Are the limits to what changes an acharya may implement?

[Kulapavana 0]

I sense that quite a few truly advanced Vaishnavas hide behind the anonymity of the Guests. I can understand and respect their reasons but perhaps they would adopt a unique pseudonim to help us track their valuable posts.

[Guest guest]

Srila Narayana Maharaja: Our Deity is Radhika. I am an eternal maidservant of Radhika. My relation to Krishna is not direct. Krishna is the beloved of Radhika; so to please Radhika, I am serving Krishna under Her guidance. In this way it is ananya - in our line of disciplic succession.

But, if you are worshiping Sriman Mahaprabhu and Sri Nityananda, there will be four; and in that case there is no ananya. How can we reconcile this? Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself, and He has come to give Krishna-prema to this world. He is therefore like guru. If anyone is worshiping guru, and also Mahaprabhu, or Radhika, or Radha-Krishna conjugal, this is not even 'two'. It is still one. I am under the guidance of gurudeva, and I am serving Srimati Radhika with Her beloved.

Here Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the guru. Consider Him 'saci-sunum nandisvara-pati-sutatve guru-varam'. Although He is Krishna Himself, taking the dhuti (luster) and the inner mood of Sri Radhika, He has descended to this world to give Krishna-prema. He is like a guru. He is the guru of Srila Sanatana Gosvami, and the guru of Srila Rupa Gosvami in Prayaga. He also empowered and inspired Sri Raya Ramananda. So we should consider Caitanya Mahaprabhu as guru. Then there is no duality - only one. Saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair. Guru is non-different from Krishna.

[Guest guest]

 

both. in 1979 and 1980.

why do you consider being given the mantra "om bhûr bhuvas suvaha"

(to be chanted three times a day) to constitute "diksha" initiation? why would such a mantra be more potent than the hare krishna mantra? you do not feel you recieved diksha intiation untill you got that mantra from Harikesha?

[Guest guest]

 

why do you consider being given the mantra "om bhûr bhuvas suvaha"

(to be chanted three times a day) to constitute "diksha" initiation? why would such a mantra be more potent than the hare krishna mantra? you do not feel you recieved diksha intiation untill you got that mantra from Harikesha?

 

WHY NOT ASK:

why do you consider being given the mantra "klim krsnaya govindaya gopijana vallabhaya svaha"

(to be chanted three times a day) to constitute "diksha" initiation? why would such a mantra be more potent than the hare krishna mantra?

[Guest guest]

Kamagayatri is a diksa mantra mentioned in shastra

 

The Harinama mantra is also a diksa mantra - in East Bengal it is common to find people who will not say the Mahamantra out loud since they feel it is a diksa mantra that you need to repeat silently - such is the advice they receive from their diksa guru in Bangladesh.

[Guruvani 0]

The gopis chant the Hare Krishna maha-mantra during the rasa-lila of Radha-Krishna.

Gayatri mantras are for conditioned souls aspiring for liberation.

 

Which one is highest?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

why do you consider being given the mantra "om bhûr bhuvas suvaha" (to be chanted three times a day) to constitute "diksha" initiation? why would such a mantra be more potent than the hare krishna mantra? you do not feel you recieved diksha intiation untill you got that mantra from Harikesha?

 

Dear Guest,

 

First you made the distinction by asking him "you got harinam intiation from him or diksha initiation from him?", and then you attack him for going along with the distinction. What is your point in doing that? Please get a username before going on with such questions, so he can identify your posts and keep track of your incoherent thought patterns.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

why do you consider being given the mantra "om bhûr bhuvas suvaha"

(to be chanted three times a day) to constitute "diksha" initiation? why would such a mantra be more potent than the hare krishna mantra? you do not feel you recieved diksha intiation untill you got that mantra from Harikesha?

 

this discussion strays too much from the topic. besides, you do not seem to know enough to patricipate in this exchange. but I can tell you that I treasure the Gayatri mantra just as much as I treasure the Maha-mantra, altough perhaps in a bit different way. that is all I want to say on this subject.

[mrs.moore 0]

well, to go back to the original question, i think you might have to define acharya before we can determine whether he (or she?) can change things.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

well, to go back to the original question, i think you might have to define acharya before we can determine whether he (or she?) can change things.

