The great historical debate and question, who is ones REAL Guru?

[krsna]

 

The genuine guru does not make anyone his disciple. Rather, he makes everyone his guru by turning those who have no interest in Krishna into devotees. He tries to give Krishna pleasure by engaging everyone in his service.

The guru's vision is that everything has importance; thus his every action is an act of devotion. The spiritual master sees the guru everywhere and everything related to Krishna. For him nothing is insignificant; nothing is seen as an object of the senses. He does not see this world as a mundane creation.

The guru's work is a lot like that of a medical professor in the university: he is not making students, but doctors. Similarly, the guru is making other gurus.

If the Vaishnavas do not play the role of spiritual master, then the transcendental family of Vaishnavas will dwindle and disappear. The problem is that as soon as one becomes guru, he ceases to be a Vaishnava.

Therefore it is not proper to act as guru if one is not qualified. This means only inauspicious results for the disciple and falldown for the guru. The spiritual master does not identify himself as a guru, for his inner identification as a servant of God is too powerful.

If the spiritual master thinks of himself as guru, then the first vowel of his name changes and he becomes goru-a cow.

The genuine guru is engaged twenty-four hours a day in Lord Krishna's service. He acknowledges no duty other than serving Krishna.

Thus the only person who is qualified to do the work of a guru is the devotee who is completely committed to his own spiritual master and has made service to him his life.

One has to be devoted to the spiritual master in the same way one is devoted to Krishna. One should think of the spiritual master in the same way that one thinks of Krishna, for he is in no way less than or inferior to Krishna.

It is the duty of a pious person to recognize the spiritual master as equal to Krishna and to worship him and serve him in that way. If one does not do so, then is destituted of his status as a disciple.

Those who see the guru and Krishna as the same will be able to understand the essence of the scriptures. They alone will be able to chant the Holy Names and they alone will be able to speak on Krishna.

Sri Krishna himself has descended in the form of the spiritual master in order to teach service to himself. Those on whom fortune smiles will be able to understand this spotless scriptural truth. If not, their doubting minds will plunge them into the ocean of samsara.

The spiritual master is neither the ultimate object of devotion, viSaya-vigraha, nor the original reservoir of devotion, Azraya-vigraha. He is a manifestation or prakAza-vigraha of the original reservoir of devotion.

Sri Krishna is the supreme object of all love, whereas the guru is the reservoir of divine love. Krishna is the predominating absolute, the bhoktA bhagavAn, while the guru is the predominated absolute, or sevaka-bhagavAn; he is God as worshiper or servant.

Even though the spiritual master is the reservoir of love, he is Krishna himself; at the same time he is the most beloved of Krishna.

This is the inconceivable paradox of guru tattva. Krishna is the complete omnipotent and the spiritual master is his complete potency. The spiritual master is not an ordinary living entity, he is master of all living entities.

The spiritual master is the supreme consciousness, the plenary manifestation of the Lord's potency, his internal potency.

We ordinary jivas on the other hand are atomic particles of consciousness, Krishna's marginal potency and separated parts.

--

Here Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is clear who is the spiritual master exactly, no jiva soul can ever occupy the post of spiritual master:

"The spiritual master is not an ordinary living entity, he is master of all living entities. The spiritual master is the supreme consciousness, the plenary manifestation of the Lord's potency, his internal potency. We ordinary jivas on the other hand are atomic particles of consciousness, Krishna's marginal potency and separated parts."

 

REAL Guru Now Movement!

[Beggar]

In post #109 on this thread cbrahma quotes:

 

 

Srila Prabhupada: That he was speaking, vani and vapuh. Even if you don't see his body, you take his words, vani.”

(Room conversation, 21/7/75)

 

This shows the context of your quote of Srila Prabhupada because the discussion was not really so much about "who is one's real guru?" but about vani and vapuh.

 

 

 

Way to sidestep the point Srila Prabhupada is making very plainly and clearly. Why can't you take this statement, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person ,"on it's face. directly, as it is stated? As soon as you said the "But" you started the smokescreen.

This statement,Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person , means exactly what it says.

Do you accept it on it's face yes or no Beggar? Please be very clear with a yes or no.

 

 

Wether Prabhupada was a hardcore living guru advocate or wether Prabhupada was a preceptorial guru advocate...

 

 

He was both. Just like the color pink is made up of the colors red and white.

The problem is that you have to mix them exactly the right way to come out with the correct color. This is what it means to harmonize. It's interesting that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's fortnightly was called, The Harmonist.

