ISKCON guru chastised and disciplined!

[Guruvani 0]

 

Ritvik schmitvik... if one is a pure devotee why he should not be considered a full blown guru? What is the matter? The system that worked from time immemorial all of a sudden broke down when Prabhupada departed? If it did, then what is the use of a process where after some 40 years of dilligent practice one cannot be qualified to take the post of a guru?

If one's gurudeva appoints one to perform as ritvik then that is the order of the acharya.

Considerations of purity and qualification are made by the acharya when he appoints representatives.

 

Unless one is actually a liberated soul and self-realized, then it is always questionable if he can truly function as your "full-blown guru".

 

There is only one concern for the true disciple - the instructions of his spiritual master.

 

If Srila Prabhupada appointed a disciple as ritvik then his only concern should be to execute the duty assigned to him by his gurudeva.

 

All these judgements of pure or impure is not ours to make.

 

The acharya makes his own judgements and assign duties to disciples according to his own thinking.

 

One cannot deviate from the orders of the guru even if one becomes fully pure.

When one is fully pure then his only function is to peform the duty assigned to him by the acharya.

 

For us to set back in our arm chairs and dictate that a ritvik by definition cannot be pure is simply speculation.

 

In fact, it has no basis in truth.

The order of the acharya is the life and soul of the disciple.

 

If the acharya orders one to perform the ritvik function then the true disciple simply executes the order of his spirtual master even if he becomes fully qualified himself.

[Guest guest]

 

Even us unaffiliated fringes know the answer to that one. A pure devotee has unalloyed pure devotion to Krsna. Unmixed with jnana or karma. Pure devotional love, suddha bhakti. C'mon everyone here knows that.

 

 

even if you accept such a simplistic definition, how can you tell who actually has this unalloyed devotion? do you have a Bhakti-purometer by any chance? every disciple can claim his guru is a pure devotee not subject to mundane judgements but how do you really know that for a fact?

 

if by observing his activities you still see traces of desire for fame, profit, and distinction, is such a person still a pure devotee? where do you draw the line?

 

personally, I often find the Gaudiya fluidity of definitions and rules partly amusing, partly maddening - it is way too emotional and imprecise, Bengali style

[theist 1]

 

even if you accept such a simplistic definition, how can you tell who actually has this unalloyed devotion? do you have a Bhakti-purometer by any chance? every disciple can claim his guru is a pure devotee not subject to mundane judgements but how do you really know that for a fact?

 

if by observing his activities you still see traces of desire for fame, profit, and distinction, is such a person still a pure devotee? where do you draw the line?

 

personally, I often find the Gaudiya fluidity of definitions and rules partly amusing, partly maddening - it is way too emotional and imprecise, Bengali style

Yes it is maddening and confusing. that is why I search out the simplest and most direct AND spiritually potent definition and ignore the rest.

 

The ONLY way you can know who is Krsna's unalloyed devotee is for Krsna to tell you. "By the grace of Krsna one gets guru (then) by the grace of guru one gets Krsna." There it is simple and sublime.

[theist 1]

 

I didnt' make the statements about pure devotees being in or out of ISKCON. That was several posts back in this already convoluted thread. I know Prabhupada wanted us to examine and scrutinize prospective gurus before accepting initiation.

 

Dodge. You told me to be sure to have my definition nailed down. Is yopurs nailed down if so where is it?

[Guest guest]

 

Yep, we need a new academic engineering discipline along the lines of "Applied Physics".

 

Call it "Applied Spirituality". Get lots of funding so that we can devise a litmus test for spiritual sincerity/purity.

Religion without science is sentimentality.

[Guest guest]

 

There is only one concern for the true disciple - the instructions of his spiritual master.

 

If Srila Prabhupada appointed a disciple as ritvik then his only concern should be to execute the duty assigned to him by his gurudeva.

