Is A Physically Present Spiritual Master Required?

[Bhakta Devarsi]

 

You guys have your interpretation and I have mine. You can say I'm wrong, that's your right, but again I can see you two as being misguided myself. The Lord knows the truth, that's good enough for me.

 

Interpretation?

 

Very early on, I recommended that anyone who wants to understand their Varna and Ashram, read Bhagavad Gita, and the relevant quotes from the Bhagavatam, and they will be plenty informed. You see I have no personal interest in being "The Decider".

 

Srila Prabhupada said...

 

 

BG 16:1-3, Sruti means that one should hear from the authority. One should not construe some interpretation for his personal interest.

 

Srila Prabhupada's conversations with his leaders are the purport to the purport on DVD. I have no need to interpret anything, it is all there in essence and in detail. However communicating this onto Internet forums with its letter/essay format, to those who haven't read the above, may give the appearance of interpretation, but it is simply translation.

 

I feel like I fell for a trap, because some people, after being told to read the books, and after reading a few conversations requested my and Caturbahu das' take on how we are reading and seeing practical application of these things. I could have just reprinted Srila Prabhupada's words, but that was not what was called for, translation was the request. But suddenly those requesting the translation are so knowledgeable, I am accused of interpretation. Fool me once, shame on me.

 

Convolution occurs when one interprets based upon logical fallacies of assumption and weak deduction; (Vows not equal to rules and regs), false dichotomies; (Iskcon = 1. initiated and 2. DVD college participants (noninitiated)); etc.

 

That the Lord knowsthe truth is a given, but that does nothing for me. I need to go to his authority and hear all about it, so I can participate truly, and that seems to be a rare thing.

 

Best wishes in your search for truth.

 

Hari Bol

 

ys

 

BM

[brajeshwara das]

 

Best wishes in your search for truth.

 

Thanks, and best wishes to you too Prabhu.

 

Hare Krishna

[krsna]

All glories to Srimad Bhagavatam, as shastra, as Lord in the Heart who incarnates an this literature, and as the acarya who sings such glories to Lord Krsna. All three, guru, shastra, and sadhu, can be properly referred to as Srimad Bhagavatam.

[Guest guest]

Sorry for budging in guys, but I read the thread physical Guru required under Spiritual Discussions, so thought that it possibly may not be restricted to Prabhupada/iskcon/ritvik controversies, but could be extended to Guru Shishya parampara as a whole too.

 

I think, a living master is a must. Only being with the master, can a disciple learn well and master any art - spiritual or material. This is an important requirement. What good is a Guru who comes once a year for two days and then is unavailable. What good is a Guru who is so busy globe trotting that he has no time to even answer a simple query from his shishya or guide him in his life? Gure is one with whom you can share your quiries, get guidance, see his example to follow in day to day problems, watch his spiritual practice closely and learn, get encouragment and elevation in your spiritual life and serve him as much as you can. Unless and until there is a close contact with the Guru, it is very very hard to reach the height from where you can make your jump to the next level that is often called liberatation.

To live a life well is also an art that can be learnt in Guru Sanidhya.

 

Things can be learnt from books too. But books cannot change a live Guru!

I'm sure you may realize the importance of having Krishna amongst you from whom you could actually discuss variuous aspects of Bhagawat Gita or simply read it as it is. The difference is vital. It does the job. But not what a face to face Krishna would have done! Just an example.

 

Yes of course, Guru is a power, knowledge, not just the gross physical body, but the presence of a living Guru in a disciple's life CANNOT be undermined! It cannot be undermined or underestimated. A disciple may however remain in touch with his Guru and carry on his energy that was passed on to him (if it was) after his samadhi. Prabhupada wasn't order by books to go to the west to spread KC. And he didn't grow up on books alone either. Nor did any of the greatest Gurus themselves.

Hope I didn't annoy any other learned brothers having a different view.

 

Regards,

 

Yogkriya.

[brajeshwara das]

 

Sorry for budging in guys, but I read the thread physical Guru required under Spiritual Discussions, so thought that it possibly may not be restricted to Prabhupada/iskcon/ritvik controversies, but could be extended to Guru Shishya parampara as a whole too.

