If a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative

[krsna]

"But sometimes,

if a spiritual master is not properly authorized

and only on his own initiative

becomes a spiritual master,

he may be carried away

by an accumulation of wealth

and large numbers of disciples."

 

(Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)

 

[theist]

'Own' initiative. Means independently, not under another's control. Guru is under Krsna's control and acts under His inspiration, not his own mind's.

 

Three important words, initiative, initiation and inspiration.

 

Maybe we can talk Babhru into showing any linkage in these words to us in relation to vaisnava gurus.

[stonehearted]

theist: Maybe we can talk Babhru into showing any linkage in these words to us in relation to vaisnava gurus.

 

I'm not entirely clear about what you're asking for. However, I'll be happy to think about it if you can help me understand what you mean by linkage to us.

[AncientMariner]

"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal, and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord." (Bhagavad Gita, 4:42, purport)

 

 

Here is a funny Prabhupada quote from Your Ever Well Wisher:

 

(And when a lady put forward materialistic welfare work as the highest good, Prabhupada had replied, "Your compassion is as valuable as blowing on a boil to heal it.")

[theist]

Thanks Babhru. Word usage is your special forte. I thought you might be inspired in some way to speak if you see any relationship between the words.

 

For instance an idea may come up from the mind inspiring us to intiate some action. A person may even think that idea has its genesis in God. If that person is inclined as a devotee, knows the scriptures well, has all the formalities down, is "in good standing" with the community he then may think God has inspired him to start taking on disciples. Under this mindset he may start "initiating" them formally and a whole big scene may emerge around him. Another branch.

 

Now externally it all might seem well but if that initial inspiration wasn't from God (I'm including guru when I say God) but rather just an impulse, an urge from the mind, wouldn't that be a false branch with only the semblance of life?

 

It's all vague with me but I was hoping you could assist in fleshing it out if you had some time and interest.

[theist]

 

(And when a lady put forward materialistic welfare work as the highest good, Prabhupada had replied, "Your compassion is as valuable as blowing on a boil to heal it.")

 

 

[yasodanandana]

Now externally it all might seem well but if that initial inspiration wasn't from God (I'm including guru when I say God) but rather just an impulse, an urge from the mind, wouldn't that be a false branch with only the semblance of life?

 

of course.. if he has no direct inspiration by god (=darshan), how can he teach others to search and find this inspiration?

 

his disciples surely will have benefit from the hare krsna chanting that does not requires any connection to be effective.. but they will not be able to go definitively back to godhead following such guru

 

he's not with krsna, he cannot bring others to krsna

[stonehearted]

I just want to let you know that I'll be able to give his some time this evening (a little) and tomorrow. It's a good--even essential--question and deserves our attention.

[krsna]

 

"A neophyte Vaisnava

or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform

can also accept disciples,

but such disciples must be on the same platform,

and it should be understood

that they cannot advance

very well toward the ultimate goal of life

under his insufficient guidance.

Therefore a disciple

should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari

as a spiritual master."

 

(Srila Prabhupada - NOI)

[stonehearted]

I've had so much going on the past few days that I haven't been able to sit down and give this the time it needs and deserves. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

 

In the meantime, I'm scooting it back up so I will be reminded.

[theist]

Babhru, I know you are a busy guy. Thanks for taking this up. I am sensing that an essential understanding lies in here somewhere and just needs some ellucidation. It might be the difference between authentic spiritual life and religion. It is a little subtle and more difficult to focus on at first but then what of value isn't.

 

I would want to toss the idea of resonance into the mix if I could.

 

And not just Babhru but anyone that can help us expand these ideas and bring them out in a way that will allow for more conscious reflection would be welcome.

[stonehearted]

theist: Maybe we can talk Babhru into showing any linkage in these words to us in relation to vaisnava gurus.

 

Okay, here's a start:

 

This is a grave subject, so I’ll treat it seriously.

