Diksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

> 1. Prabhupada is the one who said the guru (siksa/diksa) should be an

> uttama adhikari, right?

>

> Who are the uttama-adhikaris accessible as gurus presently?

>

 

Right.

 

He also said a non-uttama adhikari CAN become the guru (siksa/diksa)

also. You know the quote. Right?

 

So where are we now? Taking the right of deciding that anybody

less than 100% pure infallible uttama-adhikari is to be rejected

as a not bona fide guru in the process of bhakti-yoga. Lumped

together with some bogus "new-age gurujini".

 

 

And this is also Prabhupada:

 

"Prabhupada: Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even

the grhasthas, they are called dasa adhikari, and brahmacaris, everyone

can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a

matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual

master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can

make disciples and spread" (Conversation Detroit July 18, 1971)

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Samba das wrote:

 

 

> > And, "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..." CC Adi 1.35

 

 

>

> I would have thought this applies to a fully surrendered disciple, who

> carries out the orders of his guru (given personaly)

 

 

The quote says, "If there is NO CHANCE (my emphasis) to serve the spiritual

master directly". How were orders given "personally" if there was NO CHANCE to

serve directly?

 

 

> Prabhupada mentions there, 'in his absence', which infers he was there once.

 

For some he was definitely not "there" in the "bodily" sense.

 

I think we are reading things between lines that are not there. I think we

know what he means. He was very straightforward and practical, common

sensible.

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Samba das wrote:

 

 

> > And, "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..." CC Adi 1.35

 

 

>

> I would have thought this applies to a fully surrendered disciple, who

> carries out the orders of his guru (given personaly)

 

 

The quote says, "If there is NO CHANCE (my emphasis) to serve the spiritual

master directly". How were orders given "personally" if there was NO CHANCE to

serve directly?

 

 

> Prabhupada mentions there, 'in his absence', which infers he was there once.

 

For some he was definitely not "there" in the "bodily" sense.

 

I think we are reading things between lines that are not there. I think we

know what he means. He was very straightforward and practical, common

sensible.

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

 

> If you are looking for one, then it is your responsibility

> to evaluate for yourself. And if you are simply making an

> argument "There is no bona-fide (read: uttama-adhikari) guru

> in ISCKON", then it would be a fool's business to try to

> name some to you.

 

 

Honestly, Prabhu, I am NOT saying that. I do not know factually,

geographically, whatever. If you think there is one I would be genuinely

interested in knowing who you think is an uttama-adhikari in ISKCON right now

(besides Srila Prabhupada). I am being absolutely honest despite my penchant

for rhetoric and sarcasm, not unlike your good self sometimes.

I hear certain "granddisciples" speak very highly of their gurus and I

honestly wonder if they could be right in their assessment of these gurus.

Naturally I have my doubts, but I didn't think Srila Prabhupada was anyone

special before I read his books while I was lost in a cloud of "smoke",

either. I can be convinced, but Srila Prabhupada has shown the example now and

it is hard to bluff.

 

 

> And my point is, let's show a bit more sense of discrimination

> than merely "they are not uttama-adhikari pure devotees gurus"

> when it comes to evaluating the following of your sister's bogus

> gurujini impersonalist from that group somewhere there over, on

> one side, and the following the present ISCKON gurus on the other

> side.

>

> Wether this make little sense to you or not, I can't be more

> exact than I am. You asked me to elaborate, to make my point

> if I have one, so that someone else might be able to respond

> intelligently, or at least try. I did it two times already.

 

 

Wow. I am impressed Prabhu! Really. The above two paragraphs are so free of

sarcasm and cynicism that they hardly sound like you. :-) They are very clear

and understandable. Thank you.

 

And you are right. I should not have lumped everyone in. There is a gulf of

difference between my sister's guru and my Vaisnava godbrothers. Sorry.

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

 

> If you are looking for one, then it is your responsibility

> to evaluate for yourself. And if you are simply making an

> argument "There is no bona-fide (read: uttama-adhikari) guru

> in ISCKON", then it would be a fool's business to try to

> name some to you.

 

 

Honestly, Prabhu, I am NOT saying that. I do not know factually,

geographically, whatever. If you think there is one I would be genuinely

interested in knowing who you think is an uttama-adhikari in ISKCON right now

(besides Srila Prabhupada). I am being absolutely honest despite my penchant

for rhetoric and sarcasm, not unlike your good self sometimes.

I hear certain "granddisciples" speak very highly of their gurus and I

honestly wonder if they could be right in their assessment of these gurus.

Naturally I have my doubts, but I didn't think Srila Prabhupada was anyone

special before I read his books while I was lost in a cloud of "smoke",

either. I can be convinced, but Srila Prabhupada has shown the example now and

it is hard to bluff.

 

 

> And my point is, let's show a bit more sense of discrimination

> than merely "they are not uttama-adhikari pure devotees gurus"

> when it comes to evaluating the following of your sister's bogus

> gurujini impersonalist from that group somewhere there over, on

> one side, and the following the present ISCKON gurus on the other

> side.

>

> Wether this make little sense to you or not, I can't be more

> exact than I am. You asked me to elaborate, to make my point

> if I have one, so that someone else might be able to respond

> intelligently, or at least try. I did it two times already.

 

 

Wow. I am impressed Prabhu! Really. The above two paragraphs are so free of

sarcasm and cynicism that they hardly sound like you. :-) They are very clear

and understandable. Thank you.

 

And you are right. I should not have lumped everyone in. There is a gulf of

difference between my sister's guru and my Vaisnava godbrothers. Sorry.

