PAMHO AGTSP Do you still think Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra?

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharaj, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

> >>(2) whether or not a guru

>> >> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

>> >> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

>

>My response:

>

>> >Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor? He is NOT the

>> most

>> >confidential, even though he may be confidential. Only the uttama is

the

>> >MOST confidential servitor. This is exactly the point we are making.

>> >There

>> must

>> >be dscrimination between different levels of guru, otherwise the actual

>> >value and position of the real MOST confidential servitor, i.e., Srila

>> Prabhupada,

>> >is lost. This is the main disrespect we need to be careful about at

this

>> >point, not the fear of disrespecting the lower level gurus (although

>> >this, of course, is also something to be kept in mind).

>

>

>> How can he be the most confidential servitor, even though he is not an

>> uttama adhikari? Because he is giving you Krishna.

>

>How can he give you Krishna if he has yet to get Krishna???? He can point

>you in the direction of Krishna, he can introduce you to his guru who has

>Krishna, he can explain to you the bonafide process that he is also taking,

>that he is convinced will bring you to Krishna, but if he pretends that he

>has Krishna when in fact he doesn't, then everything is spoiled.

 

 

Since when does a pure devotee think himself a great devotee, with Krishna

in the palm of his hand? From Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's "Gopinatha":

 

gopinath, ami ki dose dosi asura sakala

pailo carana, vinoda thakilo bosi

 

"O Gopinath, I am so sinful that although all the demons attained Your lotus

feet, Bhaktivinoda has remained in worldly existence."

 

>The following quotations are from NOI Ver-5-purp.

>

> "However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or

>maha-bhagavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will

>eventually become degraded."

 

 

It seems here that following in the footsteps of acharyas is being confused

with imitating acharyas.

 

>"The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to

imitate

>a devotee situated on a higher platform.".................

 

 

This does not necessarily mean that a kanistha or a madhyama who somehow

becomes a spiritual master is imitating. As you point out below, what if

there isn't a "local uttama"? Then someone has to push on.

 

>"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the

>platform of uttama-adhikari."

>

>(This is best, but if none are available then what?)

>

>"A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform

can

>also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and

>it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the

>ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.

>

>(But as he advances they also will advance.)

 

 

Accepting a disciple on the same platform does not mean the disciple is

limited to his spiritual master's level of advancement:

 

"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)

 

>"Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a

>spiritual master."

>

>(Obviously the best situation. But we can't wish this into existence. Krsna

>Kirti wasn't around perhaps, but I have much first hand experience.

>I personally heard Hansadutta say: "I didn't ask to be guru, Prabhupada

made

>me a guru. Everyone knows that the guru is perfect, therefore whatever I do

>is perfect.")

 

 

Just because a few doctors are quacks does not mean all doctors are quacks,

or that you should close all the hospitals. It is true that I was not

around when Hansadutta Prabhu made that remark, but I have been around other

sannyasis, personally serving them, taking their instructions,

chastisements, etc., and I can say that many, if not most of those whom I

have served do not conform to this blanket criticism. Of course, this is a

subjective opinion (specifically mine). And I think by now, through the

limited association we have had on other fronts, that you should know that

I'm not going to blindly accept anything and everything my guru might say.

I have no difficulty publically saying this because this has also been his

instructions to us. There is a way to properly scrutinize, and this is

covered by etiquette, but that is for another discussion.

 

Otherwise, if there really is NO sincere person within the institution of

ISKCON who is occupying the post of guru, then it is time to go to another

institution for shelter.

 

>(I also personally heard Srila Prabhupada say in a voice full of authority

>to his Godbrother, "The trouble with the Gaudiya Math is they tried to

>create a perfect person. You can not create a perfect person!!!")

 

 

But you can become a jivan-mukta, not be election, as they had done, but by

qualification. If you are jivan-mukta, then how are you imperfect?

 

>

>> In other words, the

>> guru, even though he is a madhyama or a kanistha, if he is properly

>> situated, is a necessary component in the spiritual advancement of his

>> disciple.

>

>I agree, but what is wrong in speaking the actual facts to our disciples,

do

>we have to cheat them? This is very practical for me. Should I allow my

>disciples to think that Srila Prabhupada and I are on the same level?