 

Initiative means the power to get something going, and “on his own initiative” is an English idiom that means without an outside impetus, without prompting from something or someone else. In the quotation given, Srila Prabhupada is talking about unqualified spiritual masters. A genuine disciple never does anything on his (or here) own initiative. They act under the direction of Krishna as expressed through the instruction of the spiritual master. This may happen in any of a number of ways. Srila Prabhupada took a suggestion that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta made to many English speakers he met so seriously that he took it as his guru’s order. (In fact, there are some anecdotes told about Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati that indicate that Sarasvati Thakur expected that Srila Prabhupada would carry out this order given by his own siska guru and father, and repeated by his mother on her deathbed. These will be available in a forthcoming book by my dear friend and Godsister, Mulaprakriti dasi. Devotees close to her are working very hard to make this book available very soon because Mula will soon expire due to ovarian cancer.)

 

Later, Srila Prabhupada was visited on two separate occasions ordering him to give up his endeavors for family life and take sannyasa. He arranged this with advice and help from some of his Godbrothers. So we can see that Srila Prabhupada’s mission was directly inspired by his spiritual master.

 

Nowadays, his disciples may also act under his inspiration and order. He told us many times that he wanted us to preach according to our capacity, that he expected us to become fit to carry on the mission he brought to us. When we preach effectively, people may take us seriously enough that they will eventually want to make a commitment and accept initiation. We may respond in a number of ways. If he feels unqualified to give the candidate what he needs, and he knows another devotee he feels to be superior and qualified, he may direct the candidate to that devotee. Srila Sridhar Maharaja says, “You give instructions on spiritual life to others, and those that take those instructions will say, ‘I cannot go to anyone else. I can accept only what I have heard from you, I cannot accept anyone to be guru other than you.’”

 

Then a devotee suggests that we could say, “If you accept me, then I tell you to accept him.” Maharaja replies, “If he sincerely feels so, he can say, ‘If you have real faith in me, then I tell you to go to that gentleman.’ He may say this, if he sincerely believes that another person is superior to him.” However it may turn out that he must “come down himself and take the responsibility of continuing the work of his guru. It all depends on sincere realization.” So what Srila Prabhupada addresses in that quotation is acting without proper authority, which means acting as guru in order to enjoy profit, adoration, and distinction rather than simply serving the mission of the spiritual master. That would be acting on his own initiative.

 

Taking the responsibility of guru under the sanction of one’s own spiritual master happens naturally, organically. When the new devotees ask about initiation, the culture in ISKCON has, since 1978, to refer the disciple to one of the “authorized” (or whatever the hell it is) official gurus for ISKCON. But what if the new devotee is inspired by you, and feels he can best advance under your guidance? You will no doubt enter a period of profound soul searching. You may tell the candidate that he’ll have to wait. You will no doubt want to consult with devotees you trust. When Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati asked Gaura Kishora das babaji to accept him, Babaji Maharaja eventually said that he would consult Mahaprabhu to get His advice. When asked later what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, Babaji said that he had forgotten to ask. If the disciple is sincere in the desire to make his connection through you, he will wait, hear from you, serve under your direction, regardless of how long it takes. If in the meantime he finds himself attracted to serve another devotee, you may release him to that devotee’s care.

 

At the beginning of Jaiva Dharma, we find that a devotee is teaching a sannyasi who has come to learn about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Eventually, he takes the new man to his own guru. What does the guru do? He tells the new man to become the disciple of his disciple, and the sannyasi is eventually initiated as a Vaishnava.

 

A friend of mine was preaching outside ISKCON 20 years ago. Eventually, some of the people he introduced to Krishna consciousness asked him to serve as their guru. He prayed, searched his soul, and asked other devotees he trusted for advice. Eventually, he began initiating students in the mood of the “monitor guru” Srila Prabhupada describes in Easy Journey to Other Planets. I don’t think he was acting on his own initiative, but under the inspiration of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I have also had a few disciples. I never initiated any of them. I did what I could to help them. One of them passed away a couple of years ago, and he wasn’t chanting 16 rounds yet, but he was faithfully following my advice and making slow but steady progress. I wish I could have done more for him, but I’m happy about the dedication he showed toward the end of his life. The only reason I say he was my disciple is that he insisted so. For more than 20 years, he told anyone he met that I was his guru. His aspiration was service to Srila Prabhupada, but he was confident that I could give that to him, and I did what I could, considering his circumstances.