[Guest guest]

"COM: Nistula (das) ACBSP (Sri Pundarik Dham - Bangladesh)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2334753 from COM]

>

> >it seems to me that the diksa guru should be the one who

> >gives the disciple his varna guidance -- since he is physically

> >present at the beginning of the disciples devotional career.

> >

> >Devotional career means serving Krsna by one's work.

> >The diksa guru should be expected to tell his or her disciple

> >which kind of work is most suitable for that person to serve

> >Krsna with. That implies more diksa gurus, not fewer.

>

> SP never gave me any guidance as to my varna, nor, I believe, did

> he do so for most of his disciples. That was generally left up to the

> siksha gurus in the form of the temple managers, who had daily

> interactions and inter-personal relationships with the devotees.

>

> ys, nistula dasa

 

I guess my point would be that Srila Prabhupada was exceptional in

several ways, and by trying to replicate things exactly as he did them

with regard to the institution of guru, experience has shown things don't

work well.

 

I think we need to admit that there are certain things he could do

because he had exceptional potency, which our present gurus may not

have. For example, he was able to accept a very lavish standard of

worship, which our GBC has since found inappropriate for other gurus in

ISKCON.

 

I think we need to admit that there were certain things that he did (or

did not do) based on the emergency situation that he was in. For

example, since he was the only guru for several thousand disciples, it

was not possible for him to advise most of them in their varna. However,

in numerous places in his instructions, he indicates that the guru should

guide his disciple to the appropriate varna in which to execute his

devotional service (e.g. SB 5.19.19). So, it definitely appears that

this is something that Srila Prabhupada wanted for the future.

 

As for his own disciples, due to Srila Prabhupada's exceptional spiritual

potency, it would seem that Krsna would be there to help the immediate

disciples overcome any shortcomings experienced by not having their guru

personally guide them to the correct varna. Naturally, we have seen that

numerous disciples of Srila Prabhupada have experienced difficulty due to

attempts to act in the brahminical varna, when in fact they were not

suited to it. And, Prabhupada himself discusses this problem in the

Mayapur Valentine (14 feb 1977) conversation. Nevertheless, I have faith

that Krsna will help them so that ultimately they will not suffer just

because no one told them their proper varna. Still, based on

Prabhupada's instructions, I think that was an exceptional practice --

not meant to be the norm forever after.

 

Can one approach a siksa guru for varna guidance, instead of a diksa

guru. Yes, that seems possible. But, then as others have pointed out,

what is the use of the diksa guru? In many instances, as circumstances

have proven, he is not a pure devotee -- so the redeeming siksa must come

from Srila Prabhupada. If the diksa guru provides neither pure siksa nor

varna guidance, then the question arises: what is his practical

function? Is he simply fulfilling the bureaucratic function of

initiating people?

 

If he or she were actually expected to give personal spiritual advice and

varna guidance to each disciple, then we see there is a very valuable

function being fulfilled. In that case each guru would give more advice

to fewer disciples -- thus tending to eliminate the phenomenon of guru's

becoming so overwhelmed with bureaucratic responsibilities that they are

susceptible to different problems in their own spiritual life.

 

But, I suppose the most important thing is that our bhaktas need to be

trained that it is their right -- and their duty -- to approach a guru

for varna guidance -- whether that guru is a diska or a siksa guru -- it

must be a living guru who can give them guidance which is tailored to

their individual circumstance and propensities.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Nistula (das) ACBSP (Sri Pundarik Dham - Bangladesh)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2334753 from COM]

>

> >it seems to me that the diksa guru should be the one who

> >gives the disciple his varna guidance -- since he is physically

> >present at the beginning of the disciples devotional career.

> >

> >Devotional career means serving Krsna by one's work.

> >The diksa guru should be expected to tell his or her disciple

> >which kind of work is most suitable for that person to serve

> >Krsna with. That implies more diksa gurus, not fewer.

>

> SP never gave me any guidance as to my varna, nor, I believe, did

> he do so for most of his disciples. That was generally left up to the

> siksha gurus in the form of the temple managers, who had daily

> interactions and inter-personal relationships with the devotees.

>

> ys, nistula dasa

 

I guess my point would be that Srila Prabhupada was exceptional in

several ways, and by trying to replicate things exactly as he did them

with regard to the institution of guru, experience has shown things don't

work well.

 

I think we need to admit that there are certain things he could do

because he had exceptional potency, which our present gurus may not

have. For example, he was able to accept a very lavish standard of

worship, which our GBC has since found inappropriate for other gurus in

ISKCON.

 

I think we need to admit that there were certain things that he did (or

did not do) based on the emergency situation that he was in. For

example, since he was the only guru for several thousand disciples, it

was not possible for him to advise most of them in their varna. However,

in numerous places in his instructions, he indicates that the guru should

guide his disciple to the appropriate varna in which to execute his

devotional service (e.g. SB 5.19.19). So, it definitely appears that

this is something that Srila Prabhupada wanted for the future.

 

As for his own disciples, due to Srila Prabhupada's exceptional spiritual

potency, it would seem that Krsna would be there to help the immediate

disciples overcome any shortcomings experienced by not having their guru

personally guide them to the correct varna. Naturally, we have seen that

numerous disciples of Srila Prabhupada have experienced difficulty due to

attempts to act in the brahminical varna, when in fact they were not

suited to it. And, Prabhupada himself discusses this problem in the

Mayapur Valentine (14 feb 1977) conversation. Nevertheless, I have faith

that Krsna will help them so that ultimately they will not suffer just

because no one told them their proper varna. Still, based on

Prabhupada's instructions, I think that was an exceptional practice --

not meant to be the norm forever after.