 

 

Besides the fact that authenticity of this so called "instruction" is tenuous at best, a disciple must make sure that such instructions are firmly based in shastra and traditional sampradaya practice. Maybe you are all for blind following, but I'm not. For example, if my guru asked me to steal something I would definitel have more than second thoughts. And if there was any question as to the authenticity of an instruction, I would definitely use my best judgement, examining such an instruction in the light of guru, sadhu and shastra.

[Guest guest]

 

Dodge. You told me to be sure to have my definition nailed down. Is yopurs nailed down if so where is it?

I said you should have it nailed down if you are going to make statements about who specifically is pure or not pure. I am not making any such statements (yet).

[theist 1]

 

Ritvik schmitvik... if one is a pure devotee why he should not be considered a full blown guru? What is the matter? The system that worked from time immemorial all of a sudden broke down when Prabhupada departed?

 

Yesirre sir. Did Srila Prabhupada act as an officating priest for Bhatisiddhanta. No he was a representitive of Bhaktisiddhanta in his entire being.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Religion without science is sentimentality.

 

Last post for today, I promise (fingers crossed).

 

We can dismiss mundane sentimentality, for sure, but isn't transcendental sentiment exactly That for which we are searching?

 

Rasa = Divine Sentiment, no????

 

Didn't Mahaprabhu spend the last 12 years of his life fully immersed in transcendental sentiment?

 

Religion without sentiment (Divine or otherwise) is dry and tasteless.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Besides the fact that authenticity of this so called "instruction" is tenuous at best, a disciple must make sure that such instructions are firmly based in shastra and traditional sampradaya practice.

 

no it doesn't.

Mahaprabhu made it crystal clear that the acharya is as free as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

The acharya is not at all bound by tradition or shastra.

 

If you knew the teachings of Mahaprabhu you would already know that.

 

Mahaprabhu personally established that the acharyas are completly free to make their own best judgements without constraint by any shastra or tradition.

 

Really, the acharya can do as he pleases.

 

That is the Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

trying to shackle and bind an acharya to shastra and tradition is a violation of the Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

It is an offense to try and bind the acharya to tradition.

 

He is as free as Krishna to make his own judgements.

 

Of course, that is the REAL acharya, not the pretenders whoever they might be.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yesirre sir. Did Srila Prabhupada act as an officating priest for Bhatisiddhanta. No he was a representitive of Bhaktisiddhanta in his entire being.

 

Srila Prabhupada wasn't instructed to act as ritvik.

The GBC and 11 disciples of Srila Prabhupada were.

 

That instruction is the lifeline to Srila Prabhupada for these disciples and the GBC.

 

We can't just dismiss the orders of Srila Prabhupada because it doesn't fit in our little box of understanding. (or misunderstanding)

 

If Srila Prabhupada has been ordered to act as ritvik he surely would have executed the orders of his spiritual master.

 

Srila Prabhupada established the ritvik system.

 

None of us manufactured it, but some of us talk as if we did.

[Guest guest]

 

Mahaprabhu made it crystal clear that the acharya is as free as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

The acharya is not at all bound by tradition or shastra.

 

If you knew the teachings of Mahaprabhu you would already know that.

 

An acharya who acts contrary to shastra or the core of a Vaishnava (Pancharatrik) tradition is not an acharya. Such "unbound" pseudoacharyas started all known apasampradayas. It is a fact.

 

Prabhupada did not start an apasampradaya. Guys like you did.

 

You read, but you dont really understand what is written.

[Guruvani 0]

 

An acharya who acts contrary to shastra or the core of a Vaishnava (Pancharatrik) tradition is not an acharya. Such "unbound" pseudoacharyas started all known apasampradayas. It is a fact.

 

Prabhupada did not start an apasampradaya. Guys like you did.

 

You read, but you dont really understand what is written.

then by your standards Isvara Puri started an apa-sampradaya when he violated the shastric injunction that a brahmana cannot initiate a non-brahmana.

 

The acharya is equal to the shastra, not subserviant to the shastra.

The living acharya is more important than the shastra because he interprets shastra in a living and vital way that you nor I cannot.

 

Mahaprabhu said the acharya is as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and as free as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

It is not up to you or I to decide what the acharya can do or not do.

