Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 GBC discusses whether Kirtanananda disciples can initiate within ISKCON. Conclusion: Not without permission from Kirtanananda, that would be an offense to the spiritual master. --- To the Executive Committee of the GBC Respected Vaishnavas, Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. On 3 July 2005, the EC asked the Sastric Advisory Committee (SAC) to offer some assistance in the GBC’s consideration of the request that Sukadeva Maharaja be allowed to initiate disciples. Sukadeva Maharaja received all of his initiations from Kirtanananda Svami, the former ISKCON guru and sannyasi. Here is the letter from Lilasuka Das requesting SAC’s assistance: “On request of the GBC Executive Committee, I am presenting you the following issue: HH Sukadeva Swami has approached the South Indian Divisional Council for approval as an ISKCON initiating guru. He is originally from Andhra Pradesh, joined in Bombay in the late 70’s or early 80’s, and took initiation as well as sannyasa from Kirtanananda. He was in charge of Kirtanananda’s center at Kurukshetra in the late 80’s or early 90’s. He was welcomed back in ISKCON around the same time as the Chowpatty devotees, but he did not take reinitiation subsequently. He still preaches in Kurukshetra in cooperation with the ISKCON temple there and is also preaching in some previously undeveloped areas of Andhra Pradesh. “The South Indian Divisional Council was reluctant to consider his application until it was clarified whether there would be any future objection on the technical grounds that he could not submit a letter from his diksa-guru directing him to go through the authorization process. The matter came to the India RGB. Jayapataka Swami gave an undertaking to the RGB that he would approach the GBC Body for clarification on this point. I am assisting him in this regard. “First, for your reference, here is the entire current ISKCON law section on eligibility to be a guru, updated to include the change made in 2002: 6.3 Eligibility of Devotee to Be Guru in ISKCON 6.3.1 All Devotee’s Initiations From ISKCON Gurus 1. No devotee shall be eligible to become a diksa-guru in ISKCON unless he has received all of his initiations from ISKCON-approved gurus in good standing. 2. A devotee initiated by a bona fide Gaudiya Vaisnava guru before joining ISKCON may be considered as a special case by the GBC body. 6.3.2 No One Can Give Diksa While Guru is Present As taught by Srila Prabhupada, the etiquette of not initiating in the presence of one’s diksa-guru will be upheld in ISKCON. However, Srila Prabhupada and historical precedents also teach us that disciples may sometimes initiate in the physical presence of their diksa-gurus. If a diksa- guru desires for this to happen, he can direct his disciple to go through the normal GBC procedure for initiating. 6.3.3 Requirement for Consent of Mantra Guru Devotees who have received first initiation from Srila Prabhupada and second initiation from one of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples may, with the written consent of the mantra-guru, be accepted as candidates for initiating spiritual master like any of Srila Prabhupada’s other disciples. “Could the Sastric Advisory Council discuss this problem and inform the GBC EC how they see a solution through sastric references?” SAC’s Reply The SAC has decided to accept the request to consider the specifics of this case. Upon careful study, we believe that the following ISKCON law needs to be revised: “6.3.1—All Devotee's Initiations From ISKCON Gurus: (1) No devotee shall be eligible to become a diksa-guru in ISKCON unless he has received all of his initiations from ISKCON-approved gurus in good standing.” This law appears to be in conflict with the GBC paper on reinitiation. That paper gives the circumstances in which it is necessary for a devotee to retake mantras. That law, based on sastric evidence, says that one should retake mantras if the guru is not a Vaishnava or has become something other than a Vaishnava (e.g. a Mayavadi) or if he becomes inimical to Vaishnavas. The basic definition of a Vaishnava is given in Hari-bhakti-vilasa and its commentary (1.55) verse as follows: grihita-vishnu-dikshako vishnu-puja-paro narah | vaishnavo’bhihito’bhijnair itaro’smad avaishnavah || avaishnava ity uktam | tatradau samanyato vaishnava-lakshanam likhan tad-itaratvenavaishnavam lakshayati—grihiteti | asmad vaishnavad itaro bhinnah ||55|| “After having taken Vaishnava initiation, a person should involve himself seriously in worship of Lord Vishnu. Such a person is designated a Vaishnava by those who are learned, while a person who is different than this is called a non-Vaishnava.” The term ‘non-Vaishnava’ has been spoken. ‘Non-Vaishnava’ is herein defined by first listing the general characteristics of a Vaishnava and then stating that a non-Vaishnava is someone who is different from that.” Thus far, our definition of a Vaishnava is one who has taken Vaishnava initiation and is seriously worshipping the Lord. Therefore, a devotee who has these basic symptoms is a Vaishnava even though he may be having difficulty in his spiritual life. The GBC paper also addresses the question of a fallen Vaishnava guru. The indications from sastra are that a disciple should not reject a guru or his mantras who remains a Vaishnava although fallen. The sastric recommendation is that the disciple should see if the guru can be reformed somehow. In Sri Krishna-bhajanamrita (verse 59-61) it is stated: “If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava relative principles then one