 

Can one approach a siksa guru for varna guidance, instead of a diksa

guru. Yes, that seems possible. But, then as others have pointed out,

what is the use of the diksa guru? In many instances, as circumstances

have proven, he is not a pure devotee -- so the redeeming siksa must come

from Srila Prabhupada. If the diksa guru provides neither pure siksa nor

varna guidance, then the question arises: what is his practical

function? Is he simply fulfilling the bureaucratic function of

initiating people?

 

If he or she were actually expected to give personal spiritual advice and

varna guidance to each disciple, then we see there is a very valuable

function being fulfilled. In that case each guru would give more advice

to fewer disciples -- thus tending to eliminate the phenomenon of guru's

becoming so overwhelmed with bureaucratic responsibilities that they are

susceptible to different problems in their own spiritual life.

 

But, I suppose the most important thing is that our bhaktas need to be

trained that it is their right -- and their duty -- to approach a guru

for varna guidance -- whether that guru is a diska or a siksa guru -- it

must be a living guru who can give them guidance which is tailored to

their individual circumstance and propensities.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> "Uttamas all on one side of the world, all the rest over here" or whatever

you

> said, makes little sense to me.

>

> My point is there IS an unquestioned uttama-adhikari guru accessible to

> everyone right now. Why should anyone be denied access?

 

No one is denied access. Every single person on this planet can claim Srila

Prabhupada as siksa guru.

 

Access is not denied. What is the problem?

 

Furthermore, there is a high possibility that there are other uttama-adhikaris

on

the planet. Why are we saying that only Prabhupada can give diksa?

 

One reason: That is that, according to the argument you place, there are no

other

pure devotees on the planet.

 

Do you realize the implication of that position? Srila Prabhupada said his

life

would be successful if he could create even one pure devotee. If you maintain

that he did not even create one pure devotee, you are implying that Srila

Prabhupada's life was a failure.

 

Think about it.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> "Uttamas all on one side of the world, all the rest over here" or whatever

you

> said, makes little sense to me.

>

> My point is there IS an unquestioned uttama-adhikari guru accessible to

> everyone right now. Why should anyone be denied access?

 

No one is denied access. Every single person on this planet can claim Srila

Prabhupada as siksa guru.

 

Access is not denied. What is the problem?

 

Furthermore, there is a high possibility that there are other uttama-adhikaris

on

the planet. Why are we saying that only Prabhupada can give diksa?

 

One reason: That is that, according to the argument you place, there are no

other

pure devotees on the planet.

 

Do you realize the implication of that position? Srila Prabhupada said his

life

would be successful if he could create even one pure devotee. If you maintain

that he did not even create one pure devotee, you are implying that Srila

Prabhupada's life was a failure.

 

Think about it.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> I have not been thinking along those lines. In the last few hundred years

> there have been many pure souls, associates of Bhaktivinoda,

> Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Many of them probably just had a few disciples, and

> were simple. I personaly beleive that Srila PRabhupada will be the last

> WORLD acarya for the next ten thouand years. He was very special, and why

> would he have specificaly stated that his books are the law books for that

> time period? I dont see why there could not be a number of less

> flamboyant, but nonetheless potent pure devotees.

 

We do certainly agree on the special position of Srila Prabhupada

as an empowered Acarya. He did what none before him. But see the

"result" -- even his immediate disciples got to stay undelivered

till an another acarya manifests.

 

 

> Does it not make sense

> that there will be as many pure devotees as are needed according to the

> amount of people who sincerely want them?

 

No.

 

As I said before, the spiritual advancement of anybody does not

depend on some "need" or sincere desire to "have them". Think

about it. Everybody got the right to become pure devotee **for

him/herself**, regardless wether other people need it or not.

 

You perhaps are hinting on that Paramatma sends His pure devotee

to a sincere soul who manifests some desire for surrendering

to God. But then, that soul might also become a pure devotee

by associating with a pure devotee, and then you got your

"balance list" all out of "order".

 

 

> Ok you could bring up the argument that Prabhupada was only one, and had

> thousands of disciples. But how many of them were really ready to

> surrender fully?

 

Apparently none, since according to you they all got to get

an another acarya now to hear from again the same Prabhupada,

in order to get delivered.

 

 

> I know myself I had a hankering for truth, but I was not

> ready to surrender to a pure devotee. I agree with Janesvara that we need

> Varnasrama to bring us to the right level. Only when we are rightly

> situated can we elevate ourselves to satva, and from there we can jump to

> suddha satva with the Lords mercy, where we actualy begin our deep

> spiritual life.

>

 

This conference is called "Varnasrama development", after all.

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> I have not been thinking along those lines. In the last few hundred years

> there have been many pure souls, associates of Bhaktivinoda,

> Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Many of them probably just had a few disciples, and

> were simple. I personaly beleive that Srila PRabhupada will be the last

> WORLD acarya for the next ten thouand years. He was very special, and why

> would he have specificaly stated that his books are the law books for that

> time period? I dont see why there could not be a number of less

> flamboyant, but nonetheless potent pure devotees.

 

We do certainly agree on the special position of Srila Prabhupada

as an empowered Acarya. He did what none before him. But see the

"result" -- even his immediate disciples got to stay undelivered

till an another acarya manifests.

 

 

> Does it not make sense

> that there will be as many pure devotees as are needed according to the

> amount of people who sincerely want them?