 

I apologize for the length of this response, but I wanted to give us enough to discuss. The ritvik proponents assert that, because Srila Prabhupada is still alive, he can continue to initiate. By the same token, he can also continue to instruct his sincere disciples.

 

I also apologize for the scattered nature of this response. It's late for me, and I'm up past my bedtime. I also want to point out that I'm not asserting anything as some sort of authority; this is more or less the off-the-top-of-my-head start for a conversation. Feel free to disagree with me. However, it's also apparently the fruit of 35 years of following Srila Prabhupada, so don't expect me to change my mind too easily.

 

'night!

[theist]

Thank you. On the first reading I noted some questions that I will ask a little later on this morning.

 

Hare Krsna

[AncientMariner]

No offense but it seems to me you just made the ritviks point for them. The devestation in Iskcon has been from gurus acting without proper authority. It seems in your case and your friends case you acted as instructing gurus and lead them to service of Srila Prabhupada and it sounds like it worked nicely. In fairness to the ritvik proponents that I have talked to none of them deny that Srila Prabhupada can't still guide his sincere disciples. In fact that seems to be one of their main problems with the current construction of Iskcon is that you can't go to a temple and try to take guidance from Prabhupada that you are pressured into being initiated by some other guru other than Prabhupada. I don't know where the truth lies on this subject but I have been trying to figure it out for some time. Sorry if I have offended you in anyway.

[stonehearted]

Oh, okay--if you say so. What ritvik proponents concede that Srila Prabhupada can still order someone to accept initiation?

 

That friend now has a few dozen disciples, many of whom are wonderful devotees.

 

Everyone may accept guidance from Srila Prabhupada. He also gives direct, personal instruction to many of his disciples. Initiation--diksha--is something a little different.

 

Anyway, my policy is not to argue on the ritvik issue, since it never goes anywhere. As much as I respect and love many of the ritvik proponents, and as sympathetic as I have long been to the concerns that brought this argument up, I don't think they've made their case yet. I prefer to spend my time and energy otherwise.

[AncientMariner]

"What ritvik proponents concede that Srila Prabhupada can still order someone to accept initiation?"

 

I am not sure I understand the question. Do you mean what ritvik proponents concede that Srila Prabhupada can still order people to become diksha gurus and accept their own disciples? If that is the question that is a good question that I am not sure what the ritvik response would be. I don't know what you mean by Prabhupada ordering someone to accept initiation. Did Prabhupada do that? Order people to accept initiation?

 

Oh well I will drop the subject, I just didn't understand your question.

[theist]

Babhru meant that Srila Prabhupada can still order his disciples to take their own disciples. He will answer that himself but that is certainly where I part with the ritviks.

 

They say that Srila Prabhupada can stil guide people to Krsna. I agree. But given that then why can't he also guide his disciples in accepting their own disciples?

 

I will always be opposed to appointments and prohibitions. Both to me make the classic and disasterous mistake of trying to occupy Supersoul's position.

 

Whuch is heads and which is tails is anybodies guess.

[AncientMariner]

I have to admit that does leave a hole in the ritvik argument that I never even considered. Personally I can't understand why people would want to take on disciples but I can see how Prabhupada could still authorize a sincere devotee to accept their own disciples if he is still able to accept a disciple on his own behalf through a ritvik.

[theist]

other than compassion and a desire to please Krsna. Devotees can't tolerate the suffering of others.

[stonehearted]

AM: Do you mean what ritvik proponents concede that Srila Prabhupada can still order people to become diksha gurus and accept their own disciples?

 

Yes, this is what I meant. From my perspective, an honest disciple does nothing on his own behalf. Srila Prabhupada never did anything on his own behalf. That includes accepting several thousand disciples.

[stonehearted]

theist: I will always be opposed to appointments and prohibitions. Both to me make the classic and disasterous mistake of trying to occupy Supersoul's position.