should, in a solitary place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, but one is not to give him up. One should not be hesitant or fearful because one is confronting or challenging a spiritual master. For it has been prescribed that one must appropriately discipline even a spiritual master who is (1) bewildered about what he should or shouldn’t do (2) who is inexperienced or ignorant (3) who has deviated from the Krishna conscious path or (4) who is bewildered by false pride. This statement of the revealed scriptures is applicable at all times and under all circumstances.” However, according to Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, a guru is also considered a “non-Vaishnava” if the he refuses to be reformed and (1) becomes a Mayavadi or (2) becomes envious of Vaishnavas or (3) preaches against the truth or (4) acts immorally and sinfully such as running after women for illicit sex or (5) is bereft of devotion to Sri Krishna. In these cases one should also retake one’s mantras from a Vaishnava who displays Vaishnava qualities. These statements are in context with the Narada Pancaratra verse that orders one to retake one’s mantra (avaishnavopadishtena). In Bhakti-sandarbha (anuccheda 238) it is stated: sri-gurv-ajnaya tat-sevanavirodhena canyesham api vaishnavanam sevanam sreyah. anyatha doshah syat, yatha sri-naradoktau, gurau sannihite yas tu pujayed anyam agratah sa durgatim avapnoti pujanam tasya nishphalam iti. “It is for one’s ultimate good to also serve other Vaishnavas, by the order of one’s divine spiritual master and not in conflict with one’s service to him. By acting otherwise one will accrue fault, as is stated by Sri Narada: ‘If one in the presence of one’s guru worships someone else first, he will obtain an evil destination and his worship will bear no fruit.’ ” yah prathamam sabde pare ca nishnatam ity-ady-ukta-lakshanam gurum nasritavan, tadrisa-guros ca matsaradito maha-bhagavata-satkaradav anumatim na labhate, sa prathamata eva tyakta-sastro na vicaryate. ubhaya-sankata-pato hi tasmin bhavaty eva. evam-adikabhiprayenaiva, yo vakti nyaya-rahitam anyayena srinoti yah tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam akshayam iti sri-narada-pancaratre. “It may happen, however, that one has failed to take shelter initially of a guru who fits the description of words such as ‘fully absorbed in the sound form and the personal form of the Supreme’ (Bhagavatam 11.3.21) and has not received permission to show proper respect, etc. to great devotees from his guru due to the guru’s envy and so on. Such a prohibition (from the guru) is fundamentally against the order of revealed scripture and should be disregarded. Indeed, to follow that order would endanger both the disciple and the guru. With this and other considerations in mind it has been said in Sri Narada Pancaratra, ‘One who speaks unjustly and one who hears unjustly both go to a fearful hell for an immeasurable duration of time.’ ” ata eva durata evaradhyas tadriso guruh, vaishnava-vidveshi cet parityajya eva, guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate iti smaranat, tasya vaishnava-bhava-rahityenavaishnavataya avaishnavopadishtena ity-adi-vacana-vishayatvac ca. yathokta-lakshanasya sri-guror avidyamanatayam tu tasyaiva maha-bhagavatasyaikasya nitya-sevanam paramam sreyah. sa ca sri-guru-vat sama-vasanah svasmin kripalu-cittas ca grahyah, yasya yat-sangatih pumso mani-vat syat sa tad-gunah sva-kularddhyai tato dhiman sva-yuthyan eva samsrayet iti sri-hari-bhakti-sudhodaya-drishtya, kripam vina tasmin cittaratya ca. “Therefore such a guru should be worshiped only at a distance, and if he is inimical to Vaishnavas he must simply be rejected, according to the statement of smriti, ‘It is enjoined that a corrupted spiritual master who cannot distinguish what should be done and what should not be done, who has gone astray from the right path, must be abandoned.’ (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva 178.24) After all, he is not a Vaishnava because he is devoid of the mood of Vaishnavas, and he is described in such words as the verse beginning avaishnavopadishtena (Narada Pancaratra). In the absence of the kind of divine spiritual master defined previously, the best thing to do for one’s ultimate benefit is to regularly serve an advanced devotee (maha-bhagavata). A devotee should be selected who is sympathetic as sri-guru should be and whose heart is inclined to showing one mercy. Or, in the view of Sri Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya, ‘Whatever a person associates with, he will acquire its qualities just as a gem reflects ambient light. Thus one who is intelligent should for the prosperity of his community take shelter of those who belong to his own flock.’ One more point is that unless a guru shows mercy the disciple’s heart will not form attachment to him.” And in Jaiva-dharma, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written, Vijaya, “The scriptures forbid giving up the diksha-guru. However, if he is incapable of imparting proper knowledge of devotion and of Vaishnava etiquette, how can he be in a position to teach?” Raghunatha dasa Babaji, “Before a person accepts formal initiation from a guru, he must test the guru as to whether he is well-versed in the Vedas and in the science of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Only such a bona fide guru is indeed able to instruct his disciple in all matters. It is true that the diksha-guru should not be rejected, but there are two bona fide reasons to give him up. “First, if for some reason or another at the time of initiation the disciple did not recognize the devotional caliber of the guru and later found out that the guru was neither conversant with the conclusions of sastra, nor a Vaishnava, so that he, the disciple, could not make any spiritual progress, then the disciple should reject the unqualified guru. Many scriptural sources support this course of action. For example, the Narada-pancaratra, as cited in Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 1.62, states: yo vyakti nyaya rahitam anyayena srinoti yah tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam akshayam “‘Any person posing as an acarya, but speaking unauthorized philosophy contrary to the teachings of the sastra and any one who claims to be his disciple and hears such, thereby lending credibility to such nonsense, both of these are bound for Hell.’ “The Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, 179.25, explains in the story of Amba: guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate “‘A person who is wallowing in carnal pleasures and material comforts, who is confused about the human goal of life and is devoid of bhakti, and who poses as a guru, such a depraved charlatan must be rejected.’ “Another quotation from the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 4.144: avaishnavopadishtena mantrena nirayam vrajet punas ca vidhina samyag grahayed vaishnavad guroh “‘If one receives mantra-diksha from a non-Vaishnava who runs after women and is bereft of devotion to Sri Krishna, one is certainly doomed to Hell. Therefore, one must immediately act according to scriptural injunctions and take re-initiation from a real, properly qualified, Vaishnava guru.’ “The second reason is that if a guru who was a Vaishnava and knowledgeable in Krishna consciousness at the time of initiation becomes a Mayavadi and a Vaishnava-hater as a result of bad association or otherwise, or he behaves immorally and sinfully, then the disciple must give him up. “However, if the guru is neither inimical to Vaishnavas, nor a Mayavadi, nor addicted to sinful activities, but however lacks knowledge of the scriptures, then his meager scriptural understanding should not be a cause for rejection. In this case, the disciple may approach his guru with due deference to procure his permission to receive spiritual knowledge and instructions from an advanced, pure Vaishnava, and thus engage in serving and learning from the knowledgeable Vaishnava.” Under these sastric understandings, it is possible for an ISKCON guru not to be in good-standing and still be considered a Vaishnava. And therefore his disciple would not have to retake the mantras he received from him. In other words, the guru could be still a member of ISKCON—and still a Vaishnava—but not in good-standing because of a temporary fall-down or difficulty. An example of this could be that of a fallen guru who is under a program of rectification by the GBC and only temporarily suspended from giving initiations. Therefore, under the GBC’s 1989 reinitiation paper and its sastric support, the disciples of such a guru should not reject their guru or retake the mantras they received from him. Thus the law that states that a guru must have all his mantras from a guru in good-standing in ISKCON appears to be in conflict with the reinitiation paper and related sastric injunctions. This contradiction could be resolved if the guru-authorization law were rewritten in the following way: “In order to be a ISKCON guru, a devotee should have all of his mantras from a guru who is an ISKCON member and has maintained at least minimal Vaishnava qualifications and can thus still be considered a Vaishnava according to the relevant definitions given by guru, sadhu and sastra.” This would bring the two laws into harmony. Under this new law, it would be possible for a prospective guru to have his mantras from a living Vaishnava guru who is not in good-standing in ISKCON. For example, a fallen guru who accepted a program of rectification and temporary suspension of the right to give initiation may still considered a Vaishnava. We have given some relevant sastric evidence for what constitutes being considered a Vaishnava. If there are doubts about whether or not a guru is a Vaishnava in any particular case, the GBC should decide. But that decision should be taken after the disciple has first formed his own opinion. We believe that in the first instance it is the disciple who should make this judgment. If the close associates of the devotee or his local authorities believe he has made a wrong decision, they should try to educate and reason with him in an informal matter. A wrong decision occurs if one prematurely decides to retake mantras from another guru when one’s existing diksha-guru remains a Vaishnava despite a temporary fall-down. A wrong decision also occurs by not retaking mantras in a timely fashion from another guru when one’s existing diksha-guru has become a non-Vaishnava. How does this apply to the current case? Kirtanananda Svami has been expelled from ISKCON, but the GBC law provides an exception for devotees who have received mantras from Vaishnava gurus outside ISKCON. So the real question here is the status of Kirtanananda Svami as a Vaishnava. The GBC should decide if he has become a non-Vaishnava according to the definitions given above. Perhaps the first step should be for the EC to show Sukadeva Maharaja the relevant ISKCON laws and paper about reinitiation, and then ask him how he sees his position in relation to the specific matter of retaking mantras. As we have seen, the evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra tells us that mantras should