 

Now I have given the context of your statement [again below] in relation to the flow of this thread:

 

This statement,Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person , means exactly what it says.

 

Now let's look at the sentence, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person."in the context of the paragraph in which it is embedded:

Letter to: Kirtanananda

—

Los Angeles

25 January, 1969

69-01-25

 

My Dear Kirtanananda,

 

 

...Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva's disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree...

 

So you are using the sentence "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." in the context of idea that vani is more important than vapuh in relation to an individual's spiritual sojourn in relationship to a great acarya such as Srila Prabhpada. But in the context of the full letter and specifically the paragraph of which it is part shows that the sentence is in relation to the list of the principle acaryas coming down in the line of disciplic succession listed in the beginning of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. So I certainly accept the sentence it's proper context.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj is saying the same thing in Sri Guru and His Grace:

 

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: We are not concerned with a material connection. The mediator is not this flesh and body as we generally think. In studying the development of scientific thought, we may connect Newton to Einstein, leaving aside many unimportant scientists. We may trace the development of science from Galileo to Newton, and then to Einstein, neglecting the middle points. If their contributions are taken into account, then the whole thing is taken into account, and lesser scientists may be omitted. When a long distance is to be surveyed, the nearest posts may be neglected. Between one planet and another, the unit of measurement is the light year; distance is calculated in light years and not from mile to mile, or meter to meter. In the disciplic succession, only the great stalwarts in our line are considered important.

 

[cbrahma]

I just can't take it any more - it's just too funny ROFL how a religionist will dodge and weave in the face of unambiguous teachings from the guru Himself. It betrays the secondary motives of such a disciple - the prestige the automatic credential that the ritualism confers - who wants to minimize that? Rather milk it for everything it's worth.

We don't want to get too involved investigating Bhaktisiddhanta's diksa status. It is questionable exactly who his diksa guru is supposed to be according to many 'traditionalist' reports, not the least is Lalita Prasad, his brother.

Bipin Goswami is never mentioned by Prabhupada, Bhaktivinode's true traditional diksa guru. Jaganatha dasa babaji was his siksa guru.

From a traditional diksa point of view the whole issue is a mess. There is no blending, just pastiche.

[Bishadi]

 

I just can't take it any more - it's just too funny ROFL how a religionist will dodge and weave in the face of unambiguous teachings from the guru Himself. It betrays the secondary motives of such a disciple - the prestige the automatic credential that the ritualism confers - who wants to minimize that? Rather milk it for everything it's worth.

 

Good job, rebel against the complacent. And never allow a teacher to preach an oppression of the spirit.

 

Knowledge evolves; either they allow the children to learn and combine knowledge or the old die in the selfish isolation from reality.

 

If you think these folk are tough, maybe play in Christianity or Judaism; talk about the selfrighteous crowd when it comes to preaching leadership...

 

Meaning until the student removes the powers from the teacher; they will keep em and the order of belief.

[theist]

 

In post #109 on this thread cbrahma quotes:

 

 

 

This shows the context of your quote of Srila Prabhupada because the discussion was not really so much about "who is one's real guru?" but about vani and vapuh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I have given the context of your statement [again below] in relation to the flow of this thread:

 

 

Now let's look at the sentence, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person."in the context of the paragraph in which it is embedded:

 

So you are using the sentence "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." in the context of idea that vani is more important than vapuh in relation to an individual's spiritual sojourn in relationship to a great acarya such as Srila Prabhpada. But in the context of the full letter and specifically the paragraph of which it is part shows that the sentence is in relation to the list of the principle acaryas coming down in the line of disciplic succession listed in the beginning of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. So I certainly accept the sentence it's proper context.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj is saying the same thing in Sri Guru and His Grace:

 

 

 

 

Yada yada yada. I asked for a yes or no answer. It's a stand alone statement not dependent on context so drop the smokescreen. YES OR NO. Why do you find that so difficult.

[cbrahma]

The manifest topic of the sentence is succession .

Being nobody's disciple in particular has nothing to do with vapu or vani.

One can still insist on formal initiation by a particular guru and understand that vani is more important, even after the vapu is gone. In fact there are a number of Prabhupada disciples who believe this.

The point made in the quoted sentence is logically an additional point quite outside the context of that issue and has little to no bearing on it.

[theist]

 

The manifest topic of the sentence is succession .

Being nobody's disciple in particular has nothing to do with vapu or vani.