 

I think, a living master is a must. Only being with the master, can a disciple learn well and master any art - spiritual or material. This is an important requirement. What good is a Guru who comes once a year for two days and then is unavailable. What good is a Guru who is so busy globe trotting that he has no time to even answer a simple query from his shishya or guide him in his life? Gure is one with whom you can share your quiries, get guidance, see his example to follow in day to day problems, watch his spiritual practice closely and learn, get encouragment and elevation in your spiritual life and serve him as much as you can. Unless and until there is a close contact with the Guru, it is very very hard to reach the height from where you can make your jump to the next level that is often called liberatation.

To live a life well is also an art that can be learnt in Guru Sanidhya.

 

Things can be learnt from books too. But books cannot change a live Guru!

I'm sure you may realize the importance of having Krishna amongst you from whom you could actually discuss variuous aspects of Bhagawat Gita or simply read it as it is. The difference is vital. It does the job. But not what a face to face Krishna would have done! Just an example.

 

Yes of course, Guru is a power, knowledge, not just the gross physical body, but the presence of a living Guru in a disciple's life CANNOT be undermined! It cannot be undermined or underestimated. A disciple may however remain in touch with his Guru and carry on his energy that was passed on to him (if it was) after his samadhi. Prabhupada wasn't order by books to go to the west to spread KC. And he didn't grow up on books alone either. Nor did any of the greatest Gurus themselves.

Hope I didn't annoy any other learned brothers having a different view.

 

Regards,

 

Yogkriya.

 

To think Guru is some man that you need constant physical proximity to is a misunderstanding. Guru is in the heart of every living entity, so He is always available if you can listen for Him. Of course more association with the pure devotee the better, you can't minimize that, but I don't think it follows that you need intimate contact in a physical sense. You need the intimate contact that comes with sincerity and surrender. A fly may be physically close to a pure devotee but what is the quality of the association a fly can receive? Some of the most dedicated and pure devotees I have known will only visit our Gurudeva if He asked them to do so, even Gurudeva is in the same city they're first thought is to their service, that is where they get their association with Guru. If Guru requests their presence then they come to him in service. Of course the mercy of Gurudeva is such that He will want the association of those that serve Him. That is His service after all.

[Guest guest]

 

To think Guru is some man that you need constant physical proximity to is a misunderstanding. Guru is in the heart of every living entity, so He is always available if you can listen for Him. Of course more association with the pure devotee the better, you can't minimize that, but I don't think it follows that you need intimate contact in a physical sense. You need the intimate contact that comes with sincerity and surrender. A fly may be physically close to a pure devotee but what is the quality of the association a fly can receive? Some of the most dedicated and pure devotees I have known will only visit our Gurudeva if He asked them to do so, even Gurudeva is in the same city they're first thought is to their service, that is where they get their association with Guru. If Guru requests their presence then they come to him in service. Of course the mercy of Gurudeva is such that He will want the association of those that serve Him. That is His service after all.

 

I don't think it is a misunderstanding. Of course all that you wrote about sincerety and Guru in heart is true. But nevertheless you cannot undermine the necessity of direct association with Guru. You can say this since most of Gaudiya Gurus are not easily physically available and unlike hath, kriya yogas, their guidance can be had through lectures on tapes and cd etc.

But yoga is one such fleild where the need for practical kriya has immense importance. There is a "Kriyatmak paksh" to it that can be had from Guru only. And the Guru has to keep a close watch on the disciple.

Please don't misunderstand me about this. I fully understand the mystic side to it, where the Gutu tattva guides a disciple. But nevertheless, direct association with Guru is very very important. If this is considered as a mere misunderstanding and untrue, than you can have direction from Sri Krishna!! Why even bother to go to your Gurus!

Astu!

[brajeshwara das]

 

I don't think it is a misunderstanding. Of course all that you wrote about sincerety and Guru in heart is true. But nevertheless you cannot undermine the necessity of direct association with Guru. You can say this since most of Gaudiya Gurus are not easily physically available and unlike hath, kriya yogas, their guidance can be had through lectures on tapes and cd etc.

But yoga is one such fleild where the need for practical kriya has immense importance. There is a "Kriyatmak paksh" to it that can be had from Guru only. And the Guru has to keep a close watch on the disciple.

Please don't misunderstand me about this. I fully understand the mystic side to it, where the Gutu tattva guides a disciple. But nevertheless, direct association with Guru is very very important. If this is considered as a mere misunderstanding and untrue, than you can have direction from Sri Krishna!! Why even bother to go to your Gurus!

Astu!

