Kulapavana

Yeah, and your point is?

 

My point is this: "Following the instructions of ŚrīCaitanyaMahāprabhu and His disciplic succession, one can become a spiritual master, for the process is very easy. One can go everywhere and anywhere to preach the instructions of Kṛṣṇa. " Srila Prabhupada

If none of Prabhupada's disciples are fit to be a guru after more than 3 decades of following his process, than his mission is a complete failure and he is lying about the process of becoming a spiritual master being very easy.

If you can't see that Hridayananda fits the requirements in the above sentence than I can't help you. You ritviks find every concievable excuse to discredit Prabhupada's disciples acting as gurus. Your quotes above are a perfect example of such efforts.

Generally the truth is as stated in this purport.

 

From the same purport (Madhya 24.277):

It is Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's wish that everyone should become a Vaiṣṇava and guru. Following the instructions of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His disciplic succession, one can become a spiritual master, for the process is very easy. One can go everywhere and anywhere to preach the instructions of Kṛṣṇa. The Bhagavad-gītā is Kṛṣṇa's instructions; therefore the duty of every Vaiṣṇava is to travel and preach the Bhagavad-gītā, either in his country or a foreign country. This is the test of sparśa-maṇi, following in the footsteps of Nārada Muni.

He is clearing trying to misdirect Srila Prabhupada's flock. When some sheep sees the wolf in sheep's clothing doing mischief they should sound the alarm to warn the other sheep.

 

That is not a lynch mob mentality. Those that demand silence among the sheep become collaboraters with the wolf.

Srila Prabhupada's flock is already scattered in 10 different directions, with all kinds of people claiming exclusive right to knowing "the only way".

I am not calling for silent approval of anything. I quoted Acharya Narahari Sarkara on the issue of rejecting one's guru and asked if Krsna-kirti's action is based on what is presented there.

Would you be raising your opposition to Hridayananda if he blessed a marriage of meat eaters, gamblers, and drinkers of alcohol? I doubt that very much. Somehow being gay is so monumentally worse in your mind that it calls for most drastic measures...

In sum there's a real heavy confusion going on and to say a neophyte can become a diksa-guru, but this neophyte diksa-guru has to be worshiped like a mahabhagavat pure devotee is wrong. For this people don't need the Vaishnavas. It is far better for them to remain Christians and when they can manage to give up meat eating they are better off than anyone else of the neophyte diksa guru idea.

This confusion is the result of not relying on shastra, tradition, and common sense.

When you see a guru who is clearly eager for fame, profit and distinction - he is obviously not liberated. Yet for some people even such an imperfect guru can be a good teacher and an inspiration for serving Krsna. I see that happen every day. So instead of sneering at such a guru at every opportune moment, we should show some restraint. That is my point regarding Hridayananda.

FALSE: "Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls."

 

There are pure neophytes. See Caitanya Caritamrta for examples.

 

LOL@ 'liberated soul' kanisthas

WHAT are they liberated from?

They are conditioned by their impurities, plain and simple.

Enforcing upon innocent people that they should worship someone as God's direct representative who is in fact a conditioned soul, this is by far a bigger sin than all this stuff what the Christians do.

Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru. Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls, yet a disciple should see them as a representative of God.

Christians claim that Jesus is God. Just google up "Jesus is God" and see what you find.

The person Kula claims he believes is an acarya, who by his own public record belives was fallible, made mistakes, and not able to give diksa now that he is dead and gone, has this to say.

I accept Narahari Sarkara's verdict on the matter of gurus-gone-bad.

According to this person's own words, his so called disciple, Hridayananda, has not accepted him as Guru. No link.

He took diksa from him, he took the name Hridayananda gave him (and is still signing his letters with that name), but Andy thinks there is no link between these two Vaishnavas...

The Hrdayananda M disciples who were there, just didn't say anything or even lied when questioned and all ended up getting the connection with Srila Govinda Maharaja. I remember how anxious they were to break their connection with Hrdayananda M and establish what they believed was a real one. We have also heard that there were also certain inhabitants of Vraja 5,000 years ago, who were even willing to renounce scriptural injunctions to obtain their goal.