Aren't

>I supposed to teach them the difference between truth and illusion? Do I

>think that they are so stupid that they won't see the difference? What is

my

>position and what is Srila Prabhupada's position? What has he done and what

>have I done? Please!! You can quote sastra all day, but it should bring us

>to the point of reality. Not some "pie in the sky" make believe.

 

 

Quoting shastra is also Prabhupada's order, because it is Krishna's order:

svadhyaya bhyasanam caiva van mayam tapa ucyate, "Austerity of speech

consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing and beneficial to

others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature." Actually, our

problem is that we don't quote enough shastra.

 

Anyway, Maharaj, I am reposting a very nice text by Vidvan Gauranga Prabhu

(JPS), who has nicely explained, with references, the different grades of

gurus. His text is specifically aimed at the ritvik attacks on the GBC

resolutions, but I find it to be very relevant here. Before we read his

very nice text, I just want to say that a guru might not be Srila

Prabhupada, but he can still nonetheless have some sort of minimum, required

competency to act as a spiritual master. Just like, someone is drowning,

and the life guard comes out and rescues him. It doesn't mean the life

guard is the worlds fastest swimmer, or #1 lifeguard in the world, but he

has some minimum competency to save you. And when it comes to being saved,

what does it matter to you whether the person who saved you is the world's

#1 swimmer or not? The point is that you are saved. You will be no less

grateful to the ordinary life guard as you would to the world's champion

life guard.

 

-----( begin

quote)--

 

> A recent text from Adridharan prabhu also pointed to this perspective

> alleging that the GBC have provided the foundation for rtvikism

> themselves.

>

> Here is my summary of the basic points of this perspective and how

> confusion enters.

>

> 1) Srila Prabhupada continues to be the primary guru for all ISKCON

> members.

 

Actually Srila Prabhupada is more than the primary guru, he is the

FOUNDATIONAL siksa guru. Founder-acarya or foundational siksa guru is in a

different category, a category higher than diksa-/siksa-gurus.

 

There is evidence from the Madhva Vaisnava parampara for this. In the Madhva

line, there is a mula-guru who is a separate category from and higher than

the category of gurus. They quote the following verse from

Tantra-sara-sangraha, a work of Madhvacarya (this is evidence from the Sadhu

category):

 

brahmanta guravas caiva sampradaya-pravartakah

tat-tad-gunanusarena pujya dhyeyas ca krtsnasah

 

"The preachers in the sampradaya, the gurus ending with Lord Brahma (our

guru, his guru, etc, to Lord Brahma), should be worshipped and be meditated

upon in accordance with their respective qualities."

 

smrtva gurum purva-gurum adi-mula-guru tatha

devatam vasudevas ca vidyabhyase tu siddhi-bhak

 

"In one's pursuit of self-realization, remembrance of one's guru,

one's predecessor guru, the adi-guru, the mula-guru, and the Supreme Lord,

Vasudeva, becomes one's rightful claim to perfection."

 

yas taratamya-vetta syat gurunam devatasv api

bhaktiman guru-devesu tad-bhaktesv api siddhyati

 

"A devotee who knows (this) gradation of gurus, demigods, and who possesses

devotion to the gurus and their devotees thereof, reaches perfection."

 

It makes it clear that there are different categories of guru:

 

(1) Guru: One's own guru. The Madhvas repeatedly told me that such a guru is

a saksad-guru or one who is directly present before your pratyaksa.

(2) Purva-guru: One's guru's guru

(3) Adi-guru: One Madhva told me that in their line, they say that Vyasadeva

is their adi-guru.

(4) Mula-guru: Madhvacarya is their mula-guru according to Pejawar Swami

 

Srila Prabhupada as the founder-acarya is naturally the foundational guru

for his followers and therefore he is our mula-guru (our Adi-guru is Lord

Nityananda), just as Madhva is the mula-guru ("foundational-guru") for the

Madhvas.

 

Still (a) they accept mantra-diksa from a living representative of Madhva

and (b) they agree to be bound to follow his instructions. This is what

makes a guru-disciple relationship what it is. Yet the Madhvas consider

Madhvacarya to be their foundational guru. It doesn't in any way affect

their relationship with their diksa-gurus (their terminology:

mantra-upadesa-gurus) or with their siksa-gurus (their terminology:

vidya-gurus). Their relationship with Madhvacarya through the parampara is

on a different level because he is a different category of guru (mula-guru).