One can still insist on formal initiation by a particular guru and understand that vani is more important, even after the vapu is gone. In fact there are a number of Prabhupada disciples who believe this.

The point made in the quoted sentence is logically an additional point quite outside the context of that issue and has little to no bearing on it.

 

Yes the point being made accepting the conclusion of the parampara is linking up with the parampara and not merely some formal ceremony preformed by a particular person. It is not that you are not linked with parampara even though you have ben chanting for several years and accept the conclusions of the Krishna consciousness movement and then one day some ecclesiastical guru performs some ceremony and suddenly you are linked up. Additionaly if you don't get the ceremony then you are not linked up.

 

Prabhupada explains that it is an axiomatic truth that two things that are equal are also both equal if anything else is found to be equal to either one of them. To accept one particular person of the parampara is equal to accepting the whole parapara and so accepting to whole parampara is equal to accepting a particular person. It is the same thing. Why? because accepting means to accept the conclusions on God consciousness that is taught and if that particular person is really in disciplic line his conclusions will be the same as Arjuna's conclusions.

 

Because of one's pyscho/physical make up he may be attracted more to a particular person who teaches in a philosophical way but another may be attracted the path of Arjuna. Some may take some from each and also some from someone else. The test is rather he has accepted the proper conclusion. And what is the conclusion of the Vaisnava parampara's in general. God is the Supreme Person and we jivas are also persons meant to serve the Supreme Person eternally. Then it can be seen that each particular parampara has something unique to themselves and by accepting their particular conclusion over other Vaisnava's one enters further into a more specific line of Vaisnava's.

 

This is 100% based on hearing and realization. Traditions may be followed but traditions are not eternal. Realizations are.

 

This is why I see diksa as the process of entering into a parampara and not a one time ceremonial event. When one has been totally transformed from a lover of matter into a lover of Krishna then he is perfectedly situated in the parampara and represents it internally, in truth. he may also be very traditonal in the way he presents it or he may be very unorthodox.

 

As to who is one's guru Srila Prabhupada once said or wrote, "he that you hear from that is your guru." Not so hard to understand if one simply follows the arrow of their own heartfelt faith, it will always land at the feet of your own guru.

 

Where does your faith go to? Who inspires (in-spirit) you?

 

Inspires is such a fabulous word.

Inspiration: to breath in

To take the vital spirit into ourselves just as our bodies breath in it's vital air.

He who provides that vital spirit to you is your guru.

[Beggar]

 

Yes the point being made accepting the conclusion of the parampara is linking up with the parampara and not merely some formal ceremony preformed by a particular person. It is not that you are not linked with parampara even though you have ben chanting for several years and accept the conclusions of the Krishna consciousness movement and then one day some ecclesiastical guru performs some ceremony and suddenly you are linked up. Additionaly if you don't get the ceremony then you are not linked up.

 

I can theoretically accept what you are writing. But I can tell you that in the context that you are writing it, none of the current non-Iskcon acaryas would ever preach it in public. (Most Iskcon gurus will say anything that pops into their heads, so they don't count). One of the things that the initiating guru tries to accomplish is to get the disciple to believe that he is linked up by the initiation. In this way there is the chance that the disciple will take the initiation in a very serious way and maintain his vowels of chanting, serving and following the Vaisnava sadacara or behavioral standard. Later on in a more mature stage of development the disciple will see through the formalities and get to the essential nature of devotional truths. As to "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." I don't think that it is accurate to call this a "stand alone statement". I see it more in the context the full letter. We have to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and this is what I believe that I have seen in cbrahma's general approach to these topics.

 

 

This is why I see diksa as the process of entering into a parampara and not a one time ceremonial event. When one has been totally transformed from a lover of matter into a lover of Krishna then he is perfectedly situated in the parampara and represents it internally, in truth.

Of course what you have written above is true, but again we are entering in to the region of a semantical debate. Look at these two statements by Srila Sridhar Maharaj in Sri Guru and His Grace just a paragraph apart from each other:

 

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja Quote A: Diksa means discovering one's inner wealth, and getting relief from all outward obligations.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja Quote B:

Diksa mainly involves initiation into the mantra, the spiritual formula. Other instructions are necessary to substantiate it, to help it become effective. Certain activities are also helpful. These are all parts and parcels of initiation. So, a general directlon is given by diksa, but how to substantiate that? Details are necessary.

 

... Wether Prabhupada was a hardcore living guru advocate or wether Prabhupada was a preceptorial guru advocate...