IMO that is a bogus application of devotional sentiment. Why do you need another diksa if we are preaching that we are a 'siksa sampradaya'?

Btw Andy, how does that quote relate to your concept of a guru? A guru who can be challenged by a disciple when seen as acting improperly?

But Hrydayananda, ACB Swami's disciple, who also has the same doubts about ACBS, is a Guru, not an acarya, although he encourages his disciples to call him ACARYADEVA.

 

Recap for Andy: Hridayananda Swami is a Vaishnava guru to a lot of devotees. That is a fact. He is not an acharya IMO. Srila Prabhupada is a genuine Vaishnava acharya IMO.

Read the excerpt from SRIKRISHNA BHAJANAMRTA I posted. (more here:

http://www.krishna-das.com/ksyberspace/docs/skb.txt )

Once you take diksa from a G. Vaishnava guru you need to follow the tradition as explained by Narahari Sarkara Thakura. Krsna Kirti did not follow these rules and thus his decision is maya.

From Sri Krsna Bhajanamrita by Acharya Narahari Sarkara Thakur:

Verse 59

If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava

relative principles then in that case one should in a solitary

place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate

conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, but one is not to

give him up.

Verse 60

One should not be hesitant or fearful because one is confronting or

challenging a spiritual master.

"For it has been prescribed that one must appropriately discipline

even a spiritual master who is:

*bewildered about what he should or shouldn't do;

*who is inexperienced or ignorant:

*who has deviated from the Krsna conscious path;

*or if he is bewildered by false pride."

Verse 61

This statement of the revealed scriptures is applicable at all times

and under all circumstances.

Verse 62

The natural behavior of the Vaisnava devotees is to take complete

refuge of Lord Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

accepting Him as their principal and real shelter. The very life

of the Vaisnava devotees of the Lord is singing the glories or Lord

Sri Krsna, describing and expanding the fame of Lord Sri Krsna, and

discussing the nectar of His transcendental pastimes.

Verse 63

The authorized course of action is to continue, as before, with one's

prescribed devotional service. One may take guidance through

or instructions from the Vaisnavas, as all Vaisnavas are considered

guru or "spiritual master," or one may use one's own intelligence,

duly considering the relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra and

guru. In all cases one should continue in one's devotional service.

Verse 64

However, if the spiritual master:

*acts envious towards 'isvarebrantah', that which is

connected with the Supreme;

*is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of

Godhead;

*is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna;

*personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about

the glorious pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna;

*has become totally bewildered, listening to the false

praise of ignorant persons and day by day is more

materially contaminated and fallen

___then the spiritual master must be renounced.

Verse 65

Under those circumstances one should not doubt, "How can I give up my

spiritual master?" With a strong desire for achieving spontaneous

devotional service and attaining the lotus feet of Lord Krsna, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, a devotee accepts the shelter of a

spiritual master, if that spiritual master takes on "asuric" qualities

or a demoniac mentality then it is one's duty to reject such a demon

"asura" guru and in his place accept a Krsna conscious spiritual master

and worship him.

And which past acarya blessed gay marriages? Therefore he did not reject a GV acarya at all, only a pretenderthat has an interest separate from his spiritual master. Such a personshould not be accepted in the first place, but having done that shouldbe rejected when one gains more knowledge.

Do not confuse a guru with an acharya. There were thousands of Gaudiya gurus in the last 200 years and only a few acharyas. Did any Vaishnava acharya before Prabhupada gave sannyasa to gay disciples only a couple of years after they embraced Vaishnavism? No, they did not. Yet we praise Prabhupada for being merciful and a pioneer.

If a sannyasi choses to bless a gay couple that can certainly be seen as controversial, but a grounds for rejection as a diksa guru? IMO that is absurd.