 

Well we do have the wonderful modern conveniences of email etc to get more guidance, and I certainly would rather always be physically close to my Gurudeva, but I trust that it is OK to be physically separated from Guru since he is giving initiation in these circumstances. I see the results of his instruction on those that truly follow even without much physical association, and as they say the proof is in the pudding There also is the concept of union in separation that may give us some spiritual insights as well. Not to put it in mundane terms but 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' and 'familiarity breeds contempt'. I know I talk with some of my god brothers who live very close to our centers in California and they say they take the devotees for granted sometimes, making offenses. I live farther away and very much appreciate when I get to visit the temples, more so than even when I lived in the ashram. I know what I am missing. Something like that.

 

We have to always remember this is a transcendental relationship with Guru and although I understand your point I also don't think it is dependent on that physical proximity. Easier by far for the common person to get the mercy probably, but not dependent.

[Guest guest]

 

Well we do have the wonderful modern conveniences of email etc to get more guidance, and I certainly would rather always be physically close to my Gurudeva, but I trust that it is OK to be physically separated from Guru since he is giving initiation in these circumstances. I see the results of his instruction on those that truly follow even without much physical association, and as they say the proof is in the pudding There also is the concept of union in separation that may give us some spiritual insights as well. Not to put it in mundane terms but 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' and 'familiarity breeds contempt'. I know I talk with some of my god brothers who live very close to our centers in California and they say they take the devotees for granted sometimes, making offenses. I live farther away and very much appreciate when I get to visit the temples, more so than even when I lived in the ashram. I know what I am missing. Something like that.

 

We have to always remember this is a transcendental relationship with Guru and although I understand your point I also don't think it is dependent on that physical proximity. Easier by far for the common person to get the mercy probably, but not dependent.

 

Dear Brajeshwara das,

 

There is truth in what you said. This is true of the line of bhakti.

Easier for a devotee than a sadhak. In other specific branches like tantra, kriya yog and dhyan yoga just meeting a guru once a year at a congregation for two hours, doesn't do much for a sadhak.

Once a ritvik came to me arguing that you don't really need a physical Guru and that they give initiations from Srila Prabhupada using a dictaphone playing SP's voice chanting mahamantra. I don't know...

 

That's why simple devotional bhakti is easier and readily prescribed in today's circumstances for people who can't do much due to busy lifestyles and otherwise. Bhakti is appreciated.

 

Regards.

[Guest guest]

Great post prabhu. I agree with all you said.

 

 

Sorry for budging in guys, but I read the thread physical Guru required under Spiritual Discussions, so thought that it possibly may not be restricted to Prabhupada/iskcon/ritvik controversies, but could be extended to Guru Shishya parampara as a whole too.

 

I think, a living master is a must. Only being with the master, can a disciple learn well and master any art - spiritual or material. This is an important requirement. What good is a Guru who comes once a year for two days and then is unavailable. What good is a Guru who is so busy globe trotting that he has no time to even answer a simple query from his shishya or guide him in his life? Gure is one with whom you can share your quiries, get guidance, see his example to follow in day to day problems, watch his spiritual practice closely and learn, get encouragment and elevation in your spiritual life and serve him as much as you can. Unless and until there is a close contact with the Guru, it is very very hard to reach the height from where you can make your jump to the next level that is often called liberatation.

To live a life well is also an art that can be learnt in Guru Sanidhya.

 

Things can be learnt from books too. But books cannot change a live Guru!

I'm sure you may realize the importance of having Krishna amongst you from whom you could actually discuss variuous aspects of Bhagawat Gita or simply read it as it is. The difference is vital. It does the job. But not what a face to face Krishna would have done! Just an example.

 

Yes of course, Guru is a power, knowledge, not just the gross physical body, but the presence of a living Guru in a disciple's life CANNOT be undermined! It cannot be undermined or underestimated. A disciple may however remain in touch with his Guru and carry on his energy that was passed on to him (if it was) after his samadhi. Prabhupada wasn't order by books to go to the west to spread KC. And he didn't grow up on books alone either. Nor did any of the greatest Gurus themselves.

Hope I didn't annoy any other learned brothers having a different view.

 

Regards,

 

Yogkriya.

[Guest guest]

 

Great post prabhu. I agree with all you said.

 

Thank you and kind regards.

[krsna]

BG 16:1-3, Sruti means that one should hear from the authority. One should not construe some interpretation for his personal interest.