So in Quote A Srila Sridhar Maharaj seens like a hardcore living guru advocate and in Quote B he seems like a preceptoral guru advocate (the part of B in colors)

 

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: ..So, a general directlon is given by diksa, but how to substantiate that? Details are necessary.

 

The details to substantiate the "spiritual formula" of the mantra are the siksa or instructions given by a preceptor. So one could also ask AncientMariner's question about Srila Prabhupada, about Srila Sridhar Maharaj. The answer from the evidence that I have just shown is both.

Will cbrahma ever agree? I don't believe so. Because he is too bitter and angry for whatever reason, and he has an agenda which is to prove that:

... the diksa lineage is corrupted..

Because after all in his conception, all living and passed on GBC approved gurus are unqualified. And since Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter, [paraphrasing] "none of my godbrothers were fit to be acarya", and in this context cbrahma equates acarya with initiating guru (which is clearly a misconception according to Srila Sridhar Maharaja) then therefore his godbrother's disciples are not really initiated, nor or their disciples. So here we have the lone wolves of the IRM. extremist Rtviks and cbrahma crying out like some sort of Hare Krsna Chicken Little, the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! So now it becomes incumbent upon them to make a propaganda campaign against the vapuh relationship between guru and disciple, where vani is stressed so much that vapuh either becomes meaningless and nonexistent or at least a dirty word. But cbrahma takes it all to new level, at least the Rtviks give hare nama and diksa or behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it appears that cbrahma is even against that process. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was according to his own words, "a form breaker, not a form maker" and all true followers of Srila Saraswati Thakurs Bhagavat or siksa guru parampara are likewise including Srila Prabhupada, as his statement, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person" , clearly illustrates. But none of these great gurus is a nihilist or one that propogates dissembling ideas but rather just the opposite. From reading his posts I do believe that cbrahma is some kind of combination of a nihilist and a devotee although really that is a contradictory combination. Such nihilism is really symtomatic of damaged sraddha or faith and I really don't wish that on anyone. So no matter how much nonsense cbrahma writes and how many times he tries to insult me, I will try to understand that I am really a nobody anyway. And I will try to hope against hope and wish him well if it is at all possible for me to do so. Hare Krsna.

[Sarva gattah]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by krsna

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This painting is worth a million words, Book Bhagavata and the personal embodiment of Bhagavata go side by side.

 

However, if one thinks of Krsna at the time of death like Arjamil did, whether one is initiated or not, they WILL return home, back to Godhead.

 

 

 

 

 

[Beggar]

By chanting namabhasa without any offenses or nama aparadhas Ajamila became sinless but that was more or less a neutral position. Then when his intelligence was spiritually reawakened by seeing the Visnuduttas and hearing their conversation with the Yamaduttas, Ajamila went to Hardwar on the bank of the Ganges and perfomed bhakti yoga sadhana.

 

Srila Narayana Maharaja:

 

The stage of nama-abhasa that has the power to destroy all prarabda, aprarabda, kuta, bija, and avidya (forgetfulness of Krsna), is its topmost stage, and that type of nama-abhasa was uttered by Ajamila. At that stage there is no tinge of any offense and there is no tinge of any other mixture. Ajamila chanted pure nama-abhasa, and therefore he attained liberation and later Vaikuntha.

 

Canto 6: Prescribed Duties for Mankind

Chapter 2: Ajamila Delivered by the Visnudutas

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Srimad Bhagavatam

SB 6.2.39: Because of a moment's association with devotees [the Visnudutas], Ajamila detached himself from the material conception of life with determination. Thus freed from all material attraction, he immediately started for Hardwar.

 

SB 6.2.40: In Hardwar, Ajamila took shelter at a Visnu temple, where he executed the process of bhakti-yoga. He controlled his senses and fully applied his mind in the service of the Lord.

SB 6.2.41: Ajamila fully engaged in devotional service. Thus he detached his mind from the process of sense gratification and became fully absorbed in thinking of the form of the Lord.

SB 6.2.42: When his intelligence and mind were fixed upon the form of the Lord, the brahmana Ajamila once again saw before him four celestial persons. He could understand that they were those he had seen previously, and thus he offered them his obeisances by bowing down before them.

SB 6.2.43: Upon seeing the Visnudutas, Ajamila gave up his material body at Hardwar on the bank of the Ganges. He regained his original spiritual body, which was a body appropriate for an associate of the Lord.

