ecclesiastical

[theist]

Prabhupada quoting Jiva Gosvami says that one should not accept ecclesiastical guru.

 

What is an example of an ecclesiastical guru?

 

 

 

Main Entry: ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal

 

Function: adjective

 

1 : of or relating to a church especially as an established institution

2 : suitable for use in a church

- ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

[yasodanandana]

in this case it means that this guru is taken without cheking his behaviour and advancement and with the only purpose to enter in a caste and to follow a mundane tradition.. and not to became krishna conscious

 

in our tradition sri guru is obviously "ecclesistical", we consider him a perfect priest because he adores purely krsna and a perfect brahmin because he's surely situated in spiritual consciousness.. but we do not give the sectarian meaning of "ecclesistical" to srila gurudeva.. i.e. beeing a mere "professional" brahmin or a "caste" goswami

 

we can surely discuss if a devotee can "take" a guru with "ecclesiastical" purposes i.e. to enter in a "elite", to "have a name" or so..

 

obviously he offend the guru if the guru is pure.... and he's going to be cheated if he, not choosing carefully, has accepted a cheater as a teacher

[theist]

would you call the Catholics voting in someone as Pope ecclesiastical?

[yasodanandana]

this word is not negative in itself... it means "belonging to a church"

 

(church.. italian CHIESA... latin ECCLESIA=reunion of religious people....... (sanga?))

 

if we want to say that the election of the pope means that they believe that the organization, or the brand, is superior to the guru and that inferiors can choose another inferior and elevate artificially as a superior ..... maybe we can use the "ecclesistical" in a negative sense

 

but i think that the negative meaning is not prevalent.. surely in italian it is not... it could be very interesting what was the original sanskrit word used by sri rupa gosvami

 

this use of "ecclesiastic" is very similar of the "prabhupadiannegative" use of "religion" against the term "spirituality"... even if religion has of course the positive meaning of (re-ligo... re - unite... yoga) "reunion with the absolute"

 

 

[stonehearted]

Here's where Srila Prabhupada cites Jiva on this: "One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord. The service of the spiritual master is essential. If there is no chance to serve the spiritual master directly, a devotee should serve him by remembering his instructions. There is no difference between the spiritual master's instructions and the spiritual master himself. In his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple. If one thinks that he is above consulting anyone else, including a spiritual master, he is at once an offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such an offender can never go back to Godhead. It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. 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"

 

This is in the first chapter of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, where Krishna das discusses the spiritual master. What's being discouraged is accepting a guru based on any mundane social conventions. This would include accepting someone because he's who our family gets initiated by, or because this is who initiates folks in our village, or those who go to the temple I ususally worship at. I have taken the ecclesiastical convention to include accepting initiation from ISKCON's zonal gurus (theist's Magnificent 11 and their earlier cronies) because that's who initiates people in this zone. Supersoul saved you from that one, eh? The point is that someone who is serious about spiritual life will be serious about accepting a guru whose qualifications are given in shastra.

[theist]

I am not saying it is negative or positive. That is a relative consideration. An ecclestiastical experience may be very helpful for us depending on our situation.

 

All I am saying is Prabhupada cites Jiva Gosvami on this point and advises not to accept guru on ecclesiastical considerations. So therefore we should know what that means, and how to recognize it.

 

Is the Catholic Churche's voting in the Pope an example of people accepting guru due to ecclesiastical considerations?

[theist]

 

Sri Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions.

 

 

Yes I can see that about not just accepting the village brahmin as guru or the local pastor on the corner.

 

But what is an example of "ecclesiastical conventions"?

[stonehearted]

I think I metioned an example in my earlier post: taking initiation from a particular ISKCON guru because he's the "guru for that zone." I witnessed one incident where Ramesvara spent considerable time and energy trying to talk a woman in Honolulu out of taking initiation from another ISKCON guru because he wasn't the guru for that zone. Another may be ISKCON's refusal (generally) to accept members initiated by gurus outside ISKCON, such as Narayana Maharaja, Narasingha Maharaja, Tripurari Maharaja, or Paramadvaiti Maharaja, whatever their qualifications. I would see these as ecclesiastical conventions.

[theist]

 

Another may be ISKCON's refusal (generally) to accept members initiated by gurus outside ISKCON, such as Narayana Maharaja, Narasingha Maharaja, Tripurari Maharaja, or Paramadvaiti Maharaja, whatever their qualifications. I woudl see these as ecclesiastical conventions.