[suchandra]

 

Sorry for budging in guys, but I read the thread physical Guru required under Spiritual Discussions, so thought that it possibly may not be restricted to Prabhupada/iskcon/ritvik controversies, but could be extended to Guru Shishya parampara as a whole too.

 

I think, a living master is a must. Only being with the master, can a disciple learn well and master any art - spiritual or material. This is an important requirement. What good is a Guru who comes once a year for two days and then is unavailable. What good is a Guru who is so busy globe trotting that he has no time to even answer a simple query from his shishya or guide him in his life? Gure is one with whom you can share your quiries, get guidance, see his example to follow in day to day problems, watch his spiritual practice closely and learn, get encouragment and elevation in your spiritual life and serve him as much as you can. Unless and until there is a close contact with the Guru, it is very very hard to reach the height from where you can make your jump to the next level that is often called liberatation.

To live a life well is also an art that can be learnt in Guru Sanidhya.

 

Things can be learnt from books too. But books cannot change a live Guru!

I'm sure you may realize the importance of having Krishna amongst you from whom you could actually discuss variuous aspects of Bhagawat Gita or simply read it as it is. The difference is vital. It does the job. But not what a face to face Krishna would have done! Just an example.

 

Yes of course, Guru is a power, knowledge, not just the gross physical body, but the presence of a living Guru in a disciple's life CANNOT be undermined! It cannot be undermined or underestimated. A disciple may however remain in touch with his Guru and carry on his energy that was passed on to him (if it was) after his samadhi. Prabhupada wasn't order by books to go to the west to spread KC. And he didn't grow up on books alone either. Nor did any of the greatest Gurus themselves.

Hope I didn't annoy any other learned brothers having a different view.

 

Regards,

 

Yogkriya.

To me this reads like someone who is training gurus.

Btw, what do you reply to Krishna when He says:

 

"I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku."

 

Prabhupada: "Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps. Just like we belong to the Brahma Sampradaya, so we accept it from Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasadeva, Vyasadeva to Madhva, and between Vyasadeva and Madhva there is a big gap. But it is sometimes said that Vyasadeva is still living, and Madhva was fortunate enough to meet him directly.

 

In a similar way, we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system--namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him.

 

There are many branches also from the parampara system, and it is not possible to record all the branches and sub-branches in the disciplic succession. We have to pick up from the authority of the acharya in whatever sampradaya we belong to.

 

Hoping you are all three well, and please keep me informed.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami"

http://sangalog4.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_archive.html

 

(SP Letter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada showed by example that one can become a disciple without physical connection to the guru (him).

 

What else he showed is that association with devotees as in a society for Krishna consciousness is very important, though maybe not absolutely important, but practically for the most part essential.

 

Direct association with the guru is not absolutely essential, but association with a sanga or society of devotees is practically indespensible for all practical purposes.

 

Srila Prabhupada showed undeniably that he put more importance on association with the society of devotees than on physical association with the guru.

He accepted many disciples that never had any physical connection to him, but that had joined the society and accepted the association of devotees.

 

Many devotees are prone to the stereotyped conceptions of parampara that have been popular in India for centuries, but Srila Prabhupada undoubtedly showed that there are alternative methods of parampara aside from physical connection to the spiritual master.

 

If we accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada as an acharya, and there are those who do not, then we have to accept that there are alternative conceptions of parampara than the traditional system of India.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the chains of the stereotyped guru/disciple relationship and accepted many disciples he never even met.

 

So, some will say that he had no authority or right to do that, but for those who accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada they cannot deny that he departed from the ancient cultural traditions of India and implemented a modernized version of the parampara system.

 

it's a fact.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the stereotype and established a new precedent.

 

Then, after he left a bunch of fools thought that ISKCON had to return to the stone age and give up Srila Prabhupada's innovations.

 

ISKCON was all about innovation and modernization, then after Prabhupada left some idiots decided that everything had to now follow "tradition".

 

But, the tradition was NEVER about a gang of neophytes playing guru and defaming the sampradaya for the rest of time.

[suchandra]

 

Srila Prabhupada showed by example that one can become a disciple without physical connection to the guru (him).

 

What else he showed is that association with devotees as in a society for Krishna consciousness is very important, though maybe not absolutely important, but practically for the most part essential.

 

Direct association with the guru is not absolutely essential, but association with a sanga or society of devotees is practically indespensible for all practical purposes.

 

Srila Prabhupada showed undeniably that he put more importance on association with the society of devotees than on physical association with the guru.

