The Property of the Spiritual Master

[Guruvani 0]

Here in this Bhagavatam purport Srila Prabhupada mentions the situation of a disciple's desire to enjoy the property of the spiritual master and of the spiritual master giving him the property but not the power to preach Krishna consciousness all over the world.

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.18.22 purport:

 

 

We have actually seen that one of the disciples of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura wanted to enjoy the property of his spiritual master, and the spiritual master, being merciful toward him, gave him the temporary property, but not the power to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu all over the world. That special mercy of the power to preach is given to a devotee who does not want anything material from his spiritual master but wants only to serve him.

So, by looking at this purport of Srila Prabhupada we can see that his idea of serving the spiritual master has nothing to do with acquiring his temples, ashrams and assets. Rather, serving the spiritual master doesn't depend at all on being in the position to inherit artificial guru positions on the strength of propping oneself up with the properties of the spiritual master to present oneself as a spiritual master.

 

We can see from this purport that Srila Prabhupada did not approve of propping oneself up as guru with the properties of the acharya and amassing disciples off of the residual effect of his preaching efforts.

 

If one wants to really serve Srila Prabhupada, then using his properties to couch oneself within an aritifical enivornment that was actually the achievements of the spiritual master is a form of cheating. It cheats the spiritual master, the disciples and oneself as well.

 

A genuine successful preacher does not become guru on the strength of borrowed plumes of the properties of the spiritual master.

[Guest guest]

It makes one wonder about july 9 in connection with one of his last statements in october 1977, where he tells the "leaders", "I have given you everything you have asked for".

 

They asked, he gave. One must consider what THEY asked for, and why they did not ask him what he wants, like a proper disciple should. They denied him what he asked for (that his disciples all come to Vrndavan, that he be allowed to do Goivardhana Puja, etc).

 

Glad someone else notices these things, your post here has much to consider.

 

ys, mahaksadasa

[Guruvani 0]

What is also VERY TELLING about this situation of using the property of the spiritual master to prop up oneself as guru with the borrowed plumes of the property of the spiritual master is that right after the above statement quoted from Srila Prabhupada, he makes the next statement using the demon Ravana as an example:

 

 

The story of the demon Rāvaṇa illustrates this point. Although Rāvaṇa tried to abduct the goddess of fortune Sītādevī from the custody of Lord Rāmacandra, he could not possibly do so. The Sītādevī he forcibly took with him was not the original Sītādevī, but an expansion of māyā, or Durgādevī. As a result, instead of winning the favor of the real goddess of fortune, Rāvaṇa and his whole family were vanquished by the power of Durgādevī (sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā [Bs. 5.44]).

 

So, the matter of using the properties of the spiritual master for one's own purposes is thus compared to Ravana kidnapping Sita from Lord Rama - the kidnapping of Laksmi Devi from Lord Narayan.

 

In othere words, it is a very despicable act that one will have to pay dearly for.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.18.22

 

mat-prāptaye 'jeśa-surāsurādayas

tapyanta ugraḿ tapa aindriye dhiyaḥ

ṛte bhavat-pāda-parāyaṇān na māḿ

vindanty ahaḿ tvad-dhṛdayā yato 'jita

 

SYNONYMS

mat-prāptaye — to obtain my mercy; aja — Lord Brahmā; īśa — Lord Śiva; sura — the other demigods, headed by King Indra, Candra and Varuṇa; asura-ādayaḥ — as well as the demons; tapyante — undergo; ugram — severe; tapaḥ — austerity; aindriye dhiyaḥ — whose minds are absorbed in thoughts of superior sense gratification; ṛte — unless; bhavat-pāda-parāyaṇāt — one who is wholly and solely engaged in the service of the Supreme Lord's lotus feet; na — not; mām — me; vindanti — obtain; aham — I; tvat — in You; hṛdayāḥ — whose hearts; yataḥ — therefore; ajita — O unconquerable one.

 

TRANSLATION

O supreme unconquerable Lord, when they become absorbed in thoughts of material enjoyment, Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, as well as other demigods and demons, undergo severe penances and austerities to receive my benedictions. But I do not favor anyone, however great he may be; unless he is always engaged in the service of Your lotus feet. Because I always keep You within my heart, I cannot favor anyone but a devotee.

PURPORT

In this verse the goddess of fortune, Lakṣmīdevī, clearly states that she does not bestow her favor on any materialistic person. Although sometimes a materialist becomes very opulent in the eyes of another materialist, such opulence is bestowed upon him by the goddess Durgādevī, a material expansion of the goddess of fortune, not by Lakṣmīdevī herself. Those who desire material wealth worship Durgādevī with the following mantra: dhanaḿdehi rūpaḿ dehi rūpa-pati-bhājaḿ dehi. "O worshipable mother Durgādevī, please give me wealth, strength, fame, a good wife and so on." By pleasing goddess Durgā one can obtain such benefits, but since they are temporary, they result only in māyā-sukha (illusory happiness). As stated by PrahlādaMahārāja, māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimūḍhān: [SB 7.9.43] those who work very hard for material benefits are vimūḍhas, foolish rascals, because such happiness will not endure. On the other hand, devotees like Prahlāda and Dhruva Mahārāja achieved extraordinary material opulences, but such opulences were not māyā-sukha. When a devotee acquires unparalleled opulences, they are the direct gifts of the goddess of fortune, who resides in the heart of Nārāyaṇa.