[theist]

 

I can theoretically accept what you are writing. But I can tell you that in the context that you are writing it, none of the current non-Iskcon acaryas would ever preach it in public. (Most Iskcon gurus will say anything that pops into their heads, so they don't count). One of the things that the initiating guru tries to accomplish is to get the disciple to believe that he is linked up by the initiation. In this way there is the chance that the disciple will take the initiation in a very serious way and maintain his vowels of chanting, serving and following the Vaisnava sadacara or behavioral standard. Later on in a more mature stage of development the disciple will see through the formalities and get to the essential nature of devotional truths. As to "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." I don't think that it is accurate to call this a "stand alone statement". I see it more in the context the full letter. We have to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and this is what I believe that I have seen in cbrahma's general approach to these topics.

 

 

 

Of course what you have written above is true, but again we are entering in to the region of a semantical debate. Look at these two statements by Srila Sridhar Maharaj in Sri Guru and His Grace just a paragraph apart from each other:

 

 

 

 

So in Quote A Srila Sridhar Maharaj seens like a hardcore living guru advocate and in Quote B he seems like a preceptoral guru advocate (the part of B in colors)

 

 

 

The details to substantiate the "spiritual formula" of the mantra are the siksa or instructions given by a preceptor. So one could also ask AncientMariner's question about Srila Prabhupada, about Srila Sridhar Maharaj. The answer from the evidence that I have just shown is both.

Will cbrahma ever agree? I don't believe so. Because he is too bitter and angry for whatever reason, and he has an agenda which is to prove that:

Because after all in his conception, all living and passed on GBC approved gurus are unqualified. And since Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter, [paraphrasing] "none of my godbrothers were fit to be acarya", and in this context cbrahma equates acarya with initiating guru (which is clearly a misconception according to Srila Sridhar Maharaja) then therefore his godbrother's disciples are not really initiated, nor or their disciples. So here we have the lone wolves of the IRM. extremist Rtviks and cbrahma crying out like some sort of Hare Krsna Chicken Little, the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! So now it becomes incumbent upon them to make a propaganda campaign against the vapuh relationship between guru and disciple, where vani is stressed so much that vapuh either becomes meaningless and nonexistent or at least a dirty word. But cbrahma takes it all to new level, at least the Rtviks give hare nama and diksa or behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it appears that cbrahma is even against that process. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was according to his own words, "a form breaker, not a form maker" and all true followers of Srila Saraswati Thakurs Bhagavat or siksa guru parampara are likewise including Srila Prabhupada, as his statement, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person" , clearly illustrates. But none of these great gurus is a nihilist or one that propogates dissembling ideas but rather just the opposite. From reading his posts I do believe that cbrahma is some kind of combination of a nihilist and a devotee although really that is a contradictory combination. Such nihilism is really symtomatic of damaged sraddha or faith and I really don't wish that on anyone. So no matter how much nonsense cbrahma writes and how many times he tries to insult me, I will try to understand that I am really a nobody anyway. And I will try to hope against hope and wish him well if it is at all possible for me to do so. Hare Krsna.

 

Oh man. Who cares what Iskcon gurus accept or not. Why bring up some problem you have with cbrahma. You still can't say yes or no. The context of the letter simply backs up the statement.

 

I take your constant dodging to be due to your trying to straddle Sridhar Maharaja & Srila Prabhupada with NM.

 

Forget about it.

[Sarva gattah]

 

 

REAL Guru Now Movement!

 

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by krsna

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This painting is worth a million words, Book Bhagavata and the personal embodiment of Bhagavata go side by side.

[cbrahma]

I unfortunately was lead to read Beggar's personal rantings. The presumption that there has to be something terriblY wrong with a person who knows the diksa lineage is hopelessly fragmented is an exercise in wishful thinking. That idea is based on historical report about Bhaktisiddhanta's formal diksa supported by many 'traditional' Hindus like Lalita Prasada, not personal pathology. It is irrelevant in the context that Prabhupada , whom I incessantly quote, made the statement about being nobody's disciple in particular, a statement which transcends the simplistic diksa lineage idea.

[theist]

 

It is irrelevant in the context that Prabhupada , whom I incessantly quote, made the statement about being nobody's disciple in particular, a statement which transcends the simplistic diksa lineage idea.