He accepted many disciples that never had any physical connection to him, but that had joined the society and accepted the association of devotees.

 

Many devotees are prone to the stereotyped conceptions of parampara that have been popular in India for centuries, but Srila Prabhupada undoubtedly showed that there are alternative methods of parampara aside from physical connection to the spiritual master.

 

If we accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada as an acharya, and there are those who do not, then we have to accept that there are alternative conceptions of parampara than the traditional system of India.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the chains of the stereotyped guru/disciple relationship and accepted many disciples he never even met.

 

So, some will say that he had no authority or right to do that, but for those who accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada they cannot deny that he departed from the ancient cultural traditions of India and implemented a modernized version of the parampara system.

 

it's a fact.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the stereotype and established a new precedent.

 

Then, after he left a bunch of fools thought that ISKCON had to return to the stone age and give up Srila Prabhupada's innovations.

 

ISKCON was all about innovation and modernization, then after Prabhupada left some idiots decided that everything had to now follow "tradition".

 

But, the tradition was NEVER about a gang of neophytes playing guru and defaming the sampradaya for the rest of time.

Yes, it seems that more and more evidence keeps surfacing of odd things that were happening around late 1977, when many of Srila Prabhupada's "conversation tapes" seem to have gone missing. Tamal Krishna Swami was supposed to have started a separate "Prabhupada tape ministry" in Dallas (the main one was supposed to be in Los Angeles) and allegedly Tamal put the tapes in the charge of one Shankarsana dasa (now of Austin Texas). He was Tamal's right hand man and is now a guru himself. In any case one of Shankarshana's former associates now suspects he has some role in -- at least part of -- the "missing tapes" imbroglio.

 

A devotee claims he was listening to some of the tapes he had borrowed from Shankarsana in the late 1970s. And when the devotee went back to get some more tapes, the devotee reports that Shankarsana suddenly acted very weird and demanded the tapes be handed back. Later this devotee asked Shankarsana

about some of the statements made by Srila Prabhupada on these tapes, and Shankarsana all of a sudden did not know anything about any statements, tapes, or nothing at all? He suddenly did not know anything about any tapes, especially where the tapes went. Now there's quite some suspicion that there are "gaps" in 1977 when Prabhupada spoke in great detail about ritvik acharyas and this being taken out of the tape ministry.

[krsna]

[suchandra]

In any case, we do not need these missing tapes. We have sufficient evidence that the order of Srila Prabhupada was that he wanted all of his followers to be living preachers. And he wanted to implement his "Direction Of Management". Krishna has given us what we really needed, but at the same time it would be nice to recover these missing tapes. When looking at a few cut and paste snippets of a transcript from 1977 called "the appointment tape" and say, "where is the original tape of this, this is a hatchet job"?

"Oh, you cannot hear that."

Now we know why these tapes have been suppressed. Anyway if anyone can help out that would be appreciated.

[Guruvani]

 

In any case, we do not need these missing tapes. We have sufficient evidence that the order of Srila Prabhupada was that he wanted all of his followers to be living preachers.

And in that spirit so many have come forward to lead and teach and play guru and create havoc in the name of parampara.

 

for how long is this formula for failure going to be acceptable?

how many bogus gurus are going to rise and fall before the Krishna consciousness movement is simply relegated to the status of maniacal cult of pretenders and hoaxers.

 

Gurus aren't a dime a dozen.

A self-realized soul that can deliver fallen souls from material existence is very rare.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the chains of the stereotyped guru/disciple relationship and accepted many disciples he never even met.

 

So, some will say that he had no authority or right to do that, but for those who accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada they cannot deny that he departed from the ancient cultural traditions of India and implemented a modernized version of the parampara system.

 

it's a fact.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke the stereotype and established a new precedent.

 

Then, after he left a bunch of fools thought that ISKCON had to return to the stone age and give up Srila Prabhupada's innovations.

 

The way Srila Prabhupada accepted his disciples was up to his discretion. Often he did things in an unprecedented way only out of sheer neccessity, not out of a desire to change things, or because he thought the "new" way was better.

 

Some of these "innovations" clearly did not very well, like giving sannyasa to young, inexperienced devotees, ambitious for power and prestige. Why repeat such failed attempts?

 

If you think that an average new devotee wants to get diksa by listening to Prabhupada's Gayatri tape you are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

 

The cat is out of the bag - people know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is about and cant easily be fooled by cheap imitations - whether they come from GBC side or yours.