 

No.

 

As I said before, the spiritual advancement of anybody does not

depend on some "need" or sincere desire to "have them". Think

about it. Everybody got the right to become pure devotee **for

him/herself**, regardless wether other people need it or not.

 

You perhaps are hinting on that Paramatma sends His pure devotee

to a sincere soul who manifests some desire for surrendering

to God. But then, that soul might also become a pure devotee

by associating with a pure devotee, and then you got your

"balance list" all out of "order".

 

 

> Ok you could bring up the argument that Prabhupada was only one, and had

> thousands of disciples. But how many of them were really ready to

> surrender fully?

 

Apparently none, since according to you they all got to get

an another acarya now to hear from again the same Prabhupada,

in order to get delivered.

 

 

> I know myself I had a hankering for truth, but I was not

> ready to surrender to a pure devotee. I agree with Janesvara that we need

> Varnasrama to bring us to the right level. Only when we are rightly

> situated can we elevate ourselves to satva, and from there we can jump to

> suddha satva with the Lords mercy, where we actualy begin our deep

> spiritual life.

>

 

This conference is called "Varnasrama development", after all.

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> He also said a non-uttama adhikari CAN become the guru (siksa/diksa)

> also. You know the quote. Right?

 

 

No, actually I do not know the quote. Please provide it for us.

 

 

> So where are we now? Taking the right of deciding that anybody

> less than 100% pure infallible uttama-adhikari is to be rejected

> as a not bona fide guru in the process of bhakti-yoga.

 

 

These are not my words, they are Srila Prabhupada's:

 

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform

of uttama-adhikari. 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."

 

"A guru who does not know what to do and what not to do, but by mistake, by

mistakenly I have accepted somebody as guru, he can be rejected. By rejecting

him, you can accept an actual bonafide guru. So guru is not to be killed but

he can be rejected. That is the injunction of

sastra."

(Bg. Lect. London Aug 5, 1973)

 

"….You are correct when you say that when the Spiritual Master speaks it

should be taken that Krishna is speaking. That is a fact. A Spiritual Master

must be liberated."

 

Srila Prabhupada's states:

"(The answer to your Istagosthi questions are as follows: Unless one is a

resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master. That is the first

proposition. A layman cannot be a Spiritual Master, and if he becomes so then

he will simply create disturbance….

..Your next question, whether the Spiritual Master was formerly a conditioned

soul, actually a bonafide Spiritual Master is never a conditioned soul."

 

 

So what would you have me do, Prabhu? Tell Srila Prabhupada that he is all

mixed up?

 

 

 

>Lumped together with some bogus "new-age gurujini".

 

 

Actually I never disrespectfully called her a "bogus new-age gurujini". Those

are your frustrated words. I simply said she was not an uttama-adhikari and

therefore the results to her disciples will be proportionate. They are

chanting the Holy Names and therefore I have full confidence that they will

become purified.

 

 

 

> And this is also Prabhupada:

>

> "Prabhupada: Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even

> the grhasthas, they are called dasa adhikari, and brahmacaris, everyone

> can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a

> matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual

> master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can

> make disciples and spread" (Conversation Detroit July 18, 1971)

 

 

Is this to mean there was some magic wand waved over someone who may not

actually have the qualifications of a guru listed above and who a few months

earlier were breaking every Vedic "rule" with no transcendental knowledge, and

they magically now have the qualifications? They are now instantly competent?

 

Or does it mean they have the potential? And that if they fulfill strictly the

orders of the spiritual master in every detail without compromise or false ego

or material contamination, and that they are therefore 100% Krsna conscious

and chanting the holy names constantly and show the example, then they are

competent?

 

Otherwise why doesn't the GBC allow everyone in the movement to accept

disciples?

 

And were Ramesvara, Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda and Bhavananda really

competent to be gurus of sincere well meaning disciples?

 

 

The only reason I could see a person having a problem accepting the fact that

a bonafide guru should be an uttama-adhikari is because they are somehow

convinced that we haven't got one now that Srila Prabhupada "left".

 

But if we accept the fact that an uttama-adhikari is still fully accessible

for siksa, transcendental instructions, (which Prabhupada said is actually

diksa) then there can be peace. why do we want to reject that?

 

"There is no difference between the spiritual master's instructions and the

spiritual master himself."

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> He also said a non-uttama adhikari CAN become the guru (siksa/diksa)

> also. You know the quote. Right?

 

 

No, actually I do not know the quote. Please provide it for us.

 

 

> So where are we now? Taking the right of deciding that anybody

> less than 100% pure infallible uttama-adhikari is to be rejected

> as a not bona fide guru in the process of bhakti-yoga.

 

 

These are not my words, they are Srila Prabhupada's:

 

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform

of uttama-adhikari. 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."

 

"A guru who does not know what to do and what not to do, but by mistake, by

mistakenly I have accepted somebody as guru, he can be rejected. By rejecting

him, you can accept an actual bonafide guru. So guru is not to be killed but

he can be rejected. That is the injunction of

sastra."

(Bg. Lect. London Aug 5, 1973)

 

"….You are correct when you say that when the Spiritual Master speaks it

should be taken that Krishna is speaking. That is a fact. A Spiritual Master

must be liberated."

 

Srila Prabhupada's states:

"(The answer to your Istagosthi questions are as follows: Unless one is a

resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master. That is the first

proposition. A layman cannot be a Spiritual Master, and if he becomes so then

he will simply create disturbance….

..Your next question, whether the Spiritual Master was formerly a conditioned

soul, actually a bonafide Spiritual Master is never a conditioned soul."

 

 

So what would you have me do, Prabhu? Tell Srila Prabhupada that he is all

mixed up?

 

 

 

>Lumped together with some bogus "new-age gurujini".

 

 

Actually I never disrespectfully called her a "bogus new-age gurujini". Those

are your frustrated words. I simply said she was not an uttama-adhikari and

therefore the results to her disciples will be proportionate. They are

chanting the Holy Names and therefore I have full confidence that they will

become purified.

 

 

 

> And this is also Prabhupada:

>

> "Prabhupada: Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even

> the grhasthas, they are called dasa adhikari, and brahmacaris, everyone

> can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a

> matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual

> master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent. They can

> make disciples and spread" (Conversation Detroit July 18, 1971)

 

 

Is this to mean there was some magic wand waved over someone who may not

actually have the qualifications of a guru listed above and who a few months

earlier were breaking every Vedic "rule" with no transcendental knowledge, and

they magically now have the qualifications? They are now instantly competent?

 

Or does it mean they have the potential? And that if they fulfill strictly the

orders of the spiritual master in every detail without compromise or false ego

or material contamination, and that they are therefore 100% Krsna conscious

and chanting the holy names constantly and show the example, then they are

competent?

 

Otherwise why doesn't the GBC allow everyone in the movement to accept

disciples?

 

And were Ramesvara, Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda and Bhavananda really

competent to be gurus of sincere well meaning disciples?

 

 

The only reason I could see a person having a problem accepting the fact that

a bonafide guru should be an uttama-adhikari is because they are somehow

convinced that we haven't got one now that Srila Prabhupada "left".

 

But if we accept the fact that an uttama-adhikari is still fully accessible

for siksa, transcendental instructions, (which Prabhupada said is actually

diksa) then there can be peace. why do we want to reject that?

 

"There is no difference between the spiritual master's instructions and the

spiritual master himself."

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> Do you realize the implication of that position? Srila Prabhupada said his

> life

> would be successful if he could create even one pure devotee. If you

maintain

> that he did not even create one pure devotee, you are implying that Srila

> Prabhupada's life was a failure.

 

Sorry, Mataji, I personally do not think that Srila Prabhupada's life is

"over".

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> Do you realize the implication of that position? Srila Prabhupada said his

> life

> would be successful if he could create even one pure devotee. If you

maintain

> that he did not even create one pure devotee, you are implying that Srila

> Prabhupada's life was a failure.

 

Sorry, Mataji, I personally do not think that Srila Prabhupada's life is

"over".

[Guest guest]

>

> > If you are looking for one, then it is your responsibility

> > to evaluate for yourself. And if you are simply making an

> > argument "There is no bona-fide (read: uttama-adhikari) guru

> > in ISCKON", then it would be a fool's business to try to

> > name some to you.

>

>

> Honestly, Prabhu, I am NOT saying that. I do not know factually,

> geographically, whatever. If you think there is one I would be genuinely

> interested in knowing who you think is an uttama-adhikari in ISKCON right

> now (besides Srila Prabhupada). I am being absolutely honest despite my

> penchant for rhetoric and sarcasm, not unlike your good self sometimes.

 

Even the disciples of the present ISCKON gurus in good standing

would be very careful not to get pulled on such absolutely honestly

thin ice of publicly declaring the name or that "one" that they

think is an uttama-adhikari, here in public. In the light of the

present discussion, especially. I would not, at least, do such

disfavor to anybody I hold a respect to.

 

 

> I hear certain "granddisciples" speak very highly of their gurus and I

> honestly wonder if they could be right in their assessment of these gurus.

 

These granddisciples seam not to be so very careful in public, or

at least infront of you, when it comes to expressing their opinion

about their gurus. They seam not to know that you are questening even

their very status as "granddisciples" of Prabhupada, and the staus

of their gurus as the bona fide representatives of Prabhupada and

Krsna.

 

 

> Naturally I have my doubts, but I didn't think Srila Prabhupada was anyone

> special before I read his books while I was lost in a cloud of "smoke",

> either. I can be convinced, but Srila Prabhupada has shown the example now

> and it is hard to bluff.

>

 

Naturally, none of disciples of the present gurus thought that their

gurus were anyone special before they got to know them on some way.

 

You don't have to be the one to get convinced how some of Srila

Prabhupada's disciples may be special to someone else.

 

You cannot understand how even a "small" guru can be someone special

to his disciples. That's the "godbrother syndrome": your godbrothers

can't be special to you, so can't to anyone else.

 

 

>

>

> Wow. I am impressed Prabhu! Really. The above two paragraphs are so free

> of sarcasm and cynicism that they hardly sound like you. :-) They are very

> clear and understandable. Thank you.

>

 

Phew. And I thought you were a kind of a ksatriya, able to take

a bit of a pinch.

 

 

> And you are right. I should not have lumped everyone in. There is a gulf

> of difference between my sister's guru and my Vaisnava godbrothers. Sorry.

 

Thanks.

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> > If you are looking for one, then it is your responsibility

> > to evaluate for yourself. And if you are simply making an

> > argument "There is no bona-fide (read: uttama-adhikari) guru

> > in ISCKON", then it would be a fool's business to try to

> > name some to you.

>

>

> Honestly, Prabhu, I am NOT saying that. I do not know factually,

> geographically, whatever. If you think there is one I would be genuinely

> interested in knowing who you think is an uttama-adhikari in ISKCON right

> now (besides Srila Prabhupada). I am being absolutely honest despite my

> penchant for rhetoric and sarcasm, not unlike your good self sometimes.

 

Even the disciples of the present ISCKON gurus in good standing

would be very careful not to get pulled on such absolutely honestly

thin ice of publicly declaring the name or that "one" that they

think is an uttama-adhikari, here in public. In the light of the

present discussion, especially. I would not, at least, do such

disfavor to anybody I hold a respect to.

 

 

> I hear certain "granddisciples" speak very highly of their gurus and I

> honestly wonder if they could be right in their assessment of these gurus.

 

These granddisciples seam not to be so very careful in public, or

at least infront of you, when it comes to expressing their opinion

about their gurus. They seam not to know that you are questening even

their very status as "granddisciples" of Prabhupada, and the staus

of their gurus as the bona fide representatives of Prabhupada and

Krsna.

 

 

> Naturally I have my doubts, but I didn't think Srila Prabhupada was anyone

> special before I read his books while I was lost in a cloud of "smoke",

> either. I can be convinced, but Srila Prabhupada has shown the example now

> and it is hard to bluff.

>

 

Naturally, none of disciples of the present gurus thought that their

gurus were anyone special before they got to know them on some way.

 

You don't have to be the one to get convinced how some of Srila

Prabhupada's disciples may be special to someone else.

 

You cannot understand how even a "small" guru can be someone special

to his disciples. That's the "godbrother syndrome": your godbrothers

can't be special to you, so can't to anyone else.

 

 

>

>

> Wow. I am impressed Prabhu! Really. The above two paragraphs are so free

> of sarcasm and cynicism that they hardly sound like you. :-) They are very

> clear and understandable. Thank you.

>

 

Phew. And I thought you were a kind of a ksatriya, able to take

a bit of a pinch.

 

 

> And you are right. I should not have lumped everyone in. There is a gulf

> of difference between my sister's guru and my Vaisnava godbrothers. Sorry.

 

Thanks.

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

> > He also said a non-uttama adhikari CAN become the guru (siksa/diksa)

> > also. You know the quote. Right?

>

>

> No, actually I do not know the quote. Please provide it for us.

>

 

It is the one you have just presented here, in your same text

that I am commention on. "A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava

situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples"

 

 

 

>

> Srila Prabhupada's states:

> "(The answer to your Istagosthi questions are as follows: Unless one is a

> resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master. That is the

> first proposition. A layman cannot be a Spiritual Master, and if he

> becomes so then he will simply create disturbance….

> .Your next question, whether the Spiritual Master was formerly a

> conditioned soul, actually a bonafide Spiritual Master is never a

> conditioned soul."

>

>

> So what would you have me do, Prabhu? Tell Srila Prabhupada that he is all

> mixed up?

 

You think for yourself what to tell him when you get the oportunity

for that. You are not my messenger in any case.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada repeteadly stated that he expects *all* his disciples

to become the next gurus. I would expect that Prabhupada was avare

of the fact that his disciples were "formely conditioned souls", and

not the paramahamsas discending from the Spiritual Sky.

 

As I mentioned on the very beginning of this discussion, there

maight exist the quotes from Prabhupada that will demand such a

standard of "a bona fide guru" that only Prabhupada could fullfill

it, and none else in ISCKON will ever come close to it (till someone

dicends directly from Krsna-loka). On the other hand, there are such

quotes that will give almost to everyone the right to become a guru.

 

 

I call for the common sense. If there is no such "never-before-

-conditioned resident of Krsna-loka" here to accept intiation/

instructions from, then let others settle themselves for the next

best standard that is sanctiond by Srila Prabhupada. Don't splash

it all down, in the name of Prabhupada.

 

 

 

> > "Prabhupada: Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis,

> > even the grhasthas, they are called dasa adhikari, and brahmacaris,

> > everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples.

> > But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their

> > spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent.

> > They can make disciples and spread" (Conversation Detroit July 18,

> > 1971)

>

>

> Is this to mean there was some magic wand waved over someone who may not

> actually have the qualifications of a guru listed above and who a few

> months earlier were breaking every Vedic "rule" with no transcendental

> knowledge, and they magically now have the qualifications? They are now

> instantly competent?

 

 

Just that Prabhupda suggests that even someone who is not a resident

of Krsna-loka, a never-before-conditioned soul, can happen to become

a guru (siksa/diksa) as well as.

 

If you want "magic", then you can have it also:

 

yatha kancanatam yati kamsyam rasa-vidhanatah

tatha diksa-vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam

 

"As a bell metal, when mixed with mercury, is transformed to

gold, a person, even though not golden pure, can be transformed

into a brahmana or dvija simply by the initation process."

 

Prabhupada comments to it:

"Thus if one is initiated by a proper person, he can be accepted

as twice born immediatelly."

(SB 4.31.10, purport)

 

So, the conditions were fullfiled -- Prabhupada was a proper

person to initiate and do the "magic". Why not all of them

stayed on the platform of "magic", is another issue. Prabhupada

also explains that:

 

"If after accepting the spiritual master and being initiated one

does not follow the rules and regulations of devotional service,

then he is fallen again... "

(NOD, pp 47-48)

 

 

 

>

> Otherwise why doesn't the GBC allow everyone in the movement to accept

> disciples?

 

Common sense. They are finding it out how not to disregard this

Prabhupada's statement in the favor of that Prabhupada's statement.

Something that you seem to be unable of.

