Of course guru can be fallible...

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

That's not a very nice thing to say. Of course guru can be fallible.

Actually the true guru is infallible. He belongs to the spiritual realm, not the material world. In the Gita Lord Krishna describes this technical distinction as follows:

 

dvav imau purusau loke

ksaras caksara eva ca

ksarah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho 'ksara ucyate

 

"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible."

 

The eternal spiritual master (sad-guru) belongs to the spiritual world and is known technically as akshara, or infallible.

 

The Lord on the other hand is known as uttama-purusha, or purushottama:

 

uttamah purusas tv anyah

paramatmety udahrtah

yo loka-trayam avisya

bibharty avyaya isvarah

 

"Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them."

 

He is situated beyond both the fallible and the infallible. The infallible refers to the liberated jivas, not to the Lord.

 

Srila Prabhupada was a liberated jiva, an eternal servant of the Lord in Vaikuntha. He was infallible.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 09-01-2001).]

[JRdd]

Here's a post from another forum:

 

Wed Aug 22, 2001 12:12 pm

Re: Defending Srila Prabhupada

 

 

"Thanks, xxxxxxxx Prabhu, for your comment. My letter is in reference to the question of whether the spiritual master is infallible. I should have been more specific in stating my point of contention which was with the statement in Infallibility vs. Dogmatism that

"No jiva soul is infallible, be he guru or pope or whatever." My references show how Srila Prabhupada described the pure devotee as "infallible in words and action." If I am over-reacting, it is because I expect to see a different attitude amongst initiated

followers of His Divine Grace.

 

"Another article by Niscala Dasi says that Srila Prabhupada's perfection was in presenting the philosophy of Krishna consciousness, but [that] that is where his perfection ends. Niscala dasi questions Srila Prabhupada's judgment and states that his attitude towards women was antiquated. The underlying premise is that Srila Prabhupada's view of women was a result of his upbringing and the environment in which he was raised. I do not believe this is the proper attitude of a disciple. But then these authors do not consider themselves disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Niscala Dasi's quote from Bhaktivinode Thakura

reveals that she thinks of Srila Prabhupada as an "old author" with antiquated ideas.

 

"This same mentality was expressed by a devotee who was teaching a course on the Bhagavad-gita at Harvard. He said that because of his antiquated ideas about women, he would cringe at the thought of giving Srila Prabhupada's books to his students. Actually, Srila Prabhupada's attitude towards women was BASED on the philosophy of

Krishna consciousness. Any woman who ever dealt with Srila Prabhupada would come away with the impression that he was a perfect gentleman. Women were joining this movement as much as men, and Srila Prabhupada

saw to their protection. But perhaps thinking that women need protection is itself an antiquated idea. It is certainly a Vedic idea, but Vedic culture is also antiquated, just like the idea of having four social classes and four spiritual orders. Even the idea of having one spiritual master to whom you surrender can be said to be antiquated.

 

"What really makes these devotees cringe is the idea of surrender, of becoming the menial servant of a perfect spiritual

master who will take charge of delivering them from the nescience of mundane consciousness by enlightening them with transcendental knowledge.

 

Your servant, xxxxxxxxxxx dasa"

 

 

 

 

[JRdd]

I would like to add something I wrote on that same other forum, in regards to Srila Prabhupada's views on women:

 

Sun Sep 2, 2001 6:52 pm

Re: Defending Srila Prabhupada

 

 

Hari bol, Prabhus, I am very much appreciating this calm discussion which I just stumbled across. I would like to add to xxxxxxxxxxx [dasi}'s comments regarding women.

 

I too experienced in my first few years in the movement the protective attitude toward women. Respectful behaviors and attitudes

were mutual to both genders, and I saw my Godbrothers as brotherly and/or fatherly. I remember going out in small groups of four, and while two devotees knocked on doors, the other two would stand on the sidewalk singing the Holy Names together, in this way taking turns between doors and chanting. I was paired up with a Godbrother, and there was no agitation, only harmony. I also remember heading up the Sunday feast as a quite young devotee, and telling my brothers what they should do to help in the kitchen. There seemed to be little or no ego surrounding this service, only bliss in being able to collectively pull off yet another wonderful feast for the Lord and for the charming of up to two hundred bumblebees who attended the Sunday program. I remember, too, dancing comingled with the men in

the temple room. We were simple. We saw the Deities, not each other. And I remember brahmacaris being sent to me, individually, for me to measure, so I could sew them kurtas, in the days when our saris came off the rolls as voile yardage, and kurtas from India were not available.

 

Nowadays these dealings might be seen as almost unbelieveable, or the working of selective memory--how could it have been possible for such comingling without general or rampany sexual agitation??? I believe it was possible because of our implicit faith

in Srila Prabhupada, causing thorough imbibement of his books, teachings, examples, and attitudes--including his attitude toward women. None of us women felt slighted by any of his comments, ever, at least not in my awareness.

 

I am glad xxxxxxxxxx has mentioned things even though they might land her in hot water as she said. I will jump in that hot tub with her, in drawing conclusions from her statements about lower forms suffering more, [coupled with]...her pointing out the suffering women undergo in childbirth and all the rest. (Srila Prabhupada wrote that the more highly evolved the consciousness, the more the capacity for enjoyment. I beleive this is in the book Raja-Vidya, but I'm not absolutely certain of that.) Anyway as we all know it is a moot point, in view of the rampant sudraness overall. But I did want to add to her point that there are advantages in either type of gender-birth, and although as women we may lack in some discriminatory powers in matters of the heart, we have the advantage of (gulp--is

this going to mean boiling water for me? a cauldron over a fire?) being more prone to taking a humble position, which is of course far more conducive for spiritual advancement. Thus I perceive that our

challenges are different but we are all equal in our opportunities for being lifted out of our ridiculous predicament of embodiment by Divine Grace.

 

I appreciate xxxxxxxxxxx's straight shooting, just as I do...the rest of yours here, following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada, who never minced his words to align with popular opinion. Women definitely have a particular position, this fact is timeless and inarguable, and I never felt any insults from Srila Prabhupada.

 

Defending Prabhupada means upholding his legacy, holding up the real Srila Prabhupada for all to see. I am so sorry that some believe him to be responsible for the misogynism which others brought with them

to the movement.

 

thanks,

your sister, Jayaradhe