 

Yes it does. It clearly means that the reception of transcendental knowledge is not dependent on a formal ceremony or pledge of allegiance to a particula person. It is based on hearing from the right source or sources (ultimately even plural in the transcendental sense refers to oneness(and difference) ). And hearing includes reading which is what many people still can't accept because it points to the reality that Srila Prabhupada is just as relevant today as he was in 1966.

[Sarva gattah]

 

Yes it does. It clearly means that the reception of transcendental knowledge is not dependent on a formal ceremony or pledge of allegiance to a particula person. It is based on hearing from the right source or sources (ultimately even plural in the transcendental sense refers to oneness(and difference) ). And hearing includes reading which is what many people still can't accept because it points to the reality that Srila Prabhupada is just as relevant today as he was in 1966.

 

 

 

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5975#more-5975

 

 

Gauragopala dasa -“You couldn’t get a place further away from the rest of the world than down under Melbourne Australia. This young boy never found Prabhupada, Prabhupada came all the way down there and found him.

Although to be satisfied with the Guru in the form of his books can also be very personal and instructing,

I just believe some of us need the personal embodied touch of a Guru as well, simply for the purpose of helping us with their personal association and instructions.

 

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

That’s how I feel anyway.

Krsna is in the heart that we must NEVER forget.

God’s representative will come to us in the embodied form if we want, if we pray unconditionally, if we learn to have faith in Krsna in the heart.

Why not?

Why does it have to be Prabhupada?

His ‘embodied pastimes’ on this planet finished in 1977, you don’t think Krsna from within ones own heart also has other great devotees here on this planet waiting for us to attract them by our helplessness and sincerity?

Do we genuinely feel helpless and materially exhausted like that boy did in the Church?”

[priyaa]

Hello,

Sorry i dont wan to disclose my name however i need ur help very badly....... Heres my story I had just joined office and after 1 months he also joined we became good friend after 4 months then we came closer he made me feel that he loves me although everybody thought the same........... Then i also started loving him, but we both did'nt told eachother........Then one day he felt office as he was doing his MBA...........we were still in touch..... he was the same still........ But because of my friend forced me than i told him about my feeling i thought that he will say yes......but suprizingly he said that he dont have any feeling toward me...........I broke complely because i love him very much.......i love him more than i life............I trust God...........But still i m scared i cant live without him.......Pls suggest me somethg..........some matras which i can fulfill my wish............. i wan him from a positive terms not negative........so pls help............

[cbrahma]

 

 

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5975#more-5975

 

 

 

 

 

Gauragopala dasa -“You couldn’t get a place further away from the rest of the world than down under Melbourne Australia. This young boy never found Prabhupada, Prabhupada came all the way down there and found him.

Although to be satisfied with the Guru in the form of his books can also be very personal and instructing,

I just believe some of us need the personal embodied touch of a Guru as well, simply for the purpose of helping us with their personal association and instructions.

 

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

That’s how I feel anyway.

Krsna is in the heart that we must NEVER forget.

God’s representative will come to us in the embodied form if we want, if we pray unconditionally, if we learn to have faith in Krsna in the heart.

Why not?

Why does it have to be Prabhupada?

His ‘embodied pastimes’ on this planet finished in 1977, you don’t think Krsna from within ones own heart also has other great devotees here on this planet waiting for us to attract them by our helplessness and sincerity?

Do we genuinely feel helpless and materially exhausted like that boy did in the Church?”

 

Going to an article on Dandavats to prove that we need a 'living link' is like going to a drug dealer to prove we need drugs. The well is already poisoned in this case. Obviously ISKCON embraces living link. How else is it going to sell its panolply of manufactured diksa gurus? Here is proof that the issue of diksa succession is logically independant from the issue of vapu vs vani.

[cbrahma]

That Bhaktivinode Thakur's diska guru is not mentioned by Prabhupada speaks for itself and his taking Jaganatha das Babaji to be Bhaktivinode Thakur's spiritual master, shows irrefutably that formal diksa is NOT the condition for membership in the parampara.

That being said, it is not surprising that Prabhupada would also have said that one is not any particular guru's disciple. Could it be because Guru is One? That Guru is Caitya guru? Seems quite in keeping with Vaisnava siddhanta.

Any other conclusion leads to impossible incoherence.

[Sarva gattah]

His ‘embodied pastimes’ on this planet finished in 1977, you don’t think Krsna from within ones own heart also has other great devotees here on this planet waiting for us to attract them by our helplessness and sincerity?

 

I just believe some of us need the personal embodied touch of a Guru as well, simply for the purpose of helping us with their personal association and instructions.