 

> 2) The primary guru for a devotee is always the diksa guru

> (Sivaram Maharaj used the term "root of devotion").

 

Prabhu, Sivarama Maharaja has written a whole book "Siksa-guru" where prior

to describing the diksa-guru, he talks about the founder-acarya or the

foundational siksa guru. AMONGST the followers of the foundational siksa

guru who are available to your sense perception, one accepts one as his/her

diksa-guru and some others as siksa-gurus. This is what Sivarama Swami

Maharaja actually says.

 

Diksa-guru and the siksa-gurus come in the category 1. Prabhupada is in a

different level, a different category (category 4).

 

> 3) Therefore Srila Prabhupada should be accepted as the real diksa guru,

> i.e. the one who "awakens transcendental knowledge".

 

Siksa gurus also awaken transcendental knowledge. Does it mean that they are

diksa-gurus to their siksa-disciples? No. Every knowledge transmission is

not diksa, though every diksa involves knowledge transmission. In diksa,

mantra which is the seed of spiritual realization is given to the disciple.

thus it awakens spiritual knowledge.

 

The rtviks' logic is faulty.

 

> 4) TO have a separate Diksa guru interferes with one's relationship with

> Srila Prabhupada as one can only have one primary guru.

 

No. It has never done so in any other parampara where they accept Madhva or

Ramanuja as their foundational guru. So why should it happen here in ISKCON?

In all the bona fide disciplic lines, devotees give all their devotion to

their gurus (siksa and diksa) and even more so to their diksa-gurus out of

etiquette also. Of course these gurus are all in category 1 and are

worshipped as a representative of the their foundational guru who is in

category 4. So there is no confusion or interference as the rtviks imagine.

 

> 5) Attempts to place the diksa guru as secondary to Srila Prabhupada as

> the primary siksa guru are against sastra. (IRG adherants often state that

> Jayapataka Maharaj's insistance on full worship, honor, etc. for the diksa

> guru is correct, they just object to him being the diksa guru).

 

Ha! Which sastra says that this is wrong? The problem is that they identify

the foundational siksa guru in category 4 with the siksa guru in category 1.

All previous acaryas are siksa gurus also and they don't fall in category 1

either. They have to be taken in category 2 (purva-gurus).

 

Even Bilvamangal Thakura accepted Lord Krsna as siksa-guru (see the verse

quoted from Krsna Karnamrta in CC Adi chapter 1) and Soma-giri as his

diksa-guru and Cintamani as his vartma-pradarsaka-guru. Notice that Lord

Krsna's being the siksa-guru of Bilvamangal doesn't minimize His position in

any way, nor is it an insult to consider Him as siksa-guru. Please note that

Bilvamangal doesn't consider Krsna as caitya-guru or antaryami. He is a

siksa guru because Lord Krsna actually would appear to Bilvamangal in

Vrndavan.

 

If Bilvamangal accepts Krsna as his siksa-guru and that doesn't minimize

Krsna vis-a-vis Somagiri, his diksa-guru, how can one who accepts Prabhupada

as his foundational siksa guru minimize Prabhupada vis-a-vis his/her

diksa-guru?

 

> 6) Further, one's diksa guru must be worthy of complete surrender, as good

> as God, to be seen as one's eternal link to the sampradaya. Such a guru

> can never fall down. A corollary to this is that the "current link" to the

> sampradya must be completely pure, without any chance of fall down.

 

Which sastra says that the guru who is worthy of complete surrender "can

never fall down" or "without any chance of fall down"? Which sampradaya says

so, may I know?

 

Vedanta Desika, a prominent acarya in the Sri Vaisnava line, in a work

"Nyasa Vimsati" has stated 8 reasons why a guru is as good as God. And in

the same Vaisnava parampara, we are told the story of Vipra Narayana (one of

the Alwars) who fell down in gross sense gratification. And then he became

okay. So what is this point that a guru "can never fall down." Where in the

sastra does it say that a guru should be "without any chance of fall down"?

