Is Aparadha A Two-way Street?

[Guruvani 0]

We often hear warnings and cautions about Vaishnava aparadha, about how dangerous and destructive it is to the devotional creeper, but is not Vaishnava aparadha a two way street?

 

Do only rank and file devotees have to fear Vaishnava aparadha?

Or, do "gurus" also have to be careful about offending even rank-and-file devotees who are not "gurus"?

 

Why is it that only non-gurus are accused of Vaishnava aparadha, whilst gurus seem to be free to discourage and insult lesser devotees and in fact discourage them in pursuing Krishna consciousness as being out of reach and impossible for them?

 

Should "gurus" also be careful about offending even insignificant devotees who don't have position, influence and prestige in Vaishnava society?

 

Or, is aparadha a one way street that only small devotees of no significance have to he cautious of?

 

What if a guru is guilty of discouraging neophytes who are sincere but unfortunate?

 

Can "gurus" commit aparadha, or is that only something that only little devotees have to worry about?

 

If a "guru" insults and discourages a neophyte, is that an offense?

 

How careful should "gurus" be in talking harshly about neophytes who are interested in Krishna consciousness but are not strong enough to keep up the standard of regulative principles.

 

If a neophyte is not pretending to be guru or a leader in Vaishnava society and is just a humble soul struggling to make ends meet, how harsh and critical can "gurus" be before that harsh talk actually becomes offensive to the small devotees of the Lord?

 

Is being "guru" not the most dangerous and delicate situation of all when it comes to dealings with small neophyte devotees of the Lord?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

It's a two-way street with two hour parking and street cleaning on Thursdays. Lots of potholes and speedbumps too--and the occasional sinkhole.

 

But seriously. There's a difference between "guru" with a little "g" and "Guru" with a big "G". There are many "gurus", but only one "Guru" (who is coming in many forms).

 

Yes, for "guru", there might be some question of offense, but for Adi-Guru?

 

If we're talking about Adi-Guru, then the question really is, can Krishna offend his devotee?

[AncientMariner 0]

 

We often hear warnings and cautions about Vaishnava aparadha, about how dangerous and destructive it is to the devotional creeper, but is not Vaishnava aparadha a two way street?

 

Do only rank and file devotees have to fear Vaishnava aparadha?

Or, do "gurus" also have to be careful about offending even rank-and-file devotees who are not "gurus"?

 

Why is it that only non-gurus are accused of Vaishnava aparadha, whilst gurus seem to be free to discourage and insult lesser devotees and in fact discourage them in pursuing Krishna consciousness as being out of reach and impossible for them?

 

Should "gurus" also be careful about offending even insignificant devotees who don't have position, influence and prestige in Vaishnava society?

 

Or, is aparadha a one way street that only small devotees of no significance have to he cautious of?

 

What if a guru is guilty of discouraging neophytes who are sincere but unfortunate?

 

Can "gurus" commit aparadha, or is that only something that only little devotees have to worry about?

 

If a "guru" insults and discourages a neophyte, is that an offense?

 

How careful should "gurus" be in talking harshly about neophytes who are interested in Krishna consciousness but are not strong enough to keep up the standard of regulative principles.

 

If a neophyte is not pretending to be guru or a leader in Vaishnava society and is just a humble soul struggling to make ends meet, how harsh and critical can "gurus" be before that harsh talk actually becomes offensive to the small devotees of the Lord?

 

Is being "guru" not the most dangerous and delicate situation of all when it comes to dealings with small neophyte devotees of the Lord?

 

 

Call me when you get a conclusive answer to your questions.

[seamusjcarroll 0]

aparahda means no rahda in translation it means no love

[Guruvani 0]

 

It's a two-way street with two hour parking and street cleaning on Thursdays. Lots of potholes and speedbumps too--and the occasional sinkhole.

 

But seriously. There's a difference between "guru" with a little "g" and "Guru" with a big "G". There are many "gurus", but only one "Guru" (who is coming in many forms).

 

Yes, for "guru", there might be some question of offense, but for Adi-Guru?

 

If we're talking about Adi-Guru, then the question really is, can Krishna offend his devotee?

 

then if a vaishnava is committing offense he is not guru or Guru?

[mahak 0]

Ahh, Sri Advaita Acarya, again. Lord Chaitanya beat him with a stick. Is this aparadha? Against the combined form of Lord Maha Visnu and Lord Siva?

 

No, because Lord Chaitanya was accepted by Sri Advaita as Guru, and Lord Chaitanya accepted the role as Guru of Advaita Acarya. In the role of Guru, he will say to even an advanced vaisnava, maybe even a mahabhagavata uttama adhikari disciple, you are a nonsense fool. Srila Iswara Puri actually called Lord Chaitanya a fool, told him to give up philosophizaing in favor of the simple chanting of Harinama. Srila Gaurakisora das babaji told Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that he was ignorant, incapable of understanding anything of spiritual life.

 

No there is no reciprocal deal. The duty of the devotee is to take chastizement by one more advanced than himself, it is the duty of the devotee to give chastizement to those less advanced. This is not an equal opportunity employer where tit-for-tat is acceptable.

 

This must be understood, and seldom is. Srila Prabhupada would say, ----das is nonsense, fool number one. His motive was to give the best jewel to the one he calls nonsense person. The person in the room who hears Srila Prabhupada say this repeats the same thing. His motive is to feel better about his own miserable life at the expense of another disciple of his Guru, and his statement is suicide. Same words against the same individual. From guru, it is the greatest blessing (Sri Adwaita Acarya devised a trick to get such a blessing from Mahaprabhu described above, the beating was the greatest gift that Sri Adwaita Acarya craved, but never received because of his perfection). Fron non-guru, it destroys not only the speakers spiritual life, but also has effect of destroying devotional service in all who hear.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Devarsirat 0]

I think it depends on his inner intend. If he is a guru just to collect disciples and is a pretender, not being able to bring the disciple back to godhead, then that in itself must be an offence, everything he does is build on this offence and i agree with Mahak about this, in due course such a guru will be finished.

 

In general a real genuine spiritual master does not make any offences, because he would have never reached such an elevated position making offences in the first place, that is not possible. Correcting a disciple is not offensive, it is wanted and needed.

 

Actually this is an importand point, Srila Prabhupada chastised his disciples many times, so how do the members of a certain devotee group react when they mess up, but the only thing they have got is a picture of Srila Prabhupada? There are hundreds of occassions in the past, of someone making a mistake , thinking it was alright and then getting chastised by Srila Prabhupada for it.

 

But now this is not happening, so they very easily could make big blunders, trying to illuminate things by the torchlight of their own minds, thinking it to be alright, dangerous position i think.