 

 

Yes I also believe that is an example of ecclesiastical convention. So does it not follow that if one accepts Iskcon's position he is accepting guru on the basis of ecclesiatical considerations?

[Guest guest]

"I am not saying it is negative or positive. That is a relative consideration."

- i am agree and i am sorry if it seemed that i was attributing this idea to you

 

---

 

"Is the Catholic Churche's voting in the Pope an example of people accepting guru due to ecclesiastical considerations? "

-we vaishnavas generally think in this way.... they say that the holy spirit comes down in the assembly and the "pure" one gets out from divine will, even if, apparently, by election

 

---

 

"So does it not follow that if one accepts Iskcon's position he is accepting guru on the basis of ecclesiatical considerations?"

-i am agree with you, because i have not a iskcon guru and i do not think to be out of the path of srila prabhupada........ but an average iskconeer will say to you that, given the words of srila prabhupada against the other maths, and stated that gaudya math is practically speaking finished after bhaktisiddhanta, gbc are only acting to protect you and the devotees

 

---

 

for a ritvik advocate the "ecclesiastical" side has another aspect...... many times they say that prabhupada was not speaking of his "disciples" but of "iskcon members".. so present diksa guru is considered "ecclesiastical" and a survival of smarta, indian, gaudya, zonal tradition.. and the real guru has to be a vague prabhupada figure mixed with a sort of iskcon brand pervaded mistically by His spirit... very close, in my opinion, to the vatican version

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

yasodanandana.. was here... not logged

[stonehearted]

theist: So does it not follow that if one accepts Iskcon's

position he is accepting guru on the basis of ecclesiatical considerations?

 

I think that may be the case, at least sometimes. However, each case should be understood individually. It may be that someone whose life in Krishna consciousness is limited to association with ISKCON devotees may find one of their leaders very inspiring, see their character as exemplary, and find their energetic preaching as very moving. If after consulting shastra they can't find any reason why they shouldn't accept that vaishnava as guru the approach him (or her), that may not be seen as based on ecclesiastical considerations. However, if someone has somehow come across, say, Narasingha Maharaj and been very moved by the nature of his preaching and example, or Tripurari Maharaja, and found his explanations of tattva convincing, his progressive preaching inspiring, and his personal attention to his disciples exemplary, but end up taking initiation from someone sanctioned by ISKCON's GBC just so they can keep serving at their local ISKCON center, that could certainly be seen as basing choice of guru on ecclesiastical convention.

 

Ultimately, I think it's more the case that the guru finds us than that we find the guru. These things are arranged by Krishna.

[stonehearted]

I think the qualifications an aspiring disciple would start with Rupa's "vaco vegam manasa-krodha vegam. etc.," as well as the Bhagavatam's "sabde pare ca nisnatam, brahmanyupasamasrayam."

[theist]

I'll take your word on the Bhagavatam quote as I haven't the slightest idea what the sanskrit means.

 

My concern is on the fact that the way to come to recognize guru is being obscured by this voting system instead of relying on Supersoul.

 

No need to go through the internal crisis that Ajuna went through as he accepted guru. It's all laid out by the committee. The problem is this crisis is an important part of one developing their own internal vision.

[theist]

 

It may be that someone whose life in Krishna consciousness is limited to association with ISKCON devotees may find one of their leaders very inspiring, see their character as exemplary, and find their energetic preaching as very moving. If after consulting shastra they can't find any reason why they shouldn't accept that vaishnava as guru the approach him (or her), that may not be seen as based on ecclesiastical considerations.

 

 

Yes that is the method. But what does the GBC voting process have to do with what you described? Do you see my point?

 

What if a relation like you described develops before the teacher has been offically certified as guru? Or if he gets a no vote from the GBC?

 

Can they still develop a guru disciple relationship anyway?

 

Then what would follow is the typical wrangling around between shiksa and diksa guru. A topic which I am convinced I will be confused on for centuries since people seem to use the term diksa in different ways.

 

Maybe if the intiating gurus in Iskcon were understood to be giving intiations to allow one to serve as a pujari and allow other guru disciple relationships to develop naturally, but there seems to be a great confusion on this point.

 

As it is now people are singing "my Lord birth after birth" to people who may get kicked out or drop out of Iskcon at any moment.

[stonehearted]

Sorry. Here's the entire verse and traslation (11.3.21):

 

tasmad gurum prapadyeta

jijnasuh sreya uttamam

sabde pare ca nisnatam

brahmany upasamasrayam

 

"Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities, who have taken complete shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters."