 

> 7) The

> tradition in our parampara is for each math or institution to only have

> one such supreme guru who gives diksa. To keep Srila Prabhupada as the

> sole Acharya for ISKCON is thus only possible if he remains the diksa

> guru. Otherwise ISKCON will eventually become simply a confederation of

> guru maths.

 

Are you sure that this is the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition, in every extant

Sarasvata maths? Did Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

support this "tradition"?

 

In any case, no one in any of the maths in ANY parapara will accept this

bogus concept of a post-humous acarya being anyone's diksa guru.

 

Even the Mayavadis (who say that the guru is mithya, sastra is mithya, the

knowledge from guru and sastra is mithya) accept that to take mantra-diksa,

(a) one must approach a non-post-humous living person and (b) agree to be

bound by his instructions, if one wants liberation.

 

This is so fundamental, I wonder how the very possibility/option of

considering a post-humous acarya as one's diksa guru can arise in the minds

of anyone who claims to follow the Veda.

 

> 8) The position of siksa guru is always subordinate to the diksa guru. '99

> GBC resolutions include this statement: "The general sad-acara is that the

> multiple siksa gurus, regardless of their spiritual strength, act as

> associates of the diksa guru. They promote the initiator as the prominent

> force in the spiritual life of the disciple, who sees first and foremost

> the mercy and shelter of his diksa guru." Thus by promoting Srila

> Prabhupada as "the preeminent siksa guru for every member of the

> institution" one is placing him subordinate to the diksa guru. On the

> other hand, if Srila Prabhupada is given the position of diksa guru, then

> his disciples can act as siksa gurus to other devotees, fulfilling Srila

> Prabhupada's desire for his disciples to be gurus.

 

Sorry, but you don't understand that Prabhupada is in a different category

(category 4) as a founder acarya/foundational siksa guru and is much higher

than a diksa or siksa guru (category 1). This is how it is in the other

Vaisnava paramparas also with their respective mula-gurus. So this rtviks'

logic is faulty being without any basis on Guru, Sadhu, Sastra.

 

During this year's annual Sarasvata Gaudiya Vaisnava Sammelan, which is an

annual meeting of followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the

Gaudiya Math leaders told us that they take Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinoda as their foundation authorities and that the

gurus follow them. So how does it put Srila BSST or BVT below their diksa

gurus? They are obviously in a category above diksa/siksa gurus. I thought

that it is obvious.

 

there is nothing wrong with thsi GBC resolution, of course if you consider

Guru Sadhu and Sastra.

 

> There are a number of devotees who respond to these confusing arguments by

> saying that the diksa given by current ISKCON gurus should be accepted

> only in the pancaratrika diksa sense in order to maintain Srila Prabhupada

> as the primary guru and still allow for his disciples to initiate. Others

> say that, in effect, the diksa gurus voluntarily give up their absolute

> authority over their disciples to the institution, in obediance to Srila

> Prabhupada's instruction to work under the GBC, which in turn simply

> represents Srila Prabhupada himself. This then establishs Srila

> Prabhupada's authority over the members of ISKCON.

 

You see, in the Madhva line also, Madhva acarya made 8 maths. It is not that

only the matha-adhipatis initiate. There are many grhastha gurus, who are

under each math, but they are also working under the system framed by

Madhva. This point was brought out by Pejawar Swami.

 

> This whole confusion is exacerbated by the phenomena of inadequately

> qualified diksa gurus and subsequent mistakes, distortions and falldowns.

> The rtviks argue that Srila Prabhupada could foresee this and thus

> arranged a system whereby he would remain the diksa guru, the primary

> guru, the perfect link and his disciples would be only "officiating

> acharyas" or "rtviks".

 

Even Krsna Bhajanamrta says that there were many problems with gurus during

the time of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. But none of them came up with

such an anti-Vedic speculation as post-samadhi rtvik proponents have done.

 

---------( end

quote)--------------------------

 

 

 

>Don't we have enough experience of the result of this "make believe"? How

>many more "gurus" have to fall before we learn our lession? In this sense

>Krsna Kirti is doing a big dis-service, by jacking up the current Iskcon

>gurus and encouraging them to think that they are "as good as God".

 

 

Maharaj, you also have to teach your disciples "acaryam mam vijaniyan", if

you do not also teach this, then this is also a deviation. You have to

teach because this is the conclusion of the Vedas and the acharyas.