KK also does not indicate whether he actually talked to his guru trying to reconcile the matter - another step our acharyas recommend. I do not know him in person so I can't say whether he is sincere and confused, or just seeking pratistha.

When you serve the devil, you don't need to wait for heaven to receive your reward. This is the problem even today, people follow blindly.

However, Prabhupada says hundreds of times, one should be intelligent enough not to be induced by leaders telling you the wrong thing.

Amen to that, brother...

Fortunately (at least in most places), the current batch of devotees is not as gullible as the first one. There is still some cheating and abuse but it is far less frequent and a lot more subtle.

All he made was a simple statement. Breach of Vaisnava etiquette???? Soap opera????

What he said is indeed simple. KK rejected his diksa guru because he blessed a gay couple. As far as I know in the Gaudiya tradition there is no precedent for such an action. Past acharyas cited rejection of Vaishnavism as the reason for rejecting one's guru, or repeated immoral activities on guru's behalf. Being kind to gay people hardly qualifies for either.

The 'guru soap opera' refers to all kinds of guru drama being played in Iskcon over the years: from personality cultism, zonal acharyaism, rock star groupism, to ritvikvada, and other assorted colors of the psychodelic guru rainbow...

Suresh dasa: "Gurukrpa’s collecting techniques were so hard-driving aggressive, that he and his party single-handedly receive the credit for ISKCON being kicked out of Japan and removed from that country. Apparently there were also someforms of hush-hush illegal activity as well, and even possibly murder involved in the collecting of that money in Japan. So why give him all the credit and praise for building two temples that were built based not on the love and kindness that ISKCON portrays itself to represent (hiding behind its books and philosophy), but on force, coercion, and pile-driving cruelty to the devotees and non-devotees alike. "

-------------------------

Many devotees are eager to re-write the past, and whitewash all the dirt of the early period in order to build a legend of the 'Golden Age' of Iskcon in order to promote their own agenda. It is the sober accounts like the one above which allow us to separate the facts from the fiction.

Every devout Catholic can assure you the Catholic Church never said that Lord Jesus is a conditioned soul neophyte. No, they do not say that and have never said that. This is illegal slander of both Jesus and the entire Catholic Church and all of its members.

Are you comparing the position of guru in Iskcon with the position of Jesus in Catholic church? A guru in Iskcon is not necessarily a liberated soul, and Jesus in CC is God

Rejecting gurus for social or political reasons is against Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. There are very clear injunctions from our acharyas as to when a guru can be rejected. A disciple can accept another siksa guru that inspires him more than his diksa guru, but a formal rejection of a diksa guru is a big deal and MUST NOT be taken lightly.

Instead of simply focusing on his own mood of seva, KK makes a huge deal of rejecting his diksa guru. IMO this is very immature and going against established Vaishnava etiquette. Another cheaply made episode of Iskcon's soap opera "The gurus of our lives"...

If you think his choices were inappropriate, and brought poor results to the movement as you have always said, then you are directly criticising the one who guided his every move as he was completely surrendered to Krsna's will...

Srila Prabhupada worked very hard to build up Iskcon and whatever he did was for Krsna's glory. There is NO issue of karmic results - good or bad, as it was all devotional service. However, if you are willing to give Srila Prabhupada credit for his many accomplishments than you obviously believe it was not all just Krsna's doing. On the other side of this coin is the issue of responsibility for the choices that produced less than desirable results. For me it is definitely there, but it just a minor footnote to his great many victories.

The way I see it is similar to a case of a great general who has won the war against significant odds, but who in the process suffered heavy casualties among his troops and caused some significant collateral damage.

I am certainly happy and greatful the war was won by him...

I have always been wary of Kulapavana because he used to be one of the ones to shout aparadha against anyone who dared question the actions of the Iskcon gurus.

You are obviously confusing me with someone else. Please show a quote where I did that. Otherwise I say you are a liar.

As to Harikesha and the money he extorted from Iskcon - I never had kind words for that. I merely said that he seems to be returning to a more respectable form of Krsna consciousness, from total insanity he slipped into at some point. I never had much respect for anybody obtaining money in dirty ways - regardles of what their reasoning was.