It is up to the acharya alone to make that decision.

 

Mahaprabhu has confirmed that he fully supports what the acharyas decide.

 

The acharyas are not slaves of shastra.

They are every bit as authoritative as the old books.

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

Prabhupada did not start an apasampradaya. Guys like you did.

 

 

 

The ritvik system is not apa-sampradaya.

The attempt to bind, shackle and limit the acharya is APA-SIDDHANTA as it goes against the specific teachings of Mahaprabhu.

 

It is the attempt to restrict and restrain the acharya that is apa-sampradaya because it is APA-siddhanta and goes directly against the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

 

So, we should be concerned with APA-siddhanta as it is at the root of these apa-sampradayas that defy the teachings of Mahaprabhu on the power and authority of the true acharyas.

 

Mahaprabhu's sampradaya gives the acharya "as good as God" status.

Apa-siddhanta takes that away from the acharya and creates apa-sampradaya that masquerades as "tradition".

[Guest guest]

 

Last post for today, I promise (fingers crossed).

 

We can dismiss mundane sentimentality, for sure, but isn't transcendental sentiment exactly That for which we are searching?

 

Rasa = Divine Sentiment, no????

 

Didn't Mahaprabhu spend the last 12 years of his life fully immersed in transcendental sentiment?

 

Religion without sentiment (Divine or otherwise) is dry and tasteless.

Philosophy withou religion is mental (dry) speculation.

[theist 1]

 

Srila Prabhupada wasn't instructed to act as ritvik.

The GBC and 11 disciples of Srila Prabhupada were.

 

 

 

But they didn't did they. And they are not now. And it was those 11 that were supposedly ordered to act as post samadhi ritviks according to ritvik theory and it was they that were the ones who were told to expand the number of ritviks as needed correct.

 

So unless one of those 11 is acting as ritvik now the thing is dead, And further more the the ritvik thing was an in house instruction for Iskcon only and the GBC is meant to govern Iskcon and they are not instituting ritvik so ritvik is offically dead in the water. In fact it was never alive having ben stillborn. And rightly or wrongly it was born stillborn.

 

This is 2007 not 1977. Krsna says the devotee who is not dependent on ordinary circumstances is very dear to Him. You have to flow with the current Guruvani and realize that you as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada can fulfill his desires quite apart from iskcon just as he had to do apart from Gaudiya Matha. Quite trying to recapture the past and concentrate on the present and an even more glorious future.

 

Time to update your browser for this incarnation.

[Guruvani 0]

 

But they didn't did they. And they are not now. And it was those 11 that were supposedly ordered to act as post samadhi ritviks according to ritvik theory and it was they that were the ones who were told to expand the number of ritviks as needed correct.

 

So unless one of those 11 is acting as ritvik now the thing is dead, And further more the the ritvik thing was an in house instruction for Iskcon only and the GBC is meant to govern Iskcon and they are not instituting ritvik so ritvik is offically dead in the water. In fact it was never alive having ben stillborn. And rightly or wrongly it was born stillborn.

 

This is 2007 not 1977. Krsna says the devotee who is not dependent on ordinary circumstances is very dear to Him. You have to flow with the current Guruvani and realize that you as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada can fulfill his desires quite apart from iskcon just as he had to do apart from Gaudiya Matha. Quite trying to recapture the past and concentrate on the present and an even more glorious future.

 

Time to update your browser for this incarnation.

 

Except the last part about me fulfilling the desires of Srila Prabhupada, I agree.

My role is to be like a chihuahua on steroids dogging the GBC and the ritvik disciples for failing in their duties.

 

I was a "small-timer" in ISKCON. My job was to follow the leaders. The leaders went astray and I will never let them forget that as long as I have breath.

 

I was right in front of Srila Prabhupada several times and don't remember him ever looking me in the eyes. My position was just as an ant in the colony who never meets the queen.

 

But, I have always felt connected to Srila Prabhupada through his books as you also feel yourself.

 

To me the books are a diamond mine of transcendental treasures.

 

from the very beginning the books have been my foundation and I expect that they always will be.