[theist]

 

In any case, we do not need these missing tapes. We have sufficient evidence that the order of Srila Prabhupada was that he wanted all of his followers to be living preachers.

 

That is right. If we become fixed in the truth of this statement all the tricks and intrigues of the mundane platform will wash off us like the proverbial water on a ducks back.

 

It is an eternal prinicple of love that the devotee of Krsna wants to see every soul liberated in love of God. This process is under the jurisdiction of Lord Caitanya and therefore no jiva can comprehend the scope of this free flowing flood of love of Godhead let alone controll it. It's the demonic imposters that come wanting to controll the process.

[Guruvani]

 

 

The cat is out of the bag - people know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is about and cant easily be fooled by cheap imitations - whether they come from GBC side or yours.

 

That's funny.

All over the Hare Krishna movement newcomers are being fooled by cheap imitations that have pulled the wool over their eyes in the name of "tradition".

 

The cheap imitation is not Srila Prabhupada.

 

The cheap imitation are the dimestore gurus that have cropped-up like an epidemic of diaper-rash all over the Hare Krishna movement.

 

All these career gurus and their clueless disciples don't equate to genuine tradition that has nothing to do with the hoax and the scam that is being passed off as parampara.

 

If anything is a cheap imitation it is the neophyte pretenders that are playing guru like little girls play house with their Barbi dolls.

 

Let's play guru...................

The game is over.

 

It's time to get the parampara out of the sandbox and stop this charade they call tradition.

[Guest guest]

 

The cheap imitation is not Srila Prabhupada.

 

The cheap imitation are the dimestore gurus that have cropped-up like an epidemic of diaper-rash all over the Hare Krishna movement.

 

Yes, many of these guys have no business initiating disciples, but not all. Do you know them all to pass judgement on them? Or do you think that none of them CAN EVER become qualified?

 

But insisting on people getting "initiation" from Pabhupada's tape is not just a cheap imitation - it is a total JOKE.

[Guest guest]

Parampara literally means 'one after another' - it is a lineage and the sincere disciple continues forward and helps other as he/she was helped. It is not a dead thing - it is a living thing. The Guru shares his/her Bhakti with the sincere disciple who then shares what they have received with other - on and on and on. That is the process eternally. All Glories to Krsna's Bhaktas!

[Guruvani]

 

 

But insisting on people getting "initiation" from Pabhupada's tape is not just a cheap imitation - it is a total JOKE.

Formal initiation of all kinds has proven to be a joke and a farce, and getting diksha from a wiggling-squiggling bag of stool that people think is the "living guru" is just as big a joke.

 

Hey, we might as well use the tape-recording version of diksha, because in the long run I think it will do less harm than all these gurus running around the world playing jagat-guru.

 

It's all a joke.

I prefer the tape recording version because at least we know Srila Prabhupada isn't going to bloop and run off with a Hare Krishna girl and bunch of money.

 

Your living guru joke is not the solution.

It's just a different kind of joke.

 

So, at least we should try and teach people to accept a self-realized soul as guru even if he doesn't sport a bag of stool and urine in the name of "living guru".

 

These "living gurus" don't have anything on Srila Prabhupada just because they have a bag of stool and urine to flap around in front of people.

[Guest guest]

In the second wave (chapter two) of bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, Srila Rupa Goswami has listed sixty-four items of the culture of Krsna consciousness, which are to be followed by all the devotees of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Radha-Govinda. The first four instructions are as follows:

 

atha angani-gurupadasrayas tasmat krsna-diksadi-siksanamvisrambhena guroh seva sadhu-vartmanuvartanam

 

"The following are indispensable parts of sadhana-bhakti: (1) taking shelter of the lotus feet of the guru, (2) receiving initiation and training from the guru, (3) serving the guru with affectionate zeal, and (4) following in the footsteps of the great devotees." (BRS 2.74) (see bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu or Nectar of Devotion for a complete listing of the sixty-four angas.)

 

Who do you think we should pay attention to - Rupa Goswami or Ksambuddhi (aka Guruvani) - clearly Ksambuddhi isn't representing his own Guru in what he is posting.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I don't think it takes much to see that this guy is a total joke of a human being. A living siksa Guru is essential. No advocating any particular flavour, but like Rupa Goswami says, visrambhena guroh seva... gotta do it.