruction fifty-percent perfect, 25%

perfect? Certainly not. It was 100% perfect because Dhruva Maharaj

attained the full benefit (100% Vishnu).

 

If the result was 100%, then how can you say that she was not a 'perfect

guru'?

 

Another point to note is that the disciple can become more advanced than his

guru:

 

"The great associates of Vaikunthaloka, Nanda and Sunanda, could understand

the mind of Dhruva Maharaj, and thus they showed him that his mother,

Suniti, was going foward in another plane."

 

[purport] This incident that the siksa or diksa guru who has a disciple who

strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaj can be carried by

the disciple even thought the instructor is not as advanced. Although

Suniti was an instructor to Dhruva Majaraj, she could not go to the forest

because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as

Dhruva Majaraj did. Still, Dhruva majaraj was abole to take his mother with

him. Similarly, Prahlada Majaraj also delivered his atheistic father,

hiranyakasipu. The conclusion is that a disciple or an offspring who is a

very strong devotee can carry with him to Vaikunthaloka either his father,

mother, or siksa or diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Srasvati Thakura used

to say, "If i could perfectly deliver even one soul back home, back to

Godhead, I would think my mission--propagating Krishna consciousness--to be

successful." The Krishna consciousness movement is spreading now all over

the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many

ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong ad Dhruva Maharaja, then he

will be able to carry me with him to Vaikunthaloka." (Srimad Bhagavatam

4.12.33 translation & purport)

 

 

 

 

>> Still, since it has been demonstrated that a kanistha and madhyama can

>> also be pure devotees, it means that they can also conform to the

standard

>> of what is a guru as mentioned in the first verse of Nectar of

>> Instruction: vaco vegam manasa. . . And in the purport of this verse,

>> Srila Prabhupada makes it very clear that controlling all these senses

and

>> urges means engaging them in Krishna's service. Since it is possible for

>> both kanisthas and madhyamas to also do this, they can, therefore, assume

>> the duties of a guru, although they certainly would not be as effective

as

>> an uttama adhikari.

>

>We agree that kanistha and madhyama adhikaris can also assume the duties of

>guru, but they certainly cannot be as effective as an utama adhikari. This

>is

>the whole point. Why is it that they cannot be as effective? Because they

>are not in perfect touch with Krsna. Thus we should understand that they

>are

>not 100% as good as Krsna, and they are not Guru in the sense that Guru is

>100% as good as Krsna.

 

This is speculative. First of all, as per the rules of NOI verse 1, and

Srila Prabhupda's practical description of how one controls all the various

senses, mind, etc., such a person even though a madhyama or kanistha, would

qualify as a liberated person.

 

Iha yasya harer dasye karmana manasa gira

nikhilasvapyavasthasu jivan mukta sa ucyate.

 

"A person who is fully engaged in the service of the Lord with mind, words,

and activities, is to be considered liberated even in this life." So how

can such a person not be considered to be 100% in contact with Krishna?

"For one who has conquered the mind the supersoul is already reached."

 

We might as well say that Tapana Misra and Chandrashekhara were not 100% in

touch with Lord Caitanya since they were kanistha adhikaris. Of course, to

say such a thing is absurd.

 

Still, the work of a guru is to instruct the disciple, and therefore the

more learned he is, the more effective he is. That is why neither Tapana

Mishra nor Chandrashekhara could counter the propaganda of the Mayavadis.

>From this we should understand that not only should our kanistha and

madhyama gurus "hit the books" to become more effective, but the kanistha

and madhyama non-gurus must also hit the books, since everyone in the

movement is, to some degree, a teacher and guru.

 

You can't teach it if you don't know it, or practice it.

 

>Of course we offer respect to our guru, even if he is not perfect. We even

>offer our respect to an ant. But we will not foolishly insist that our

>disciples think we are 100% as good as God, and our every order is 100%

>Krsna's order--which is the position of a real Guru, that is one who is

100%

>Krsna conscious.

 

 

Your understanding contradicts the behavior exhibited by Lord Caitanya with

regard to Ramacandra Puri. Your understanding cannot contradict evidence

from shastra and from previous acharyas.

 

>Agreed. And proper training is sastra certainly will enable us to

>understand

>that the vast majority of the so-called gurus in ISKCON are not acting

>properly; that is, they should not allow their disciples to think they are

>as

>good as God and their every order is the order of God.

 

 

Again, this is not in line with the behaviour of our acharyas. Did Lord

Caitanya not understand the position of Ramacandra Puri? Why did He give

Ramacandra Puri so much respect?

 

>> So, we can see from guru, sadhu and shastra, that a guru, no matter what

>> his position (kanistha, madhyama, or uttama) is to be regarded and

>> respected as the most confidential servitor of the Lord.

>>

>> You raise the doubt as to how we can offer respect to a guru who is not

at

>> a very high stage of realization? The answer is that we do so by

adhering

>> to the injunctions of shastra. Then, even though such respect is

offered,

>> since this is offered out of respect for shastra, we avoid developing

>> personality cults.

>

>No, we never say proper respect should not be offered. Rather, we say

>proper

>respect requires that different types of guru must be discriminated. If we

>offer equal respect to all, then we will think the fully self-realized soul

>is

>also equal to the monitor guru, which will be a big mistake.

 

 

You have to do that as per the regulations of scripture and according to the

examples of our previous acharyas. Do you not find the Lord's dealings with

Ramacandra Puri to be relevant to this point? Or how about the example of

Suniti and Dhruva, or Bilvamangala Thakura and Cintamani?

 

The examples of our acharyas show us HOW to offer respect to persons of

various categories. Since the above examples show us how to offer respects

to non-uttama gurus, we must follow in their footsteps. Otherwise, how is

the respect we offer proper?

 

Cite evidence from shastra, sadhu, and guru (and you must have all three)

that is relevant, sufficient, and not contradictory with any other evidence,

and we will accept your points.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das