 

a good question and perfectly valid. yet for the sake of simplicity lets say that we limit our discussion to a common and traditional understanding of this word, as someone who acts as an initiating and instructing guru within the sampradaya, and who is considered by his disciples to be an acharya (one who teaches the world how to properly serve God by his own personal example).

 

a disciple looks at the activities of his acharya-guru and must decide for himself whether the changes he implemented go outside what the flexibility of the sampradaya allows.

[mrs.moore 0]

but if the disciple has accepted someone as her guru, she will have to accept any changes the guru makes, otherwise her guru wouldn't be her guru.

 

does that make sense?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

but if the disciple has accepted someone as her guru, she will have to accept any changes the guru makes, otherwise her guru wouldn't be her guru.

 

does that make sense?

 

not to me. first of all your guru may start as a legitimate sampradaya representative and then turn into a deviant (that happened more times then I would like to see).

 

second, certain changes may not seem strange to a neophyte disciple but with time he may realize that they are actually quite questionable in the light of sadhu and shastra (quite a few cases among disciples of gurus gone bad in Iskcon, especially in Kirtanananda's case)

 

third, some disciples may try to twist departed acharya's teachings to institute illegitimate changes to tradition (ritvik case for example).

 

that is why the question is asked as to the LIMIT of such changes.

[mrs.moore 0]

 

1. 
   
2. your first point sounds good. but if a guru deviates that means they weren't really a guru to start with.
   
3. same point again. real gurus can't go bad!
   
4. if disciples change things, that's not the guru doing it, is it.

these emoticons are great! so many to choose from!

[Kulapavana 0]

 

 

1. your first point sounds good. but if a guru deviates that means they weren't really a guru to start with.
   
2. same point again. real gurus can't go bad!

the only problem is: you dont know he is not a "real" guru because you DONT SEE THE DEVIATION... and that is why we are having this discussion.

 

the application of circular logic is a lot of fun to those who like to chase their own tail, but most people find it mildly annoying.

[mrs.moore 0]

i say, i'm terribly sorry if i annoyed most people.

but look. from what you say, if we can't tell the difference between a real guru and a guru that could go wrong at any moment, that means.... say i was a prabhupada disciple, and he was present. it would be alright for me to be constantly on the lookout that he might do something wrong then? or would it be better to see everything he does as pure and perfect?

 

the latter is best. isn't it. i mean, if it was prabhupada....

isn't it?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

if we can't tell the difference between a real guru and a guru that could go wrong at any moment, that means.... say i was a prabhupada disciple, and he was present. it would be alright for me to be constantly on the lookout that he might do something wrong then? or would it be better to see everything he does as pure and perfect?

 

Actually, Prabhupada demanded from his disciples that they not follow anybody (and that included him) blindly, but based their following on the shastric injunctions as well as on reason and logic.

[Beggar 0]

Dear Mrs. Moore, Yes, If we were with Prabhupada or someone on the transcendental platform, and we were their disciple, it would be offensive to scrutinize their behaviour. But if we are looking for a spiritual master is recommended that we try to see if that person is qualified and visa versa.

Mrs. Moore, I have one question. Why did you give me an F on my Algebra 2 midterm when I was in the tenth grade? And what the hay are YOU doing in Vrndavana?

[Guest guest]

Mrs. Moore, I have one question. Why did you give me an F on my Algebra 2 midterm when I was in the tenth grade?

 

This might be a little off-topic, but I took Algebra 2 when I was in the 9th grade, and Algebra 3 in the 10th. Mrs. Moore was kind enough not to fail me, but to this day, I can't remember anything of value that I learned in any of her Algebra class. Then I took pre-calculus in the 12th grade, thinking I was some kind of math upstart, but to this day, all I remember is the basic arithmetic I learned in 4th and 5th grades. At least I am grateful to Mrs. Moore for helping me with the "times tables." Maxamillian!

[mrs.moore 0]

Algebra Prayer.

 

Our Professor, which doth have tenure,

Feared be thy name.

Thy sets partition,

Thy maps commute,

In groups as in vector spaces.

Give us this day our daily notation,

And forgive us our obtuseness,

As we forgive tutors who canot help us.

Lead us not into Lye rings,

But deliver us from eigenvalues,

For thine is the logic, the notation, and the accent,

That confuses us forever.

Amen.