 

It is their duty to offer respects to you, and it is your duty to accept

their services and obeisances, as well as to instruct them. But if you

instruct something that is not supported in the Vedas and supported by the

acharyas, or you neglect to teach something that should be taught, then this

is a deviation. If you teach that "Your guru is an ordinary man", then you

have taught something against the shastra. This is not "jacking up the

gurus to think themselves as good as God" because the center is shastra, not

one's self. Do you see the difference I'm pointing out here?

 

If the behaviour of the guru is regulated by shastra, and the behaviour of

the disciples is also regulated by shastra, then if there is some sort of

discrepancy, or falldown, then because the faith is founded in shastra

(which is apaurushaya) and not simply in the guru (who is purushaya), then

your casualties are minimized.

 

The disciples don't simply fall down with the guru if the guru falls. And

falling gurus will also be minimized because they conform more to the

description of srotrium brahma nistham. Of course, there will be some who

do, but the point is that until we reach vaikuntha, we should not expect

utopia here. And what we CAN expect is that if our faith is placed in

shastra, as explained to us by our acharyas and our preceptors, that things

will work as best as possible.

 

What I have been contending all along is that the problems we are addressing

are caused by an unwillingness to base our understandings on not only guru,

but previous acharyas and (especially) shastra. This neglect of quoting

saintly persons and shastra (even if it is only quoting Srila Prabhupada

quoting shastra and previuos acharyas) is DIRECTLY IN CONTRAVENTION of Srila

Prabhupada's instructions that we do so:

 

--------------------Start of Quote--

 

Madhya 20.352 purport

 

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya

aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly

people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the

sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak

according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if

a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly

person. The sastra is the center for all.

 

--------------------End of Quote--

 

Please don't take offense, but in the course of this discussion, you have

yet to quote from shastra or previous acharyas, even it is Srila Prabhupada

quoting them. I'm not simply trying to "beat you on the head" with this,

but this is an important point, because ONLY quoting Srila Prabhupada's

words assumes we perfectly understand Srila Prabhupada's words.

 

It is easy to misinterpret an oblique quote, but if you have many quotes

from many different sources that affirm one particular understanding, then

it is much less likely that your interpretation is incorrect.

 

Just like, for example, above you asserted that a disciple cannot become

more advanced than his spiritual master, but as the quote from the chapter

on Dhruva Maharaj demonstrated, that is not a fact. A better interpretation

would be that a spiritual master can only accept disciples who are not more

advanced than he, but a disciple, by vigorously executing devotional

service, can later become more advanced than his spiritual master. This is

a better interpretation because it is in harmony with two seemingly

contradictory quotes.

 

Even if we consider that Dhruva's mother was only "showing him the way, and

not actually being a guru", then why would Srila Prabhupada refer to himself

in an analogous situation?

 

Before I'm showered with knee-jerk reactions as to "how could I possible

even think that Srila Prabhupada could have a disciple more advanced than

him", I would again like to refer to this verse: ami ki dose dosi, asura

sakala, pailo carana, vinoda thakilo bosi, "O Gopinath, I am so sinful that

although all the demons attained Your lotus feet, Bhaktivinoda has remained

in worldly existence."

 

Srila Prabhupada, as is Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, is acting as an acharya,

which means he is teaching by his example. Srila Prabhupada will probably

not have a disciple who is more advanced than him, but you might. :-)

 

>So what is our duty to our disciples? We must explain to them that their

>first duty is to try and please us, as we are trying to please our

Spiritual

>Master, and by so doing Krishna will be pleased and they will make

>advancement, as we are also making advancement. In this way gradually we

>will both attain to the perfect state of full Krishna consciousness.

>This is the platform of reality, not some utopian concoction.

 

 

Where does it say in shastra "that their first duty is to try and please

us"? This is a rhetorical question, because we know that it says in shastra

that this is a disciples' first duty, but it seems the point that is

understressed here is that it is your disciples' duty to try and please you

BECAUSE IT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE SCRIPTURES & ACHARYAS.