be retaken (1) if the guru was not an initiated Vaishnava when he gave the mantras, or (2) if the guru has since become an non-Vaishnava by becoming a Mayavadi or atheist after giving the mantras, or (3) if the guru has become an non-Vaishnava by becoming addicted to sense gratification or worse, (4) an offender or hater of Vaishnavas. Having considered this, Sukadeva Maharaja should express his opinion about whether or not he should retake the mantras he received from Kirtanananda Svami. If he feels that Kirtanananda Svami is still a Vaishnava according to the relevant considerations, this will explain why he has not retaken the mantras he received from him. In this case, the GBC would have to decide whether or not to accept his opinion. If the GBC does accept this, then Sukadeva Maharaja would require permission from Kirtanananda Svami in order to start initiating disciples of his own. The normal system is that a disciple should not initiate in the presence of his living diksha-guru. That is considered an offense unless the diksha-guru gives the disciple the order or permission to do it. If Sukadeva Maharaja considers Kirtanananda Svami to be a non-Vaishnava according to the relevant definitions given above, then he is obligated to retake the mantras he received from him. Consequently, to start initiating his own disciples, he would require the order or permission of the new diksha-guru. Signed by SAC members: Drutakarma Dasa Gopiparanadhana Dasa Purnacandra Dasa Irmila Devi Dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhakta Don Muntean Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Just see how things have gone - Kirtanananda should be in jail yet and here he is getting respect from GBC? How long before they invite him [it] back in? Prabhupada must be livid right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Yeah.. shame on ISKCON for following the scriptures right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 It really is up to each individual to decide if they want to get hooked up with some shadowy imitation of transcendental reality which appears to us most often in religious form or if they want to realize their position as Krsna's loving servant. Based on our choice Krsna will direct us accordingly. SB 11.7.18: Therefore, O Lord, feeling weary of material life and tormented by its distresses, I now surrender unto You because You are the perfect master. You are the unlimited, all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose spiritual abode in Vaikuṇṭha is free from all disturbances. In fact, You are known as Nārāyaṇa, the true friend of all living beings. SB 11.7.19: The Supreme Lord replied: Generally those human beings who can expertly analyze the actual situation of the material world are able to raise themselves beyond the inauspicious life of gross material gratification. SB 11.7.20: An intelligent person, expert in perceiving the world around him and in applying sound logic, can achieve real benefit through his own intelligence. Thus sometimes one acts as one's own instructing spiritual master. SB 11.7.21: In the human form of life, those who are self-controlled and expert in the spiritual science of Sāńkhya can directly see Me along with all of My potencies. SB 11.7.22: In this world there are many kinds of created bodies — some with one leg, others with two, three, four or more legs, and still others with no legs — but of all these, the human form is actually dear to Me. SB 11.7.23: Although I, the Supreme Lord, can never be captured by ordinary sense perception, those situated in human life may use their intelligence and other faculties of perception to directly search for Me through both apparent and indirectly ascertained symptoms. SB 11.7.24: In this regard, sages cite a historical narration concerning the conversation between the greatly powerful King Yadu and an avadhūta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Yeah.. shame on ISKCON for following the scriptures right? What scripture references are you referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 The ones referenced in the original post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 The ones referenced in the original post? There were many quotations cited. But here is one from that group that many devotees outside of ISKCON cite as a gripe against many of the GBC's chosen (allowed) gurus. yah prathamam sabde pare ca nishnatam ity-ady-ukta-lakshanam gurum nasritavan, tadrisa-guros ca matsaradito maha-bhagavata-satkaradav anumatim na labhate, sa prathamata eva tyakta-sastro na vicaryate. ubhaya-sankata-pato hi tasmin bhavaty eva. evam-adikabhiprayenaiva, yo vakti nyaya-rahitam anyayena srinoti yah tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam akshayam iti sri-narada-pancaratre. “It may happen, however, that one has failed to take shelter initially of a guru who fits the description of words such as ‘fully absorbed in the sound form and the personal form of the Supreme’ (Bhagavatam 11.3.21) and has not received permission to show proper respect, etc. to great devotees from his guru due to the guru’s envy and so on. Such a prohibition (from the guru) is fundamentally against the order of revealed scripture and should be disregarded. Indeed, to follow that order would endanger both the disciple and the guru. With this and other considerations in mind it has been said in Sri Narada Pancaratra, ‘One who speaks unjustly and one who hears unjustly both go to a fearful hell for an immeasurable duration of time.’ ” What happens everytime is that one beginning Krsna Consciousness will tend to take on the predominant viewpoint of the group one begins first to associate with. But at some point we need to realize the necessity of our own independent approach of the Supreme Lord and pray for Him to properly guide us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 A summary of the document above is something like this: 1) A guru may be a homosexual pedophile and remain as guru, provided he is not a regular homosexual pedophile (just once in a while is fine) 2) That homosexual pedophile will naturally be explelled from ISKCON, but he remains a guru representative of Krishna, outside of ISKCON 3) Disciples of that homosexual pedophile who return to ISKCON could initiate their own disciples, provided they get written authorization from their living guru (who is a pedophile). Otherwise it would be an offense to their guru if they initiated disciples of their own without his written consent. Yeah... they are just repeating whats in the scriptures, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 2) That homosexual pedophile will naturally be explelled from ISKCON It would be a big advancement if they'd do so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Interesting topic....can we discuss it some more detail without having posts censored on this forum and mysteriously deleted with no explanation from the moderaters or you JN Das. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 That happens but just roll with it. I had one of mine deleted yesterday. I don't think it was because it was considered right or wrong but most likely because I was overly sarcastic. I had just seen those pictures of Bhavananda in Mayapur all decked out in his holy man costume and I just couldn't take it. So maybe look at the style of what you said and see if there might be a better way to make the point. Works for me. If things get too loose I usually just fall right into it and escalate it. You might try a PM to Admin. or JNdas. I am sure they don't want to get into it on the board as that would just defeat the purpose behind deleting it. Also please register or somehow distingush yourself from other guests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 What does good-standing mean? Krishna says qualifications of Guru in Gita. Do they say if Guru is Madhyama-adikari or not? Or Uttama-adikari? How does anybody know? Do we judge by what other devotees (voted) say or do we judge ourselves? By popular vote do we judge Guru? Or do we see through eyes of Krishna and Nityananda? I see all Guru's in Iskcon as Guru's in the sense they are either Madhyama-adikari (there is thousands of different levels on this). There is no way, there is a Uttama-adikari (yet). Because it would have been obvious ? An Uttama-adikari sends shockwaves, wherever he goes. I supect if it does happen, he would be a proper Prabhupada disicple (like a lion?). Who knows, nice speculating about it though hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Registered users who are regular posters have a lot more freedom to express their veiws on controversial subjects. There are certain restrictions taking into account that these forums are meant for all varieties of guests, from many religious backgrounds. If anyone has a question about the moderation they can send a PM to Admin. I am no longer involved in moderating and haven't been for several years. There are several devotees who do that service. Occasionaly, even I cross the line of politeness and my posts will be moderated as well, and thats only fair. It doesn't mean the posts are necessarily wrong, but just not fit for the general audience. Other reasons for post removal could be: Endless argument topics (ritvik, poision, swami narayana [not Narayana Maharaja], islam, etc.); topic diversion (offtopic, better in its own thread); hijacking topics (like posting your complaints in this thread when it has no connection with your complaint); etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 A summary of the document above is something like this: 1) A guru may be a homosexual pedophile and remain as guru, provided he is not a regular homosexual pedophile (just once in a while is fine) 2) That homosexual pedophile will naturally be explelled from ISKCON, but he remains a guru representative of Krishna, outside of ISKCON 3) Disciples of that homosexual pedophile who return to ISKCON could initiate their own disciples, provided they get written authorization from their living guru (who is a pedophile). Otherwise it would be an offense to their guru if they initiated disciples of their own without his written consent. Yeah... they are just repeating whats in the scriptures, right? And I note that they do what they tell us we are not supposed to do: jump right over Prabhupada and quote other scriptures. They do not even quote Prabhupada once - probably because SP never sanctioned homosexual pedophiles to be gurus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Sri Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him, for it is enjoined that one should deliver whatever he has to the spiritual master. The brahmacari in particular is supposed to beg alms from others and offer them to the spiritual master. 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. In this verse Srila Rupa Gosvami advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kanistha-adhikari, madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaisnavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. 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. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master. 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.