The material opulences a person obtains by offering prayers to the goddess Durgā are temporary. As described in Bhagavad-gītā (7.23), antavat tuphalaḿ teṣāḿ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām: men of meager intelligence desire temporary happiness. We have actually seen that one of the disciples of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura wanted to enjoy the property of his spiritual master, and the spiritual master, being merciful toward him, gave him the temporary property, but not the power to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu all over the world. That special mercy of the power to preach is given to a devotee who does not want anything material from his spiritual master but wants only to serve him. The story of the demon Rāvaṇa illustrates this point. Although Rāvaṇa tried to abduct the goddess of fortune Sītādevī from the custody of Lord Rāmacandra, he could not possibly do so. The Sītādevī he forcibly took with him was not the original Sītādevī, but an expansion of māyā, or Durgādevī. As a result, instead of winning the favor of the real goddess of fortune, Rāvaṇa and his whole family were vanquished by the power of Durgādevī (sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā [Bs. 5.44]).

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

We can see from this purport that Srila Prabhupada did not approve of propping oneself up as guru with the properties of the acharya and amassing disciples off of the residual effect of his preaching efforts.

Overall, the truth of your statement cannot be denied, but kindly allow me to make one small point.

 

In the purport, I see Srila Prabhupada making an observation which is free of judgement. I see no approval or disapproval, simply a statement of fact.

 

Of course, my own observation doesn't in any way negate the gist of the statement you make above.

 

In my own experience, there is certainly something unnatural and macabre about the way some try to exploit the legacy of Srila Prabhupada for ulterior motives.

 

May we all more closely follow the example of the acharya, free of envy and deceit!!

 

All glories to Independence from the illusion of seperate interest and full Dependence upon the mercy of the Sweet Absolute!!

[Guruvani 0]

 

Overall, the truth of your statement cannot be denied, but kindly allow me to make one small point.

 

In the purport, I see Srila Prabhupada making an observation which is free of judgement. I see no approval or disapproval, simply a statement of fact.

 

Of course, my own observation doesn't in any way negate the gist of the statement you make above.

 

In my own experience, there is certainly something unnatural and macabre about the way some try to exploit the legacy of Srila Prabhupada for ulterior motives.

 

May we all more closely follow the example of the acharya, free of envy and deceit!!

 

All glories to Independence from the illusion of seperate interest and full Dependence upon the mercy of the Sweet Absolute!!

 

Yes, you are correct. Srila Prabhupada didn't offer any disapproval of Srila Saraswati Thakur giving the control of his properties over to a particular disciple.

What he did offer was an example of how the disciple (or disciples) who inherit the properties of the spiritual master are not necessarily blessed with the power to preach Krishna consciounsess all over the world.

 

My point I guess is that ISKCON has suffered greatly since the passing of Srila Prabhupada and the mission of Srila Prabhupada has subsequently suffered greatly and the momentum of ISKCON has practically come to a standstill.

If the leaders of ISKCON had actually perfectly executed the orders of Srila Prabhupada, then there is no reason that ISKCON should have suffered so much.

ISKCON has suffered so much because of deviation from the instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

The orders of the spiritual master are very powerful and full of success and accomplishment.

The blows that ISKCON has suffered are due to disobediance to the orders of Srila Prabhupada.

ISKCON would have realized immeasurable success and accomplishment had the orders of Srila Prabhupada been strictly adhered to.

 

ISKCON has suffered so much and lost so many ardent followers of Srila Prabhupada because the leadership of ISKCON has not obeyed Srila Prabhupada and maintained the standards of Srila Prabhupada.

 

We see that in Sri Caitanya Saraswata Matha that there has been great growth and expansion and everyone is happy because they are happy that the successor to Srila Sridhar Maharaja has represented Srila Sridhar Maharaja very nicely.

 

ISKCON has suffered because ISKCON has not pleased Srila Prabhupada.

 

The next question is where did ISKCON go wrong and is there anything that can be done to rectify the terrible suffering that so many sincere devotees of Srila Prabhupada have suffered due to bad leadership and corrupt administration of ISKCON?

 

Apparently, the spiritual murder of so many sincere devotees of Srila Prabhupada has never been a concern of the ISKCON administration.

 

On the spiritual deaths of so many disciples of Srila Prabhupada, the ISKCON leadership has marched ahead with it's self-serving bureaucracy and rubber-stamp gurus.