 

You, or anyone, or even Srila Prabhupada, are not self-sufficient in your

role as a guru. You are a guru because you are dependent on the mercy of

your guru, the acharyas, and ultimately Krishna, otherwise, how can you be a

guru? Otherwise, there would be no meaning to verses such as ye nye ca papa

yad apasrayashraya shudhyanti tasmai prabhavishnave namah. ". . . and even

others addicted to sinful acts can be purified by taking shelter of the

devotees of the Lord, dute to His being the supreme power. I get ot offer

my respectful obeinsances unto Him." (Sb 2.4.18)

 

Another verse that is relevant is

 

tac chraddhadana munayo jnana vairagya yuktaya

pasyanty atmani catmanam bhaktya sruta grihitaya

 

"The seriously inquisitive student or sage, well equiped with transcendental

knowledge, performs devotional service in terms of what he has heard from

the Vedanta-srutis" (SB 1.2.12)

 

This verse and purport is so important that Srila Prabhupada quotes not only

the verse, but the entire purport as well in the Caitanya-caritamrita. To

my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada has not done this with any other verse. I'm

pointing this out to say that the stress should be on training disciples in

what the scriptures say, and based on that one should perform all other

duties.

 

And finally, and we sing it every morning: saksad haritvena samasta

shastrair uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih, "The spritual master is to be

honored as much as the Supreme Lord, because he is the most confidential

servitor of the Lord. THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN ALL REVEALED SCRIPTURES AND

FOLLOWED BY ALL AUTHORITIES."

 

But before we again beat the dead horse of "I'm nowhere near as confidential

as Srila Prabhupada, etc., etc, etc, etc," let's take this a step

farther--who is a more confidential servant of Krishna than Srimati

Radharani? No one is more confidential than Her. Or how about Vishakha or

Lalita? If we say Srila Prabhupada is Krishna's most confidential servitor,

does that degrade the position of Srimati Radharani, or Lalita or Vishakha,

etc.? Of course not. So if we consider Srila Prabhupada as Krishna's most

confidential servitor, as per the directives of Gurvastakam, and that is

simultaneously compatible with the existence of Krishna's greatest devotees

and servants, then why is there a problem with also respecting one's

"non-Prabhupada guru" as per the directives of the Gurvastakam?

 

The problem is that we are not into following shastra.

 

>> Since the guru is giving Krishna to his faithful disciple, then

>> how can he not be considered most confidential? Without him, you aren't

>> getting Krishna, even if he is only 2% confidential.

>

>It is true that "without him, you aren't getting Krishna", but if he is the

>guru who is your main link to Krishna, and he is not 100% confidentially

>connected to Krishna, then how will you become 100% confidentially

>connected? We know that this guru is our leader birth after birth, and

>remains so even when we reach the spiritual world, therefore we can

>understand that he must always be in a more confidential, or at least as

>confidential a position, in his relationship to Krishna.

 

 

It seems you answered this yourself. Without him, you aren't getting

Krishna, birth after birth. Let me ask you this: Let us say that someone

preached to you and showed you the way to Krishna. He wasn't a particularly

advanced devotee, perhaps in a little maya every now and then, but because

of him, you went to the temple, took prasadam, bought some books, and became

the wonderful devotee you are now. Will you be grateful to him birth after

birth, or only for this birth (if at all)?

 

Of course, that is the vartmapradarshaka guru, but what about the devotee

who gives you the adhikar to worship the Deities? (The diksa guru. Even if

he is not Srila Prabhupada.) Or for that matter, the Hare Krishna mantra. Is

this not something to be eternally grateful for? What could be a greater

gift?

 

Therefore, most confidential.

 

>> A guru is as good as God because he is giving God to his disciples.

Please

>> note that if a properly situated (as per the directives of NOI 1)

madhyama

>> or a kanistha weren't capable of doing that, then they couldn't qualify

as

>> a guru, since they would not be able to perform the functions of a guru

>> (i.e. delivering his disciples, etc.)

>

>As I mentioned above, and as quoted from the NOI, the guru (Ones main link

>to the parampara) can only deliver you as far as he is delivered.

>

As as I mentioned above, and as quoted from Srimad Bhagavatam (cf Dhruva

Maharaj & Suniti), the disciple can become more advanced than his spiritual

master.

 

Your non-advanced servant, Krishna-kirti das