I am really glad to see you are not in that mode where you view it as aparadha when anyone critisizes the actions of some of these Iskcon gurus.

You always have to have a valid and factual reason to criticize someone. And even then it is advised to be respectful.

What part about Krsna as Supersoul dictating to the Acarya don't you understand.

 

On the other hand, by the sound of your posts, you don't believe he was an Acarya at all. Why don't you just admit it.

 

Perhaps because your pool of prospective disciples would quickly reduce to NIL.

Your concept of a Vaishnava acharya is straight out of a superhero movie or a personality cult story... I certainly accept Prabhupada as an Acharya but my understanding of an acharya is much more rational and based on historical and scriptural examples.

No, I do not believe the Supersoul was dictating Prabhupada's books or making his decisions for him. His purports are based on the tikas of previous acharyas and his own realizations - that is pretty obvious if you know the tikas Prabhupada was using. As to his decisions, Prabhupada simply said that a guru knows what Krsna wants him to know - he made no claims that whatever he did was dictated to him verbatim by Krsna.

As to chosing the disciples for leadership positions, Prabhupada certainly had a choice in the early 70's - and he DID exercise that choice as he saw fit, replacing temple presidents, secretaries, or GBCs. So the choices were his untill the very end.

And the idea of me trolling for disciples is just as bizzare and divorced from reality as the majority of your posts.

I

If you stop blaming Srila Prabhupada, take responsibility for your own trusting support of "those characters" which was part of your own purification (albeit at a higher level as victim not the main perpetrator), you can then ACTUALLY leave it all behind, including the subtle aparadha against Prabhupada, and take a quantum leap in your service.

I have to say you are way too sentimental to understand my point of view...

Prabhupada most certainly had a choice of who he surrounded himself with. He had 5000 disciples for crying out loud! It is puzzling to me why he chose so many questionable characters for the leadership positions in our movement. I certainly do not hold it against him - a lot of these guys were first class actors and natural con-artists, and perhaps SP was too trusting with his disciples.

And I trusted these people only because Prabhupada made them leaders of this movement, just like so many other second wave devotees. However, I never trusted them completely, and NEVER did anything contrary to my sense of right and wrong while in their service. I can live with that just fine.

So Prabhupada made a GBC, sannyasi and ritvik out of a man that he felt was not a Vaishnava?

 

So, Gurukripa waited over 30 years to share this little tidbit?

 

How curious.

 

This kind of revelation cannot do much except call in to question the judgment and character of Srila Prabhupada.

I often wondered why SP surrounded himself with so many questionable characters and why he kept them in power despite so many mistakes on their part.

I doubt there was any 'great plan' in that. I think SP simply hoped that these people will eventually get purified and he trusted Krsna to take care of things.

Let us take a Hare Krishna Vashnava from the west , who was not born in India and is hence "varna-free". As a Vaishnava, is it necessary for him/her to become a Brahmana? If yes, what is the benefit?

 

Does Iskcon as an organization (officially or unofficially) differentiate Vaishnavas initiated as Brahmanas from other Vaishnavas? I am trying to understand the importance of the label within.

There is no pressure on anybody to 'become a brahmana' anymore. Gradually devotees realized that only very rare people have what it takes to truly be a brahmana.

Importance of the label? No... it is more like like a hope that we will develop many brahmanas among Iskcon devotees.

Yes, to some extent varna can be dynamic. I see it in myself. With time and gradual purification I see myself moving very slowly towards the brahmana spectrum in my brahmana/kshatriya mix, but this is not my goal or my desire - it is more like just a byproduct of my Vaishnava practices.

Nothing here says varna is not decided by birth and I am unclear on Kulpavana's position on the matter anyway, though to his credit his posts appear far more level-headed than most people here.

Prabhu, I see Krsna's proclamation on 4 varnas in the Gita (4.13) as final: