Diksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

>

> I have put in my two bits worth on this elsewhere. These are all letters

> to particular devotees, and a conversation , which as far as I remember

> dont fall into the category of Sastra. They need to be seen in context. As

> a pure devotee guru knows the heart of a disciple, his personal

> instructions to that disciple are based on that disiples advancement and

> mental condition at the time. Hence cannot be reliable as conclusions for

> the general populace.

>

 

You have made the conclusions for those **disciples**, not for

just "general populance". You concluded that **they** (disciples

of Prabhupada) got to go to someone else in order to HEAR

Prabhupada's books, thus to understand them, and to get delivered.

"General populace" is a complelly irrelevant for what we

got on the table at the present .

 

 

 

> As guru is one, I find it surprising that Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada

> would disagree on such a crucial point. But I cannot say authoritatively

> either way.

>

 

The logical (and bona fide) answer would be that in the case

of your "finding" a disagreement, or contradiction, between Srila

Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta, then you conclude that you must

have misunderstood something. Then you stay with Srila Prabhupada.

 

You might also notice that Srila Prabhupada is very explicit

when he speaks about his *own books*, while Bhaktisidhanta's

statements are not explicitly referring to Prabhupada's books.

It is that you take that "Thakura" can be substituted with

"Prabhupada", and that "sastra" means "Prabhupada's purports."

(lectures, conversations, and letters we don't know what to

do with)

 

 

 

> I get the impression from your tone on this, that you think I have some

> personal agenda to fulfill. Think about it.

 

I do not really think in that explicit direction. My tone is

simply like that, more or less all the time. You know, some

dogs "burp" now and then, and some (like me) bark all the

time.

 

But comming to this, I would not exlude the possibility of

anybody here having some personal agenda to get fulfilled,

to this or that extent, being not uttama-adhikaris that

are free from any such "personal agendas".

 

 

> The path I have taken stands a

> good chance of making me pretty unpopular. I have no particular standing

> in ISKCON, and hence no popular support to fall back on. Maybe this is a

> case of 'fools rush in where angels dare to tread'. The only reason I am

> doing this is because I am somewhat of an idealist (aries), and I really

> want to find the truth. For many years I felt there was something wrong,

> and now I think I might have found part of the reason. However I am open

> to correction.

>

 

I really appreciate the courrage.

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> This would be my answer, also. Srila Prabhupada is available to everyone

equally as a perfect, uttama-adhikari siksa guru. If siksa were empasized to

the point of "almost" eliminating diksa (if there are problems with

instituting the formality like we see rampant in ISKCON) there would be little

to squabble about on the guru subject. Everyone would be godbrother and

godsister like ISKCON used to be. What's so bad about that?

>

 

 

First, it eliminates the natural variety of relationships that is a part of

our spiritual culture. It is odd some are proponents of variety when it comes

to varna designations, yet seem to wish to eliminate the natural variety in

the more intimate Vaisnava family.

 

Second, one can have a siksa relationship with one's diksa guru. In fact, that

is for the most part considered desirable. I think such relationships with the

servants of Srila Prabhupada can be seen as further glorification of Srila

Prabhupada's all attractive preaching. After all, our philosophy emphasizes

the idea of becoming the servant of the servant of the servant.

 

The idea of siksa as being most significant does not make diksa irrelevant.

Everyone in ISKCON has a natural siksa relationship with Srila Prabhupada as

the founder/acarya of our movement. The fact that Srila Prabhupada has many

sincere followers that others feel attracted to also take shelter of is a

credit to Srila Prabhupada, in my mind.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> This would be my answer, also. Srila Prabhupada is available to everyone

equally as a perfect, uttama-adhikari siksa guru. If siksa were empasized to

the point of "almost" eliminating diksa (if there are problems with

instituting the formality like we see rampant in ISKCON) there would be little

to squabble about on the guru subject. Everyone would be godbrother and

godsister like ISKCON used to be. What's so bad about that?

>

 

 

First, it eliminates the natural variety of relationships that is a part of

our spiritual culture. It is odd some are proponents of variety when it comes

to varna designations, yet seem to wish to eliminate the natural variety in

the more intimate Vaisnava family.

 

Second, one can have a siksa relationship with one's diksa guru. In fact, that

is for the most part considered desirable. I think such relationships with the

servants of Srila Prabhupada can be seen as further glorification of Srila

Prabhupada's all attractive preaching. After all, our philosophy emphasizes

the idea of becoming the servant of the servant of the servant.

 

The idea of siksa as being most significant does not make diksa irrelevant.

Everyone in ISKCON has a natural siksa relationship with Srila Prabhupada as

the founder/acarya of our movement. The fact that Srila Prabhupada has many

sincere followers that others feel attracted to also take shelter of is a

credit to Srila Prabhupada, in my mind.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

[Guest guest]

On 20 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

>

>

> I have not felt like an orphan since Srila Prabhupada "left" Mataji. Nor

have my friends/godbrothers/sisters. We still feel Srila Prabhupada is our

spiritual father just as much as when he was here. Sorry you feel that way.

>

>

 

 

That you have a siksa relationship with your diksa guru is commendable. Others

also have that feeling for Srila Prabhupada's servants. That one would appear

oblivious to appreciating such sentiments in others almost suggests something

is amiss with regards to understanding the various intimate interpersonal

relationships experienced amongst the numerous Vaisnavas.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

>

> We have to ask ourself if our guru is an uttama-adhikari, completely freed

from material contamination and 100% Krsna conscious. If our diksa guru is not

as such we MUST have a siksa guru who is.

>

 

 

First, everyone in ISKCON has a siksa relationship with the founder/acarya --

if nothing else it is a simple logistic reality of our institution. Second,

becoming the servant of the servant is one of the most important issues with

regards to being a follower of Krsna and His devotees.

 

The continual harping on this issue might suggest some other agenda.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

>

> We have to ask ourself if our guru is an uttama-adhikari, completely freed

from material contamination and 100% Krsna conscious. If our diksa guru is not

as such we MUST have a siksa guru who is.

>

 

 

First, everyone in ISKCON has a siksa relationship with the founder/acarya --

if nothing else it is a simple logistic reality of our institution. Second,

becoming the servant of the servant is one of the most important issues with

regards to being a follower of Krsna and His devotees.

 

The continual harping on this issue might suggest some other agenda.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

>

> Yes. Let's keep it short:

>

> 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?

>

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

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

>

 

 

I'm must be missing the underlying point. Last I heard everyone in ISKCON had

already accepted Srila Prabhupada as their primary siksa guru. Isn't SB class

given in every ISKCON temple every morning based on his Bhaktivedanta

purports? Isn't that why practically everyone with an electrical outlet plunks

down $500 laxmi points to get a copy of folio for their computer? Naturally,

we encourage all our members to enter deeply into their various Vaisnava

relationships.

 

That one may wish to categorize all their godbrothers according to their idea

of who is an uttama adhikari seems very curious to me. Might be a better idea

to stick to categorizing who is a brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra -- that

is if we must remain overly enamored by this categorical business.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

> I don't think any help is really needed to sort this particular

> point out. The confusion is with you, due to your going to

> Bhaktisiddhanta, over Prabhupada.

 

I find it odd, that Srila Prabhupada would inform us that articles of his

guru maharaja can be published 'without hesitation', if there were something

in them for us to get so worked up about it.

 

As for going over Prabhupada, I simply did not hesitate to present the words

of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, something wrong with that?

 

I was just being facetious with my 'Santa Maria Virgina's'. My aim is to

point out that there are apparent contradictions, which I think we can all

easily accept (that that is the case). I dont expect you to listen to me

blindly. I presented the words of Bhaktisiddhanta for you consider.

 

You disagree with me. Fine.

 

Lets agree to disagree then.

 

YS Sd.

[Guest guest]

> My impression is that you, in your somewhat idealistic search

> for the truth (as you said it), got this impulse to stretch Srila

> Prabhupada's statement to suit the conclusions that you have come up with.

> Since those conclusions directly contradict Prabhupada's words, you got to

> interpret the meaning of these Prabhupada's statement so that they would

> rather "confirm" your points.

 

Ok, Sorry for giving you the wrong impression. In any case I cant say

anymore, as I am not particularly attached to winning this. We disagree on

these points, thats all. I am still not convinced, but that is my problem.

If you are sound in your understanding then that is good.

 

Lets just get on with our lives.

 

YS Sd.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> Everyone would be godbrother and

> godsister like ISKCON used to be. What's so bad about that?

> >

 

>

> First, it eliminates the natural variety of relationships that is a part of

> our spiritual culture.

 

 

We didn't find it too bad of a thing when Srila Prabhupada was the only guru.

 

But I think I understand what you are saying. Certainly in Krsna's time there

were many guru's around, even some "bogus" ones I'm sure. I believe Krsna took

diksa from Gargamuni who was the royal family priest. All in their family took

diksa in this manner even though Krsna and his bro went to Sandipani's

gurukula for siksa and varna.

 

> It is odd some are proponents of variety when it comes

> to varna designations, yet seem to wish to eliminate the natural variety in

> the more intimate Vaisnava family.

 

 

I would love to see many varna gurus. I think it would very exciting. Had the

senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada followed his orders back in 1974 and

divided themselves into the varna teachers/gurus we would probably have a

wonderfully diverse guru scheme of things.

 

 

What I am opposed to is the "imposed" force of one-diksa-guru control of a

disciple. Temple Presidents who are supposed to act in the capacity of

ksatriya for a community cannot administrate such disciples because they

always look to their diksa guru as the final authority on so many things.

 

 

 

> Second, one can have a siksa relationship with one's diksa guru. In fact,

that

> is for the most part considered desirable. I think such relationships with

the

> servants of Srila Prabhupada can be seen as further glorification of Srila

> Prabhupada's all attractive preaching. After all, our philosophy emphasizes

> the idea of becoming the servant of the servant of the servant.

 

 

The big question therefore is what are the qualifications necessary to become

diksa guru? Obviously, blind followers love self-serving relationships with

gurus who tell them what they want to hear while leading them down the path to

bogusville. We have plenty of experience in ISKCON of that and that was with

"diksa" gurus who were considered the tops in the movement.

 

It's certainly not like there isn't some inherent serious problems with the

current system as much as we may all want to wear rose colored glasses and not

identify it specifically. Sure everyone is throwing around their reasons for

the problems but its because there is a problem.

 

Is it due to no VAD? Is it due to impure gurus? Is it due to not following

what some conceive as Srila Prabhupada's intended program of initiation after

he departed? I've got my idea, but don't claim TO KNOW.

 

 

 

> The fact that Srila Prabhupada has many

> sincere followers that others feel attracted to also take shelter of is a

> credit to Srila Prabhupada, in my mind.

 

 

The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my spine

when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami and

Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these guys

were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this same thing

in the future? Can it be stopped?

 

 

Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

the varnas and asramas.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> On 19 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> Everyone would be godbrother and

> godsister like ISKCON used to be. What's so bad about that?

> >

 

>

> First, it eliminates the natural variety of relationships that is a part of

> our spiritual culture.

 

 

We didn't find it too bad of a thing when Srila Prabhupada was the only guru.

 

But I think I understand what you are saying. Certainly in Krsna's time there

were many guru's around, even some "bogus" ones I'm sure. I believe Krsna took

diksa from Gargamuni who was the royal family priest. All in their family took

diksa in this manner even though Krsna and his bro went to Sandipani's

gurukula for siksa and varna.

 

> It is odd some are proponents of variety when it comes

> to varna designations, yet seem to wish to eliminate the natural variety in

> the more intimate Vaisnava family.

 

 

I would love to see many varna gurus. I think it would very exciting. Had the

senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada followed his orders back in 1974 and

divided themselves into the varna teachers/gurus we would probably have a

wonderfully diverse guru scheme of things.

 

 

What I am opposed to is the "imposed" force of one-diksa-guru control of a

disciple. Temple Presidents who are supposed to act in the capacity of

ksatriya for a community cannot administrate such disciples because they

always look to their diksa guru as the final authority on so many things.

 

 

 

> Second, one can have a siksa relationship with one's diksa guru. In fact,

that

> is for the most part considered desirable. I think such relationships with

the

> servants of Srila Prabhupada can be seen as further glorification of Srila

> Prabhupada's all attractive preaching. After all, our philosophy emphasizes

> the idea of becoming the servant of the servant of the servant.

 

 

The big question therefore is what are the qualifications necessary to become

diksa guru? Obviously, blind followers love self-serving relationships with

gurus who tell them what they want to hear while leading them down the path to

bogusville. We have plenty of experience in ISKCON of that and that was with

"diksa" gurus who were considered the tops in the movement.

 

It's certainly not like there isn't some inherent serious problems with the

current system as much as we may all want to wear rose colored glasses and not

identify it specifically. Sure everyone is throwing around their reasons for

the problems but its because there is a problem.

 

Is it due to no VAD? Is it due to impure gurus? Is it due to not following

what some conceive as Srila Prabhupada's intended program of initiation after

he departed? I've got my idea, but don't claim TO KNOW.

 

 

 

> The fact that Srila Prabhupada has many

> sincere followers that others feel attracted to also take shelter of is a

> credit to Srila Prabhupada, in my mind.

 

 

The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my spine

when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami and

Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these guys

were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this same thing

in the future? Can it be stopped?

 

 

Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

the varnas and asramas.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> That you have a siksa relationship with your diksa guru is commendable.

Others

> also have that feeling for Srila Prabhupada's servants. That one would

appear

> oblivious to appreciating such sentiments in others almost suggests

something

> is amiss with regards to understanding the various intimate interpersonal

> relationships experienced amongst the numerous Vaisnavas.

 

 

Would it really be right for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to sit back and bask

in their own comfort zone because they were fortunate enough to have accepted

a guru like Srila Prabhupada when there is a system flaw somewhere that has

allowed seven so-called advanced devotees to create a major disturbance to

Srila Prabhupada's movement as the result of them being "named" diksa gurus?

Or, as time goes by, are we saying that those fall-downs were insignificant in

effect on the example of Vedic culture shown to the world? How many millions

of people "out there" would naturally say, "Join the Hare Krsnas? Yea right,

they sexually abuse their own children in their own holiest city. They tell

everyone that cows are the most sacred animal, but look at their farms. Like

they have got things figured out!"

 

If there are good relationships, fine. We are not talking about those. We are

talking about a system which allowed children to be sexually and physically

abused in the holiest city on in the universe with hardly a scratch incurred

upon those responsible. What was the interpretation of our philosophy by a

limited few that could possibly tolerate such massively bogus and criminal

behavior for so long? When did the big change take place that corrected that

thinking and what exactly was it they have changed? What are the symptoms of

that change?

 

Because there are some good things, don't gloss over the bad things and hope

they will just disappear. That's exactly what everyone said every time each

"guru" fell down in the past. Then another crashed, and another.. why do you

think it is now done?

 

There is definitely something amiss.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> That you have a siksa relationship with your diksa guru is commendable.

Others

> also have that feeling for Srila Prabhupada's servants. That one would

appear

> oblivious to appreciating such sentiments in others almost suggests

something

> is amiss with regards to understanding the various intimate interpersonal

> relationships experienced amongst the numerous Vaisnavas.

 

 

Would it really be right for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to sit back and bask

in their own comfort zone because they were fortunate enough to have accepted

a guru like Srila Prabhupada when there is a system flaw somewhere that has

allowed seven so-called advanced devotees to create a major disturbance to

Srila Prabhupada's movement as the result of them being "named" diksa gurus?

Or, as time goes by, are we saying that those fall-downs were insignificant in

effect on the example of Vedic culture shown to the world? How many millions

of people "out there" would naturally say, "Join the Hare Krsnas? Yea right,

they sexually abuse their own children in their own holiest city. They tell

everyone that cows are the most sacred animal, but look at their farms. Like

they have got things figured out!"

 

If there are good relationships, fine. We are not talking about those. We are

talking about a system which allowed children to be sexually and physically

abused in the holiest city on in the universe with hardly a scratch incurred

upon those responsible. What was the interpretation of our philosophy by a

limited few that could possibly tolerate such massively bogus and criminal

behavior for so long? When did the big change take place that corrected that

thinking and what exactly was it they have changed? What are the symptoms of

that change?

 

Because there are some good things, don't gloss over the bad things and hope

they will just disappear. That's exactly what everyone said every time each

"guru" fell down in the past. Then another crashed, and another.. why do you

think it is now done?

 

There is definitely something amiss.

[Guest guest]

> > I don't think any help is really needed to sort this particular point

> > out. The confusion is with you, due to your going to Bhaktisiddhanta,

> > over Prabhupada.

>

> I find it odd, that Srila Prabhupada would inform us that articles of his

> guru maharaja can be published 'without hesitation', if there were

> something in them for us to get so worked up about it.

>

 

That Prabhupada approved publishing and reading Bhaktisiddhanta's

articles, does not provide us with a "blanch card" to be freed

from possibility of misunderstanding the same Bhaktisiddhanta.

I could also very easily expect that some of us indeed even get

"so worked up" about it. What to do. Not Prabhupada's responsibility.

 

 

With "going to Bhaktisiddhanat over Prabhupada" I did not mean

"No reading Bhaktisiddhanta's articles". I meant, you gave the

precedence rather to Bhaktisiddhanta (precisely, to *your

explanations* of Bhaktisiddhanta) than to Prabhupada. You left

aside Srila Prabhupada's own statements/instructions to his own

disciples about his own books, and instead you went to Bhaktisiddhanta.

And for what purpose? To let us know what is the situation

between Prabhupada and his disciples, and with reading Srila

Prabhupada's books.

 

 

 

> As for going over Prabhupada, I simply did not hesitate to present the

> words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, something wrong with that?

>

 

You didn't actually hesitate to do more than just "present the

words" of Bhaktisiddhanta. You interpreted them (on the way that

directly contradicted Srila Prabhupada). Bhaktisiddhanta's words

itself do not contradict Srila Prabhupada's words, as far as I am

concerned. Your interpretation, however, does.

 

 

 

> I was just being facetious with my 'Santa Maria Virgina's'. My aim is to

> point out that there are apparent contradictions, which I think we can all

> easily accept (that that is the case). I dont expect you to listen to me

> blindly. I presented the words of Bhaktisiddhanta for you consider.

>

 

The fanny thing is that you came into the discussion with the

proposed solution for reconciling the apparent contradictions

in Srila Prabhupada's books, and the end result (here, at this

moment) became the creation of one apparent contradiction more.

The contradiction that wouldn't come into being if it would be

simply up to reading Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

I did consider Bhaktisiddhanta's words. Found that he (out of

whatever reason) speaks quite "tough" about Thakura's followers

and reading Thakura's works.

 

But you consider one thing. That since that "Harmonist" article

was published (over a half of century ago), nobody else (including

even Srila Prabhupada) in both Gaudiya Math and ISCKON has come

to the idea to pass at least the "message" further. The entire

Gaudiya Math missed it, the whole ISCKON missed it. One maight

wonder, "What did Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada teach/instruct

their disciples into anyaway, if they (disciples) didn't get the

point so far?".

 

 

 

> You disagree with me. Fine.

>

 

Certainly it is fine. I would suggest that you can expect

that many more will disagree with you before they react on

the way:

 

"Ah, what was that you were saying, again? That, since our Guru

Maharaja Srila Prabhupada is not present in his vapu form

any longer, we can't have the access to his vani form either.

That we got to search for an another nittya-siddha guru now, to

get to Prabhupada's vani, and thus delivered. Accha. We have

been in illusion for 20 years. Some among us already passed

away... Yes, we agree with you, Samba prabhu."

 

 

> Lets agree to disagree then.

>

 

Take me as a training session. Free from charge.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

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

 

> [Text 2342504 from COM]

>

> Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

> the varnas and asramas.

 

********************************

Hare Krsna dasi

 

Your understanding seems subtly but significantly different from the vision I

get

from Srila Prabhupada.

 

It appears that you would have one guru who teaches brahminical subjects,

another

guru who teaches ksatriya subjects, another guru who teaches vaisya subjects,

and

still another guru who teaches sudra subjects.

 

But in Srila Prabhupada's description below, it appears that the guru would be

the

one who determines what is the appropriate varna for the disciple to serve

Krsna.

Once the guru designates the varna of the disciple, then the disciple might

even

be sent to someone else to train him.

 

In the Varnasrama Walks (March 1974), Srila Prabhupada proposes that it is

brahmanas who will be teaching all the subjects, whether brahmana, ksatriya,

vaisya, or sudra. In this version (only one month later) Srila Prabhupada

presents another possible method of training -- that the teacher would not

necessarily be a brahmana, he might in fact be a vaisya, ksatriya, sudra, etc.

 

So, the teacher might be a brahmana or even a sudra (in this example, a

musician),

but Prabhupada specifically states that the guru will test the candidate and

see

*which* varna is best suited to him. Therefore, it seems that the guru would

not

really be specialized to accepting disciples only from one particular varna.

 

Naturally, whoever is training the student could also be counted as a guru of

some

sort. Just as a person from our Computer Information Services could be

considered

as my "computer guru." But, when someone asks me who my guru is, I never say

"Erica Andre" or "Matt Jacobson-Carol." Instead, I would mention someone who

has

provided major spiritual guidance in my life.

 

Again, the key Bhagavatam quote 5.19.19 also seems to support the idea of the

guru

as a varna counselor and guide, not necessarily the person who trains the

actual

skills:

 

**************************

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 5: Chapter Nineteen, Text 19 :TRANSLATION

 

The people who take birth in this tract of land are divided according to the

qualities of material nature--the modes of goodness [sattva-guna], passion

[rajo-guna], and ignorance [tamo-guna]. Some of them are born as exalted

personalities, some are ordinary human beings, and some are extremely

abominable,

for in Bharata-varsa one takes birth exactly according to one's past karma. If

one's position is ascertained by a bona fide spiritual master and one is

properly

trained to engage in the service of Lord Visnu according to the four social

divisions [brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra] and the four spiritual

divisions

[brahmacari, grhastha, vanaprastha and sannyasa], one's life becomes perfect.

 

***********************

 

According the the Bhagavatam it appears that the bona fide spiritual master

"ascertains" the position, but this verse does not indicate that he personally

*trains* the disciple in his varna skills. -- hkdd

 

**********************

 

Morning Walk Hyderabad, April 20, 1974

740420MW.HYD

 

Pancadravida: How do you teach a varnasrama college? In varnasrama college if

somebody comes in... They say, "I want to be ksatriya" or "I want to be

vaisya."

Is it like that?

 

Prabhupada: No, that will be tested by the teachers, what for he is fit. He

will

be test by the guru.

 

Pancadravida: Who will teach him to be a ksatriya or who will teach him to be a

vaisya?

Prabhupada: A ksatriya, a brahmana. Just like if you want to learn music, you

have

to go to a musician.

Pancadravida: So where will we get ksatriyas and...?

 

Prabhupada: That is in the sastra. Anyone can learn it. Just like if you want

to

be doctor, so you must have this qualification. Similarly, these things are

stated

in the Bhagavad-gita. Ksatriya means if there is fight, he must go forward

first

of all, risking his life. That is ksatriya.

 

Pancadravida: So we have men who could teach this? Do we have men...?

Prabhupada: Yes. (break) Because he knows how to teach. That's all.

 

Pancadravida: The brahmanas, they all become devotee... They would all be

engaged

in devotional life as...

Prabhupada: This is also devotion, to teach a ksatriya, because this is

necessary

in the society. This is also devotion.

 

Pancadravida: And vaisyas?

Prabhupada: Just like when Krsna is fighting. Krsna is fighting, killing the

demons. So that is also devotion, if you help Krsna by killing demons, not that

simply by chanting, you supply... Just like Bhismadeva. He even injured Krsna,

and

Krsna took it very pleasant. Instead of throwing flowers, he pierced His body

with

arrow. So everything for the service. If Krsna is pleased being pierced by the

arrow the devotee will do that. His only business is how to please Krsna.

 

*************************

 

If all this were taking place in the context of a self-sufficient community, it

seems to me that a devotee would select a person who inspires him in Krsna

consciousness, and after getting some type of advice and confirmation from

several

other senior devotees whom he respects, would then approach this person for

initiation. Then, the guru, on the basis of an on-going personal relationship,

would guide his disciple into the varna in which it appears he could make the

best

spiritual progress, according to his psycho-physical type.

 

On another level in the village, would be the ksatriya, who -- in consultation

with the village brahmanas, and perhaps his own spiritual master -- would be

coordinating the necessary material resources to facilitate the training of his

citizens. In the fourth Canto, Prabhupada calls the ksatriya's training of his

citizens "abhiraksanam" (spelling?). The way I understand it is not that the

ksatriya personally trains his citizens, just as the state governor does not

personally train his citizens. Rather, he arranges the resources to guarantee

that those who are skilled in different subjects and who are kind-hearted and

patient enough can train students in different subjects.

 

Therefore, once the guru has advised his disciple of the best varna training,

he

can then send the disciple to be trained by the appropriate teacher who has

been

set up by the ksatriya.

 

******************

 

Since Srila Prabhupada was a brahmana and since he personally trained his

early

disciples, it may be difficult for us to distinguish between the idea of a

spiritual master and the teacher who actually trains the appropriate skills.

 

One example that I can think of is when Srila Prabhupada advised one devotee to

learn to make the dolls (like the ones in the diaramas at thel Mayapur Samadhi

and

at the Detroit temple). Srila Prabhupada told the devotee what occupation to

take

in order to engage his talents in the most satisfying way to serve Krsna -- but

Prabhupada did not personally train the devotee how to make dolls. Instead, he

sent him to expert doll makers to learn the art. Although, apparently these

doll

makers were nice people, the devotee no doubt still relied on Srila Prabhupada

as

his principle guide in spiritual life.

 

Loosely speaking, one could say that the doll makers were the devotee's gurus,

and

in a very broad sense they were. But in general, he probably thought of Srila

Prabhupada as his guru, and thought of them simply as his teachers.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

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

 

> [Text 2342504 from COM]

>

> Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

> the varnas and asramas.

 

********************************

Hare Krsna dasi

 

Your understanding seems subtly but significantly different from the vision I

get

from Srila Prabhupada.

 

It appears that you would have one guru who teaches brahminical subjects,

another

guru who teaches ksatriya subjects, another guru who teaches vaisya subjects,

and

still another guru who teaches sudra subjects.

 

But in Srila Prabhupada's description below, it appears that the guru would be

the

one who determines what is the appropriate varna for the disciple to serve

Krsna.

Once the guru designates the varna of the disciple, then the disciple might

even

be sent to someone else to train him.

 

In the Varnasrama Walks (March 1974), Srila Prabhupada proposes that it is

brahmanas who will be teaching all the subjects, whether brahmana, ksatriya,

vaisya, or sudra. In this version (only one month later) Srila Prabhupada

presents another possible method of training -- that the teacher would not

necessarily be a brahmana, he might in fact be a vaisya, ksatriya, sudra, etc.

 

So, the teacher might be a brahmana or even a sudra (in this example, a

musician),

but Prabhupada specifically states that the guru will test the candidate and

see

*which* varna is best suited to him. Therefore, it seems that the guru would

not

really be specialized to accepting disciples only from one particular varna.

 

Naturally, whoever is training the student could also be counted as a guru of

some

sort. Just as a person from our Computer Information Services could be

considered

as my "computer guru." But, when someone asks me who my guru is, I never say

"Erica Andre" or "Matt Jacobson-Carol." Instead, I would mention someone who

has

provided major spiritual guidance in my life.

 

Again, the key Bhagavatam quote 5.19.19 also seems to support the idea of the

guru

as a varna counselor and guide, not necessarily the person who trains the

actual

skills:

 

**************************

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 5: Chapter Nineteen, Text 19 :TRANSLATION

 

The people who take birth in this tract of land are divided according to the

qualities of material nature--the modes of goodness [sattva-guna], passion

[rajo-guna], and ignorance [tamo-guna]. Some of them are born as exalted

personalities, some are ordinary human beings, and some are extremely

abominable,

for in Bharata-varsa one takes birth exactly according to one's past karma. If

one's position is ascertained by a bona fide spiritual master and one is

properly

trained to engage in the service of Lord Visnu according to the four social

divisions [brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra] and the four spiritual

divisions

[brahmacari, grhastha, vanaprastha and sannyasa], one's life becomes perfect.

 

***********************

 

According the the Bhagavatam it appears that the bona fide spiritual master

"ascertains" the position, but this verse does not indicate that he personally

*trains* the disciple in his varna skills. -- hkdd

 

**********************

 

Morning Walk Hyderabad, April 20, 1974

740420MW.HYD

 

Pancadravida: How do you teach a varnasrama college? In varnasrama college if

somebody comes in... They say, "I want to be ksatriya" or "I want to be

vaisya."

Is it like that?

 

Prabhupada: No, that will be tested by the teachers, what for he is fit. He

will

be test by the guru.

 

Pancadravida: Who will teach him to be a ksatriya or who will teach him to be a

vaisya?

Prabhupada: A ksatriya, a brahmana. Just like if you want to learn music, you

have

to go to a musician.

Pancadravida: So where will we get ksatriyas and...?

 

Prabhupada: That is in the sastra. Anyone can learn it. Just like if you want

to

be doctor, so you must have this qualification. Similarly, these things are

stated

in the Bhagavad-gita. Ksatriya means if there is fight, he must go forward

first

of all, risking his life. That is ksatriya.

 

Pancadravida: So we have men who could teach this? Do we have men...?

Prabhupada: Yes. (break) Because he knows how to teach. That's all.

 

Pancadravida: The brahmanas, they all become devotee... They would all be

engaged

in devotional life as...

Prabhupada: This is also devotion, to teach a ksatriya, because this is

necessary

in the society. This is also devotion.

 

Pancadravida: And vaisyas?

Prabhupada: Just like when Krsna is fighting. Krsna is fighting, killing the

demons. So that is also devotion, if you help Krsna by killing demons, not that

simply by chanting, you supply... Just like Bhismadeva. He even injured Krsna,

and

Krsna took it very pleasant. Instead of throwing flowers, he pierced His body

with

arrow. So everything for the service. If Krsna is pleased being pierced by the

arrow the devotee will do that. His only business is how to please Krsna.

 

*************************

 

If all this were taking place in the context of a self-sufficient community, it

seems to me that a devotee would select a person who inspires him in Krsna

consciousness, and after getting some type of advice and confirmation from

several

other senior devotees whom he respects, would then approach this person for

initiation. Then, the guru, on the basis of an on-going personal relationship,

would guide his disciple into the varna in which it appears he could make the

best

spiritual progress, according to his psycho-physical type.

 

On another level in the village, would be the ksatriya, who -- in consultation

with the village brahmanas, and perhaps his own spiritual master -- would be

coordinating the necessary material resources to facilitate the training of his

citizens. In the fourth Canto, Prabhupada calls the ksatriya's training of his

citizens "abhiraksanam" (spelling?). The way I understand it is not that the

ksatriya personally trains his citizens, just as the state governor does not

personally train his citizens. Rather, he arranges the resources to guarantee

that those who are skilled in different subjects and who are kind-hearted and

patient enough can train students in different subjects.

 

Therefore, once the guru has advised his disciple of the best varna training,

he

can then send the disciple to be trained by the appropriate teacher who has

been

set up by the ksatriya.

 

******************

 

Since Srila Prabhupada was a brahmana and since he personally trained his

early

disciples, it may be difficult for us to distinguish between the idea of a

spiritual master and the teacher who actually trains the appropriate skills.

 

One example that I can think of is when Srila Prabhupada advised one devotee to

learn to make the dolls (like the ones in the diaramas at thel Mayapur Samadhi

and

at the Detroit temple). Srila Prabhupada told the devotee what occupation to

take

in order to engage his talents in the most satisfying way to serve Krsna -- but

Prabhupada did not personally train the devotee how to make dolls. Instead, he

sent him to expert doll makers to learn the art. Although, apparently these

doll

makers were nice people, the devotee no doubt still relied on Srila Prabhupada

as

his principle guide in spiritual life.

 

Loosely speaking, one could say that the doll makers were the devotee's gurus,

and

in a very broad sense they were. But in general, he probably thought of Srila

Prabhupada as his guru, and thought of them simply as his teachers.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

>

> We didn't find it too bad of a thing when Srila Prabhupada was the only

guru.

>

 

 

Really? I guess that raised the question why there are so many stories of

backbiting, almost fatricidal competition between the godbrothers in Srila

Prabhupada's presence. Remember the Radha-Damodara / grhasta issues, what to

speak of the impersonistic preaching sannyassis who I believe were based out

of NV.

 

No, it wasn't a 'bad' thing, but the fact of the matter is devotional service

is ever increasing, and living in some imaginary past will not resolve our

present challenges.

 

 

>

>

> What I am opposed to is the "imposed" force of one-diksa-guru control of a

disciple. Temple Presidents who are supposed to act in the capacity of

ksatriya for a community cannot administrate such disciples because they

always look to their diksa guru as the final authority on so many things.

>

 

yes, I would agree this not a healthy social condition. The spiritual master

in KC is meant to serve in a brahminical capacity, not simply becoming a

religious tryant, a neo-ksatriya with no social self-control. I strongly

believe that it is in these sort of situations that Varnasrama principles need

to be studied and applied. A obsessive concern with 'labeling' as somehow

instituting Varnasrama is simply a distraction from this real Varnasrama

business, in my opinion.

 

 

>

>

> The big question therefore is what are the qualifications necessary to

become diksa guru? Obviously, blind followers love self-serving relationships

with gurus who tell them what they want to hear while leading them down the

path to bogusville. We have plenty of experience in ISKCON of that and that

was with "diksa" gurus who were considered the tops in the movement.

>

 

 

Thus we have the principle of guru, sadhu, and sastra. As ISKCON matures, we

should have, eventually, a healthy brahminical culture of sadhus who will

provide a certain depth to our spiritual enviroment that won't so easily be

swayed by the temporary charisma of a few.

 

 

>

> Is it due to no VAD? Is it due to impure gurus? Is it due to not following

what some conceive as Srila Prabhupada's intended program of initiation after

he departed? I've got my idea, but don't claim TO KNOW.

>

 

In my own mind, to a very real degree, problems will always be there -- that's

natural. There is no spiritual Disneyland in the material world, at least not

one that is to be experienced with our current conditional desires.

 

After all, what was Hryanyakashipu but a satya yuga pain in the posterior.

Ravana lived during treta yuga. There will always be problems in the material

world. How we choose to deal with them will to a large degree be the critical

issue regarding the purification we will experience, if at least on a personal

level.

 

 

>

> The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my spine

when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami and

Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these guys

were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this same thing

in the future? Can it be stopped?

>

 

On one level, there was certainly some sincerity present to serve Srila

Prabhupada, and that should never be denied to these devotees. Still, their

unchecked anarthas proved to create an increadible degree of social and

spiritual disturbance.

 

I don't think those problems will ever again be experienced on the same level

as they had at that time. First, unique to the time was the juncture of the

founder/acarya departing, with the entire succession within the society then

entrusted to his young, and by today's meager standards, inexperienced

devotees. In the future, when there is a change like that, it will not effect

the entire society all at once as it did then. There will also hopefully be a

broader and deeper experienced culture of brahminical sadhus who can offer a

mature perspective for those wishing to seek it out.

 

 

>

> Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

the varnas and asramas.

>

 

Best to train the ISKCON devotees to give their hearts to the process of

devotional service in Srila Prabhupada's line.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

>

> We didn't find it too bad of a thing when Srila Prabhupada was the only

guru.

>

 

 

Really? I guess that raised the question why there are so many stories of

backbiting, almost fatricidal competition between the godbrothers in Srila

Prabhupada's presence. Remember the Radha-Damodara / grhasta issues, what to

speak of the impersonistic preaching sannyassis who I believe were based out

of NV.

 

No, it wasn't a 'bad' thing, but the fact of the matter is devotional service

is ever increasing, and living in some imaginary past will not resolve our

present challenges.

 

 

>

>

> What I am opposed to is the "imposed" force of one-diksa-guru control of a

disciple. Temple Presidents who are supposed to act in the capacity of

ksatriya for a community cannot administrate such disciples because they

always look to their diksa guru as the final authority on so many things.

>

 

yes, I would agree this not a healthy social condition. The spiritual master

in KC is meant to serve in a brahminical capacity, not simply becoming a

religious tryant, a neo-ksatriya with no social self-control. I strongly

believe that it is in these sort of situations that Varnasrama principles need

to be studied and applied. A obsessive concern with 'labeling' as somehow

instituting Varnasrama is simply a distraction from this real Varnasrama

business, in my opinion.

 

 

>

>

> The big question therefore is what are the qualifications necessary to

become diksa guru? Obviously, blind followers love self-serving relationships

with gurus who tell them what they want to hear while leading them down the

path to bogusville. We have plenty of experience in ISKCON of that and that

was with "diksa" gurus who were considered the tops in the movement.

>

 

 

Thus we have the principle of guru, sadhu, and sastra. As ISKCON matures, we

should have, eventually, a healthy brahminical culture of sadhus who will

provide a certain depth to our spiritual enviroment that won't so easily be

swayed by the temporary charisma of a few.

 

 

>

> Is it due to no VAD? Is it due to impure gurus? Is it due to not following

what some conceive as Srila Prabhupada's intended program of initiation after

he departed? I've got my idea, but don't claim TO KNOW.

>

 

In my own mind, to a very real degree, problems will always be there -- that's

natural. There is no spiritual Disneyland in the material world, at least not

one that is to be experienced with our current conditional desires.

 

After all, what was Hryanyakashipu but a satya yuga pain in the posterior.

Ravana lived during treta yuga. There will always be problems in the material

world. How we choose to deal with them will to a large degree be the critical

issue regarding the purification we will experience, if at least on a personal

level.

 

 

>

> The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my spine

when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami and

Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these guys

were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this same thing

in the future? Can it be stopped?

>

 

On one level, there was certainly some sincerity present to serve Srila

Prabhupada, and that should never be denied to these devotees. Still, their

unchecked anarthas proved to create an increadible degree of social and

spiritual disturbance.

 

I don't think those problems will ever again be experienced on the same level

as they had at that time. First, unique to the time was the juncture of the

founder/acarya departing, with the entire succession within the society then

entrusted to his young, and by today's meager standards, inexperienced

devotees. In the future, when there is a change like that, it will not effect

the entire society all at once as it did then. There will also hopefully be a

broader and deeper experienced culture of brahminical sadhus who can offer a

mature perspective for those wishing to seek it out.

 

 

>

> Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to train

the varnas and asramas.

>

 

Best to train the ISKCON devotees to give their hearts to the process of

devotional service in Srila Prabhupada's line.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

>

> Because there are some good things, don't gloss over the bad things and hope

they will just disappear. That's exactly what everyone said every time each

"guru" fell down in the past. Then another crashed, and another.. why do you

think it is now done?

>

> There is definitely something amiss.

>

 

Thus we root out the disease. We don't need to destroy the practice of the

parampara disciplic succession, as presented by Srila Prabhupada in his

Bhaktivedanta purports, in the process. That would be grossly unfortunate.

 

Many of these same crimes also occured during Prabhupada's physical presence.

I am not saying this to slight the significance of Srila Prabhupada's

presence, just to slight a certain niavity about what is means to have the

opportunity to associate with a pure devotee.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

>

> Because there are some good things, don't gloss over the bad things and hope

they will just disappear. That's exactly what everyone said every time each

"guru" fell down in the past. Then another crashed, and another.. why do you

think it is now done?

>

> There is definitely something amiss.

>

 

Thus we root out the disease. We don't need to destroy the practice of the

parampara disciplic succession, as presented by Srila Prabhupada in his

Bhaktivedanta purports, in the process. That would be grossly unfortunate.

 

Many of these same crimes also occured during Prabhupada's physical presence.

I am not saying this to slight the significance of Srila Prabhupada's

presence, just to slight a certain niavity about what is means to have the

opportunity to associate with a pure devotee.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> >

> > Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to

train

> the varnas and asramas.

> >

>

> Best to train the ISKCON devotees to give their hearts to the process of

> devotional service in Srila Prabhupada's line.

 

 

 

Actually, I still agree with Srila Prabhupada, varna first, asrama later.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> >

> > Despite my reluctance, I would love to see many "gurus" established to

train

> the varnas and asramas.

> >

>

> Best to train the ISKCON devotees to give their hearts to the process of

> devotional service in Srila Prabhupada's line.

 

 

 

Actually, I still agree with Srila Prabhupada, varna first, asrama later.

[Guest guest]

Janesvara Prabhu wrote:

> > The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my

> > spine

> when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami

> and Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these

> guys were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this

> same thing in the future? Can it be stopped?

> >

>

> On one level, there was certainly some sincerity present to serve Srila

> Prabhupada, and that should never be denied to these devotees. Still,

> their unchecked anarthas proved to create an increadible degree of social

> and spiritual disturbance.

 

Imagine if those devotees Janesvara Prabhu mentions, had actualy taken

shelter of other godbrothers, and sought siksa from them, and prayed with

them and to the Lord for help, for guidance. Being bewildered at Prabhupadas

dissappearance, that is one thing they all sorely needed, and without it

they simply glided into vaisnava aparadha etc. They were young devotees, (11

years at most) they were certainly not ready or qualified to jump into Srila

Prabhupadas shoes. Some of them had even gotten into trouble with Srila

Prabhupada just before he left for misuse of power.

 

OK they did do good service, and that cant be denied, but I wonder how much

the aparadhas counteracted that. We might have a different society now if

they had actualy tried to help each other, and prayed to the lord as

vaisnavas do, for guidance after Srila Prabhupada departed. They were

bewildered, and instead of taking the humble position, rather they siezed

control. It seems obvious in some cases that some of them were more into

control and power, than advancement in KC. They became Islands, and

persecuted their godbrothers, especialy the ones who knew where they were

really at. What kind of behaviour is that?

 

When we read the CC we get inspired by the loving relationships the devotees

had with each other, How Rupa Goswami took shelter of Sanatana, etc. We see

examples of loving relationships based on pure Krsna Katha, friendship,

surrender, and the taking of shelter. Every vaisnava desires to take shelter

of his godbrothers, and churn the nectar of Krsna Katha. What devotee will

not aspire for higher siksa also? It is not as if they are to be forced, or

we are to legislate. If such action were imposed, where would be the

question of love? We have Srila Prabhupadas books yes, and they are filled

with nectarian instructions. All I am saying is that a devotee who really

has that Laulyam, that intense desire to love the Lord, he will hanker night

and day, for those devotees, to help him enter deeper into Krsna Katha. He

will hanker to find someone who will take his hand, and lead him into

Goloka, and gently instruct him in the subtle art of pleasing the Lord. When

I suggest that maybe the siksa of an Uttama siksa guru is necesary, it is to

this end, and not some kind of thing that we should 'impose'.

 

So when I suggested that Srila Prabhupadas disciples may need personal

siksa, it is for this purpose, and in this vane. Is it so revolutionary? Is

it to be condemned?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu. Beleive me, I dont have a personal agenda here. It just

seems to me basic common sense, that when you are dealing with such deep

topics, as entering into the personal service of the lord that you need a

certain amount of personal help, from someone with experience. I am not

suggesting, that we round up all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples, and force

this down their throats, what good would that do? I just cant escape but

conclude, and this is my own personal opinion, that to go deeper in

spiritual life, the help of an experienced Krsna Prema bhakta, is

indespensible. As we are in any case personalists. The assistance of

persons, the reciprocation, and tender dealings , would inspire us, and give

us the confidence, to give up our false ego's and become pure lovers of

Krsna.

 

Although I can appreciate that a person can go far simply by reading the

books, and I cant deny that there may be some mystical process by which one

can advance simply by reading. We do find in all the scriptures, and in the

examples of the previous acaryas, and mahajanas, that personal service,

hearing from persons, surrender etc. these kinds of very personal activites

are central to the activity of approaching Godhead. Advanced spiritual

personalities, always appear when they are most needed. We are about

personalism. I feel we have this knee jerk reaction against seeking the

*personal* help of a pure devotee, simply becasue we have been burnt by so

many people who posed as advanced.

 

Sorry for starting up again.

 

If you still think I am off the wall, I will not utter another word after

this, and will definately leave it until I have heard from my Gurumaharaj.

OK, I promise.

 

YS Sd.

[Guest guest]

Janesvara Prabhu wrote:

> > The principle of this is great, I agree. But a cold shiver goes up my

> > spine

> when I think of how seemingly blissful the followers of Bhavananda, KSwami

> and Ramesvara and some others were before they figured out how bogus these

> guys were, as far as being gurus anyway. What has changed to stop this

> same thing in the future? Can it be stopped?

> >

>

> On one level, there was certainly some sincerity present to serve Srila

> Prabhupada, and that should never be denied to these devotees. Still,

> their unchecked anarthas proved to create an increadible degree of social

> and spiritual disturbance.

 

Imagine if those devotees Janesvara Prabhu mentions, had actualy taken

shelter of other godbrothers, and sought siksa from them, and prayed with

them and to the Lord for help, for guidance. Being bewildered at Prabhupadas

dissappearance, that is one thing they all sorely needed, and without it

they simply glided into vaisnava aparadha etc. They were young devotees, (11

years at most) they were certainly not ready or qualified to jump into Srila

Prabhupadas shoes. Some of them had even gotten into trouble with Srila

Prabhupada just before he left for misuse of power.

 

OK they did do good service, and that cant be denied, but I wonder how much

the aparadhas counteracted that. We might have a different society now if

they had actualy tried to help each other, and prayed to the lord as

vaisnavas do, for guidance after Srila Prabhupada departed. They were

bewildered, and instead of taking the humble position, rather they siezed

control. It seems obvious in some cases that some of them were more into

control and power, than advancement in KC. They became Islands, and

persecuted their godbrothers, especialy the ones who knew where they were

really at. What kind of behaviour is that?

 

When we read the CC we get inspired by the loving relationships the devotees

had with each other, How Rupa Goswami took shelter of Sanatana, etc. We see

examples of loving relationships based on pure Krsna Katha, friendship,

surrender, and the taking of shelter. Every vaisnava desires to take shelter

of his godbrothers, and churn the nectar of Krsna Katha. What devotee will

not aspire for higher siksa also? It is not as if they are to be forced, or

we are to legislate. If such action were imposed, where would be the

question of love? We have Srila Prabhupadas books yes, and they are filled

with nectarian instructions. All I am saying is that a devotee who really

has that Laulyam, that intense desire to love the Lord, he will hanker night

and day, for those devotees, to help him enter deeper into Krsna Katha. He

will hanker to find someone who will take his hand, and lead him into

Goloka, and gently instruct him in the subtle art of pleasing the Lord. When

I suggest that maybe the siksa of an Uttama siksa guru is necesary, it is to

this end, and not some kind of thing that we should 'impose'.

 

So when I suggested that Srila Prabhupadas disciples may need personal

siksa, it is for this purpose, and in this vane. Is it so revolutionary? Is

it to be condemned?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu. Beleive me, I dont have a personal agenda here. It just

seems to me basic common sense, that when you are dealing with such deep

topics, as entering into the personal service of the lord that you need a

certain amount of personal help, from someone with experience. I am not

suggesting, that we round up all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples, and force

this down their throats, what good would that do? I just cant escape but

conclude, and this is my own personal opinion, that to go deeper in

spiritual life, the help of an experienced Krsna Prema bhakta, is

indespensible. As we are in any case personalists. The assistance of

persons, the reciprocation, and tender dealings , would inspire us, and give

us the confidence, to give up our false ego's and become pure lovers of

Krsna.

 

Although I can appreciate that a person can go far simply by reading the

books, and I cant deny that there may be some mystical process by which one

can advance simply by reading. We do find in all the scriptures, and in the

examples of the previous acaryas, and mahajanas, that personal service,

hearing from persons, surrender etc. these kinds of very personal activites

are central to the activity of approaching Godhead. Advanced spiritual

personalities, always appear when they are most needed. We are about

personalism. I feel we have this knee jerk reaction against seeking the

*personal* help of a pure devotee, simply becasue we have been burnt by so

many people who posed as advanced.

 

Sorry for starting up again.

 

If you still think I am off the wall, I will not utter another word after

this, and will definately leave it until I have heard from my Gurumaharaj.

OK, I promise.

 

YS Sd.

[Guest guest]

>

> But in Srila Prabhupada's description below, it appears that the guru

> would be the one who determines what is the appropriate varna for the

> disciple to serve Krsna.

> Once the guru designates the varna of the disciple, then the disciple

> might even be sent to someone else to train him.

 

 

The varna training is indeed received rather from an another

experienced person situated in that particular varna, and not

really from the spiritual master. Here (as Samba prabhu suggested

earlier) is the appropriate moment to start distinguishing among

different meanings of word "guru". Thus there is the instructing

spiritual master (siksa guru) and the initiating s.m. (diksa guru)

on one side, and then there is a guru "music teacher", on the

other side.

 

A sudra naturally learns the varna occupation from an another

experienced sudra, most often from a father. A vaisya from an

another vaisya, a ksatriya from a ksatriya, and brahmana from a

brahmana.

Certainly, some exceptions are always there, like Dhronaacarya

being a teacher of marshal arts to Arjuna (he nevertheless

wasn't consider to be Arjuna's spiritual master, but Krsna).

 

A spiritual master's time is too precious to be used for getting

training in how to make shoes, how to trade, how to fight with

different weapons, and how to get the grip over the Sanskrit

grammar and various complexities in performing the vedic yagnas.

 

 

The interesting thing for me to notice is that ISCKON gurus

have been accused here for the two "crimes" simultaneously: First

for their not remaining strictly as spiritual guides but "mixing"

into disciples' daily life in term of instructing and managing

them (so that other authorities, like TPs, becomes set aside). And

second, for their failing to train the disciples into the varnas

and asramas (what would be day-to-day involvement into disciples'

activities). So, you turn a "coin" this way or that way, ISCKON

gurus got to get blamed no matter what.

 

 

 

ys mnd