 

Though my personal position is that none should be regulating

anybody's choice of initiating guru, neither make any fuss

about if somebody's guru is not an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava.

That is not of the public concern. But we seam to get all

double standards when it comes to this point: take the

right to "make it straight" who in ISCKON is allowed to initiate

or not, who is bona fide and who bogus. And then place all the

burden on an individual for his letting himself be brainwashed,

be insincere, uninformed, missing the basics of siddhanta,

wanted to get cheated, and so on.

Then leave it all to me, an individual, all together.

 

 

 

> >Lumped together with some bogus "new-age gurujini".

>

>

> Actually I never disrespectfully called her a "bogus new-age gurujini".

> Those are your frustrated words. I simply said she was not an

> uttama-adhikari and therefore the results to her disciples will be

> proportionate. They are chanting the Holy Names and therefore I have full

> confidence that they will become purified.

 

 

I did it with the specific purpose -- to get you start objecting

me calling her bogus. I knew you would react like that, stand up

in her defense.

(I suppose "new-age gurujini" is technically correct,

unless she is not of some new-age group, and not a lady, but

then anyway it wouldn't be the question of disrespecting but

not being informed well).

 

Now, we have achieved something. Keep the same mood for ISCKON gurus.

Have *at least* the same full confidence that their disciples

will become purified by following them. Never allow someone to

hint that they might be bogus due to not being uttama-adhikaris.

Let none disrespect them.

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> Furthermore, there is a high possibility that there are other

> uttama-adhikaris on the planet. Why are we saying that only Prabhupada

> can give diksa?

 

And even more furthermore, there is also a very obvious possibility

that there are other uttama-adhikaris not present on this planet,

just like in the case of Srila Prabhupada.

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> You cannot understand how even a "small" guru can be someone special

> to his disciples. That's the "godbrother syndrome": your godbrothers

> can't be special to you, so can't to anyone else.

 

 

Being "special" to someone is far different than being a pure devotee. Many of

my godbrothers, including Harikesha and Kirtanananda were very special to me.

I have many current godbrothers who are very close friends and are very

special to me and my Krsna consciousness, but that doesn't mean they/are were

pure devotees.

 

It seems you want everyone to just set aside the whole idea of uttama-adhikari

gurus as desirable simply because you don't feel that the current ISKCON gurus

could stand up to the public scrutiny of their qualifications by people that

know enough about guru qualifications to see that Srila Prabhupada is such a

guru.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> You cannot understand how even a "small" guru can be someone special

> to his disciples. That's the "godbrother syndrome": your godbrothers

> can't be special to you, so can't to anyone else.

 

 

Being "special" to someone is far different than being a pure devotee. Many of

my godbrothers, including Harikesha and Kirtanananda were very special to me.

I have many current godbrothers who are very close friends and are very

special to me and my Krsna consciousness, but that doesn't mean they/are were

pure devotees.

 

It seems you want everyone to just set aside the whole idea of uttama-adhikari

gurus as desirable simply because you don't feel that the current ISKCON gurus

could stand up to the public scrutiny of their qualifications by people that

know enough about guru qualifications to see that Srila Prabhupada is such a

guru.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

 

> I call for the common sense. If there is no such "never-before-

> -conditioned resident of Krsna-loka" here to accept intiation/

> instructions from, then let others settle themselves for the next

> best standard that is sanctiond by Srila Prabhupada. Don't splash

> it all down, in the name of Prabhupada.

 

 

 

That is the crux upon which this whole problem rests, unsoundly. Your entire

argument rests upon the assumption that "there is no such

"never-before-conditioned resident of Krsna-loka" here" from whom to accept

initiation/instructions. That is a false assumption based upon misinformation

and blind following. If that illusion was cleared the problem would go away.

 

 

"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted

as the presence of the spiritual master, vibration. What we have heard from

the spiritual master, that is living."

(Lec 1/13/69 L.A.)

 

"So far as personal association with Guru is concerned, I was only with my

Guru Maharaja four or five times, but I have never left his association, not

even for a moment. Because I am following his instruction, I have never felt

any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India, who had

constant personal association with Guru Maharaja, but who are neglecting his

orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He

may be very puffed up by his position but all he can succeed in doing is

biting the king. Personal association is not so important as association

through service."

(Letter Satyadhana 2/20/72)

 

"...the Spiritual Master also can be present wherever the disciple wants. A

Spiritual Master is the principle, not the body. Just like a television can be

seen in thousands of places by the principle of relay monitoring."

(Letter Malati 5/28/68)

 

"I also do not feel separation from my Guru Maharaja. When I am engaged in His

service His pictures give me sufficient strength. To serve the Spiritual

Master's word is more important than to serve him physically."

(Letter Syamasundara 7/19/70)

 

"Never think that I am absent from you. Physical presence is not essential;

presence by message (or hearing) is the real touch."

(Letter to students 8/2/67)

 

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimized because the vibrator

is apparently absent."

(S.B. 2.9.8 purport)

 

"After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost ended.

So you have to carry on, and these books will do everything."

(Conv. 2/18/76)

 

"So there is nothing new to be said. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken

in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue in your endeavor.

Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter."

(Arrival Conv. 5/17/77 Vrn.)

 

Narayana: But how do they know they're pleasing you ?

Srila Prabhupada: If you actually follow the words of Guru, that means he is

pleased. And if you do not follow, how can he be pleased ?