 

Anyone who has read much of what I've said about this knows that I think the system ISKCON uses (whatever they call it this week) is too bureaucratic--ultimately, it's goofy. We give this person permission to accept disciples, but that doesn't mean s/he is qualified to do so." Gimme a break; that's just a CYA move that demonstrates that they don't really know what to do.

[AncientMariner]

I don't think I will ever get that advanced in this life. I have had too many people tell me to take my philosophy and put it where the sun don't shine including my relatives. It makes me lose interest in trying to convince anyone. Oh well hopefully Krishna will still have mercy on me even though I am reluctant to preach on his behalf.

[stonehearted]

theist: other than compassion and a desire to please Krsna.

 

Bingo! One example: For years, I treated my friend James' consistent assertion for more then 20 years that I was his guru as good-natured joking. Sometimes I'd reply with, "Sure, James. I'll be ready to accept disciples about the time you're ready to become one." Well, that may just be how it works. When I started to take him seriously, after he moved to the Big Island and I had also moved back here, I spent time with him and assessed his situation. He was paraplegic due to an accident and botched surgery, and his pain and anxiety caused him to use marijuana, and he then fell into smoking cigarettes, too. I told him that first I was going to let the negative stuff go and focus on some positive things he could do reguarly to develop spritual strength. I had him chanting 2, then 4 rounds a day. I also asked him to read the entire Nectar of Devotion (there's a story behind this). When he died, I was too damned busy with my job to spend as much time with him as I should have. But he told another friend, "Babhru will be so happy. I've just finished reading Nectar of Devotion."

 

I did what I could for him; we didn't expect that he would die, at least so soon. If I had had more time and gotten him to regularly chanting 16 rounds and clean on all the principles, what would I have done? I'm not sure; There was no one in ISKCON in whom he had the kind of faith I feel he would have needed. But I do know that I continue to work on improving the quality of my chanting and service to my Thakurjis. I read as much as I can and write about what I read (when I have time) so I can assimilate it better. I associate with like-minded devotees, many of whom are clearly more advanced than I am. I speak among devotees and other audiences when I can about the science of Krishna consciousness. I'm doing what I can. And when I saw that James was serious, I decided to respond in kind because that's what Srila Prabhupada taught. It may have taken me into unfamiliar territory, and that may be a little frightening sometimes. But this was about his need and my own need should come second. Ultimately, my need was to surrender to the situation Krishna put me in.

 

Krishna consciousness means giving. Preaching is teaching, and teaching means giving. I know; I've been a teacher since 1979.

[theist]

what you mean Babhru. I have to avoid both factions.

 

AM, it can be frustrating. I try to keep it as simple as possible. Actually for my own understanding I am trying to simplify everything.

 

People are suffering for want of knowledge of the self and Superself. We must tell them. We also must avoid the "I am a manof knowledge and you are a fallen soul" trap. You know what I mean the us and them mentality can become too dominant. Even the word 'preaching' carries a connotation that can be unhealthy.

 

There are so many open people, at least to something that we have to say. Not that we should try to make everyone over in a certain image of what we think a devotee is.But if we can help someone contemplate their true identity or maybe offer a prayer to the Lord or something that will return to them and possibly be built open in their future.

[stonehearted]

theist: People are suffering for want of knowledge of the self and Superself. We must tell them. We also must avoid the "I am a manof knowledge and you are a fallen soul" trap. You know what I mean the us and them mentality can become too dominant. Even the word 'preaching' carries a connotation that can be unhealthy.

 

Babhru: I agree on all counts here. That's why I like Paz's Web site and wish he could find someone to give him the help he needs. It's good for him to be immersed in it, and it will be good for anyone who encounters the site.

 

The us-and-them syndrome is actually antithetical to progressive Krisna consciousness. We are enjoined by Mahaprabhu to realize that we're lower than straw in the street, and by Rupa to leave aside all material sense of identity. It's a matter of seeing the need and giving of yourself whatever you can (and sometimes more) in an attempt to respond to that need. We have been givien the most valuable jewel, and we are meant to share the wealth.