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

That’s how I feel anyway.

 

God’s representative will come to us in the embodied form if we want, if we pray unconditionally, if we learn to have faith in Krsna in the heart.

Why not?

Why does it have to be Prabhupada? He does have his pure embodied representatives you can associate with. Pray that he will send them to both of us. If we are sincere, he WILL send them because Guru WILL find us.

[cbrahma]

 

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

 

 

"just with books"? How can the word "just" be in the same phrase as Prabhupapda's books? This is an offense to book bhagavata.

 

Anyway the statement has about as much authority as anybody's opinion. I am not going to say this again. The insistence on living guru is a traditionlist stance. It obligates one to a mundane religionist conception of both the bhakti marga and guru. It is an obvious ISKCON marketing strategy to sell its embarassing showcase of kanistha gurus. Guru is one.

[Sarva gattah]

 

"just with books"? How can the word "just" be in the same phrase as Prabhupapda's books? This is an offense to book bhagavata.

 

Anyway the statement has about as much authority as anybody's opinion. I am not going to say this again. The insistence on living guru is a traditionlist stance. It obligates one to a mundane religionist conception of both the bhakti marga and guru. It is an obvious ISKCON marketing strategy to sell its embarassing showcase of kanistha gurus. Guru is one.

 

Let me tell you a short story. In 1973, the Temple President of Sydney forced us all to EAT left over prasadam from the Sunday feast on the Monday morning. This went on for weeks.

The Temple President read to us that prasadam is always transcendental and pure so it cannot be contaminated.

When Prabhupada heard about eating left over prasadam out of rubbish bins, he said this practise must stop because we are only imitating a pure devotee, we were only imitating what we read in his books, and really, we did not see that 'prasadam' was transcendental. He then went on to explain that what we read in his books could only be correctly understood with the association of pure devotee.

Therefore, this fanaticism of excentric imitation, like that of that foolish young Temple president in Sydney in 1973, is the result of tying to understand Prabhupada’s Books without the expert guidance of an ‘embodied’ Guru.

Fortunately back then we had Prabhupada to tell that Books alone are not enough; there must be association of an embodied Guru. Otherwise, one just ends up a fanatical expert bookworm like that idiot Temple President. Why? Because he tried to understand Prabhupada’s books without checking with Guru to see if what he understood through reading, was correct.

Without an embodied bonafide Guru, one can NEVER understand the essence of Prabhupada’s Books or Vedanta.

[cbrahma]

 

Let me tell you a short story. In 1973, the Temple President of Sydney forced us all to EAT left over prasadam from the Sunday feast on the Monday morning. This went on for weeks.

The Temple President read to us that prasadam is always transcendental and pure so it cannot be contaminated.

When Prabhupada heard about eating left over prasadam out of rubbish bins, he said this practise must stop because we are only imitating a pure devotee, we were only imitating what we read in his books, and really, we did not see that 'prasadam' was transcendental. He then went on to explain that what we read in his books could only be correctly understood with the association of pure devotee.

Therefore, this fanaticism of excentric imitation, like that of that foolish young Temple president in Sydney in 1973, is the result of tying to understand Prabhupada’s Books without the expert guidance of an ‘embodied’ Guru.

Fortunately back then we had Prabhupada to tell that Books alone are not enough; there must be association of an embodied Guru. Otherwise, one just ends up a fanatical expert bookworm like that idiot Temple President. Why? Because he tried to understand Prabhupada’s books without checking with Guru to see if what he understood through reading, was correct.

Without an embodied bonafide Guru, one can NEVER understand the essence of Prabhupada’s Books or Vedanta.

Oh please. There were so many deviations even when Prabhupada was physically present. Give up this pointless campaign. I have given ample evidence from Prabhupada himself of the superiority of vani over vapu.

You are chasing your own tail. Prabhupada's words need no intermediary explanation. It is this notion of necessary mediation from which precipitates all the corruptions of mundane religiosity.

[Sarva gattah]

 

. Prabhupada's words need no intermediary explanation. It is this notion of necessary mediation from which precipitates all the corruptions of mundane religiosity.

 

Thats what that arrogent Temple President thought. Read the story again

 

Here is another story

 

When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu began His pastimes of congregational chanting of the Holy Name of Sri Hari in Navadwip, Sri Vakreshwar Pandit was an important singer and dancer in that assembly.

 

It was by His mercy that Devananda Pandit was delivered from the wrath of Mahaprabhu. He was also present during the Lord's journey to Ramakeli. Devananda Pandit was, at one time, known as the foremost lecturer on the Bhagavat.

 

One day Srivas Pandit went to hear his discourse, and being moved in ecstatic love by hearing the Bhagavatam, he began to cry. A few of the ignorant students of Devananda Pandit, thinking that this was creating a disturbance, removed Srivas Pandit from the assembly and left him outside.

 

Though this was done in front of Devananda he didn't restrain his students from this act of disregard to the devotee - Bhagavat.

 

There are two types of Bhagavat - the book bhagavat and the devotee bhagavat.

 

For this reason, Devananda Pandit became implicated in an offense to a great devotee (maha-bhagavat). When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came to hear how his dear devotee, Srivas Pandit, had been disrespected, he gave many instructions concerning the Bhagavat.

 

He told that those who read the book Bhagavat but don't offer respects to the devotee-Bhagavat, are simply offenders, though they may read the Bhagavat for eons, still they will never attain love of Godhead. The devotee bhagavata and the book bhagavata are non-different.

 

In order to understand the book bhagavat one must first sincerely serve the devotee-bhagavata. Therefore Mahaprabhu neglected Devananda and didn't bestow His mercy on him.

 

One evening Vakreshwar Pandit came to perform dancing and chanting of the Holy Name at the house of one devotee from Kulia, across the bank of the Ganga from Nadia. Receiving this auspicious news Devananda proceeded there, and upon seeing the appearance of the symptoms of divine love in the person of Sri Vakreshwar Pandit he became charmed.

 

Gradually a great crowd gathered at that place, and Devananda Pandit, taking a cane in his hand, kept the crowd in order so as not to obstruct the ecstatic dancing of Sri Vakreshwar Pandit.

 

In this way, Vakreshwar Pandit performed chanting, and dancing for two praharas (six hours), on into the night. When he finished dancing and sat down, Devananda came and offered dandavats at the lotus feet of Sri Vakreshwar Pandit, who became pleased with this service and blessed Devananda with the words "Krsna-bhakti hauk" -

 

"May you attain devotion to Sri Lord Krsna." From that day devotion was awakened in the heart of Devananda by the mercy of Vakreshwar Pandit.

 

Thereafter when Mahaprabhu came to Nadia to have darshan of his mother and mother Ganges, he bestowed His mercy on Devananda at Kulia.

 

"Because you have served Vakreshwar I have noticed you. Vakreshwar is fully imbued with the Lord's transcendental energy, and whoever becomes devoted to him, attains to the lotus feet of Sri Krsna. His heart is the personal abode of Sri Krsna and as Sri Krsna dances, so Vakreshwar also dances. Wherever one can get the association of Vakreshwar, that place is the sum total of all Holy places and is as good as Sri Vaikuntha."

 

Sri Vakreshwar Pandit's disciple was Gopal Guru Goswami and Gopal Guru Goswami's disciple was Sri Dhyanchananda Goswami. In his Dhyan Chandra Paddhati - Dhyan Chandra Goswami has written -

 

"that person who was previously very expert in the arts of singing and dancing, the gopi, Tungavidya, is presently renowned in the world as Vakreshwar Pandit.

 

He has appeared on the fifth day of the dark fortnight of the month of Asar (Ashadha - June-July - Vaman mase) and he closed his pastimes in this world on the sixth day of the bright fortnight of the month Asar. While Vakreshwar danced, Mahaprabhu Himself would sing and Vakreshwar would catch hold of His lotus feet, saying;

 

"O moon­faced one, give me 10,000 gandharvas, and let them sing while I dance. Then I will be happy." Mahaprabhu answered, "You are one of my wings. If I had another (like you) I could fly in the sky."

 

[C. C. Adi 10.17]. Vakreshwar Pandit's worshippable deity is Sri Sri Radha-kanta, whom he worshipped in Kasi Misra's house, which was also the residence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu (Gambhira). These Deities are still being worshipped there to this day.

[cbrahma]

The arrogance is minizing the book bhagavata in favor of some kanistha guru, or neophyte Vaisnava to 'interpret' for us. When Prabhupada was embodied, of course, it would be important to associate physically, but how much face time if any did he give to his disciples?

You are already dessiminating false doctrine on the subject of vapu and vani, so what good is the association? Guru is one.

[theist]

Sarva, may I ask who is your "living embodied guru"? According to you we can't understand Srila Prabhupada's books without one so I take it you must have one.