Sudama: Not only that, but your mercy is spread everywhere, and if we take

advantage, you told us once, then we will feel the result.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

Jayadvaita: And if we have faith in what the Guru says, then automatically

we'll do that.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. My Guru Maharaja passed away in 1936, and I started

this Movement in 1965, thirty years after. Then? I am getting the mercy of

Guru. This vani. Even if Guru is not physically present, if you follow the

vani, then you are getting help.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

 

> I call for the common sense. If there is no such "never-before-

> -conditioned resident of Krsna-loka" here to accept intiation/

> instructions from, then let others settle themselves for the next

> best standard that is sanctiond by Srila Prabhupada. Don't splash

> it all down, in the name of Prabhupada.

 

 

 

That is the crux upon which this whole problem rests, unsoundly. Your entire

argument rests upon the assumption that "there is no such

"never-before-conditioned resident of Krsna-loka" here" from whom to accept

initiation/instructions. That is a false assumption based upon misinformation

and blind following. If that illusion was cleared the problem would go away.

 

 

"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted

as the presence of the spiritual master, vibration. What we have heard from

the spiritual master, that is living."

(Lec 1/13/69 L.A.)

 

"So far as personal association with Guru is concerned, I was only with my

Guru Maharaja four or five times, but I have never left his association, not

even for a moment. Because I am following his instruction, I have never felt

any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India, who had

constant personal association with Guru Maharaja, but who are neglecting his

orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He

may be very puffed up by his position but all he can succeed in doing is

biting the king. Personal association is not so important as association

through service."

(Letter Satyadhana 2/20/72)

 

"...the Spiritual Master also can be present wherever the disciple wants. A

Spiritual Master is the principle, not the body. Just like a television can be

seen in thousands of places by the principle of relay monitoring."

(Letter Malati 5/28/68)

 

"I also do not feel separation from my Guru Maharaja. When I am engaged in His

service His pictures give me sufficient strength. To serve the Spiritual

Master's word is more important than to serve him physically."

(Letter Syamasundara 7/19/70)

 

"Never think that I am absent from you. Physical presence is not essential;

presence by message (or hearing) is the real touch."

(Letter to students 8/2/67)

 

"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimized because the vibrator

is apparently absent."

(S.B. 2.9.8 purport)

 

"After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost ended.

So you have to carry on, and these books will do everything."

(Conv. 2/18/76)

 

"So there is nothing new to be said. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken

in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue in your endeavor.

Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter."

(Arrival Conv. 5/17/77 Vrn.)

 

Narayana: But how do they know they're pleasing you ?

Srila Prabhupada: If you actually follow the words of Guru, that means he is

pleased. And if you do not follow, how can he be pleased ?

Sudama: Not only that, but your mercy is spread everywhere, and if we take

advantage, you told us once, then we will feel the result.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

Jayadvaita: And if we have faith in what the Guru says, then automatically

we'll do that.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. My Guru Maharaja passed away in 1936, and I started

this Movement in 1965, thirty years after. Then? I am getting the mercy of

Guru. This vani. Even if Guru is not physically present, if you follow the

vani, then you are getting help.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> Though my personal position is that none should be regulating

> anybody's choice of initiating guru, neither make any fuss

> about if somebody's guru is not an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava.

 

 

The GBC has regulated everybody's choice of initiating guru for the last 20

years.

 

No one has to make "a fuss" about someone taking a guru who is not an

uttama-adhikari, that is their free choice, but that doesn't mean the standard

should be forgotten and erased.

 

And if there IS an uttama-adhikari available (which there IS) it would only be

good practice to direct people to that person.

 

 

> That is not of the public concern. But we seam to get all

> double standards when it comes to this point: take the

> right to "make it straight" who in ISCKON is allowed to initiate

> or not, who is bona fide and who bogus. And then place all the

> burden on an individual for his letting himself be brainwashed,

> be insincere, uninformed, missing the basics of siddhanta,

> wanted to get cheated, and so on.

> Then leave it all to me, an individual, all together.

 

It IS up to you, Prabhu. You have free choice and I will not think less of you

as a person. Srila Prabhupada established the standard for pure guru. There is

nothing wrong with declaring this standard boldly to the public - he certainly

did all the time. It is of service to the public to do so in order to thwart

the cheating gurus all over the world. Then people can exercise their free

will to choose wisely from the choices available. Some pick correctly, some do

not. That is a fact.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> Though my personal position is that none should be regulating

> anybody's choice of initiating guru, neither make any fuss

> about if somebody's guru is not an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava.

 

 

The GBC has regulated everybody's choice of initiating guru for the last 20

years.

 

No one has to make "a fuss" about someone taking a guru who is not an

uttama-adhikari, that is their free choice, but that doesn't mean the standard

should be forgotten and erased.

 

And if there IS an uttama-adhikari available (which there IS) it would only be

good practice to direct people to that person.

 

 

> That is not of the public concern. But we seam to get all

> double standards when it comes to this point: take the

> right to "make it straight" who in ISCKON is allowed to initiate

> or not, who is bona fide and who bogus. And then place all the

> burden on an individual for his letting himself be brainwashed,

> be insincere, uninformed, missing the basics of siddhanta,

> wanted to get cheated, and so on.

> Then leave it all to me, an individual, all together.

 

It IS up to you, Prabhu. You have free choice and I will not think less of you

as a person. Srila Prabhupada established the standard for pure guru. There is

nothing wrong with declaring this standard boldly to the public - he certainly

did all the time. It is of service to the public to do so in order to thwart

the cheating gurus all over the world. Then people can exercise their free

will to choose wisely from the choices available. Some pick correctly, some do

not. That is a fact.