 

The guidance we receive from the shastra is how we're supposed to see. Following what we perceive as guidance from Supersoul is a nice idea, but it must be confirmed by sadhu and shastra. That's what we learn from our gurus.

 

Many communities of devotees have systems for helping their members decide who's fit to be a guru. Sometimes it's appointment by the previous (small-a) acharya, sometimes it's decided by committees of experienced, advanced brahmanas. So there may be some precedent for something like what ISKCON does. The greatest problem I have with it is the bureaucratization, centralization, and potential for politics. Those things will certainly obscure the process and short-circuit the internal struggle you mention.

 

It's a personal relationship arranged by Krishna, and legislative interference is not likely to have salutary results.

[theist]

 

It's a personal relationship arranged by Krishna, and legislative interference is not likely to have salutary results.

 

 

That is it in a nut shell. It's a personal relationship arranged by Krsna...

 

That is a complete statement and our whimsical particpation is not needed and is interference only.

 

Now certainly the GBC has managerial responsibities and the right to determine if such a relation can be furthered within their organization. It is their so-called sanction and continued control over the relationship that I object to.

 

As far as hearing Supersoul all I am saying is that the aspirant should be directed from day one to pray to the Lord in the heart for guidance. Why? Because all guidance comes from him already. It is just a conscious recognition on the part of the aspirant. We can't even strike a letter on our keyboards without the sanction of Paramatma. Nor can anyone understand anything from the shastra concerning who is guru but by the grace of Supersoul.

 

He doesn't need a committee to tell Him who is a qualified teacher and who is a qualified sincere student. Or how to bring them together.

 

It doesn't matter if someone can hear Him in their heart or not. He is still directing.

 

Even the atheist making nuclear bombs gets his direction from the Lord in the heart so why would He neglect connecting a sincere student to a qualified teacher?

 

Now its ask the GBC who is qualified and not the Paramatma.

 

No thanks.

 

[yasodanandana]

"Even the atheist making nuclear bombs gets his direction from the Lord in the heart so why would He neglect connecting a sincere student to a qualified teacher?"

 

the "bombers" are directed by krsna... but in the form of maya

 

an aspiring spiritualist want to stop to listen maya but he, being conditioned, is not for now able to hear clearly the paramatma or to discriminate if what he feels in his mind comes from maya or krsna

 

so he feel the need of a master,

 

and to find this master he obviously accept opinions from sadhus

 

of course he, being conditionated, cannot see very well the devotion in himself, the sadhus and in the guru.... but this is the only rational and scientific thing that is possible to do, much better then the "do it yourself" solution

 

or

 

to discover if a religion, a guru are false we have to follow a little...... also for discover if prabhupada is a real acharya, as all the world is saying, we have to risk a little to be cheated

[stonehearted]

Do you mean plain English? Actually, it happened because of your good questions and your persistence. So I owe you some thanks.

 

theist: That is it in a nut shell. It's a personal relationship arranged by Krsna...

 

That is a complete statement and our whimsical particpation is not needed and is interference only.

 

Babhru: I agree, with this qualification. It's certainly appropriate for the aspirant to consult with more advanced devotees in whom he or she has confidence for advice. And for the prospective guru, I think it's appropriate to consult likewise for advice about whether to take that responsibility. I've heard that when Radhanath Maharaja was being pressed to accept some disciples, he approached Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaja and Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaja for advice and their blessings.

 

And I like your idea of consciously asking the Lord for guidance. What we're likely to find as we progress is that we're less interested in Paramatma and more directly interested in approaching Krishna Himself for everything. Whether and how He responds is up to Him (there was a song in The Unsinkable Molly Brown whose main idea is that sometimes the answer to our prayers is "no") and whether we actually perceive his response is another thing. But we think constantly of Him. And eventually we find ourselves asking Him only how we can better serve Him and, even better, His devotees. Why? Because what Krishna wants most of all is to serve His devotees, but they won't let him. So if we offer them some service, Krishna will be very pleased with us. When Parvati asked Shiva what the best form of worship is, he replied, "Aradhananam sarvesham, vishnur aradhanam param; tasmat parataram devi tadiyanam samarchanam": of all forms of worship, worship of Vishnu is supreme; however, even superior to that is worship of those things related to Krishna (such as Tulasi, the vaishnavas, the dhamas, etc.).