 

The "living guru" concept might be important to others, but it has never been that important to me and I lived as a strict brahmachary for years simply on the strength of being around the Godbrothers.

 

I believe in the "MOVEMENT" not in the "LIVING GURU" fantasy.

[Guruvani 0]

 

no, it shows that there is something wrong with Satsvarupa.

 

when your guru dies then what are you going to do?

then, you won't have a living guru anymore and your spiritual progress with thus come to a halt.

 

you people talk as if your "guru" is going to live forever in his body.

 

If the living guru is so indespensible then why did Svarupa Damodar Goswami send all the people who came to see Mahaprabhu back home with instructions to study Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

Why didn't he just bring everyone in for personal association with Mahaprabhu if that was so much better than learning the lessons of Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

no, most of them didn't even get to meet Mahaprabhu.

They were instructed to go back home and make a study of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

do you even know the philosophy of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Or, is loitering around your guru good enough for you?

[theist 1]

 

Except the last part about me fulfilling the desires of Srila Prabhupada, I agree.

My role is to be like a chihuahua on steroids dogging the GBC and the ritvik disciples for failing in their duties.

 

I was a "small-timer" in ISKCON. My job was to follow the leaders. The leaders went astray and I will never let them forget that as long as I have breath.

 

I can understand this sentiment. It is not really apart from what i meant though. What I meant was you have no need to work under or within either

construct. As a disciple so-called big or small you have the ability and even mandate to please Srila Prabhupada without the prior approval of either. You have your directions straight from Srila Prabhupada already. The nature of your service is certainly not for me or anyone else to critique. But we need to remember that aversion is also attachment. So it should never even be close to our main mission our we risk being consumed like your godbrother Puranjana.

 

They should be hounded on what they have done to Srila Prabhupada's movement. Although maybe not incessantly to the the point of ignoring Srila Prabhupada's real work which was to reach the fallen souls with the message of Mahaprabhu. Iskcon was always a tool to that end and not the end in itself.

 

You see what I am trying to say Guruvani is that YOU are the connecting point to Srila Prabhupada for those newbies that are yet to come forward. Not the Magnificant 11 or the Ecclesiastical 111 that are roaming around now but you and ever other disciple of His Divine Grace big or small. you with one touch the small can be made very very big. Who among the gaudiya matha expect the householder AC Bhaktivedanta to become empowered by Lord Caitanya and to spread the Holy name around the world and to confront atheism like a lion as he went.

 

I know I tease you about being a multiheaded guy. I need to say though that one of those heads i really love and you soeak from it all too infrequently. That is the one that draws attention to the preaching of Mahaprabhu in south India. How the name was so free given and from it vaisnava consciousness took off like a wild fire in a wind storm. How Srila Prabhupada is directly to be appreciated in his words. All that gets said but then covered up by this ritvik stuff.

 

When you let the ritvik go you will see Prabhupada's vani remains, only less obscured.

 

 

 

 

I was right in front of Srila Prabhupada several times and don't remember him ever looking me in the eyes. My position was just as an ant in the colony who never meets the queen.

 

But, I have always felt connected to Srila Prabhupada through his books as you also feel yourself.

 

To me the books are a diamond mine of transcendental treasures.

 

from the very beginning the books have been my foundation and I expect that they always will be.

 

Yet you are obviously meeting him in his real vani form, not through the eyes but through the ears.

 

 

The "living guru" concept might be important to others, but it has never been that important to me and I lived as a strict brahmachary for years simply on the strength of being around the Godbrothers.

 

I believe in the "MOVEMENT" not in the "LIVING GURU" fantasy.

 

Yes and that movement lives in you. I also see the movement being misdirected in that controversy, important as it is, gets way too much air time. We need to spend more time establishing theism in the world and the chanting of the Holy Names as the topmost expression of that theism.

 

This was your blessing. "The last shall be first and first shall be last." In Krsna consciousness the one who places himself at the end of the line behind his godbrothers is accepted as first in line by Mahaprabhu.

 

We see the fate of most of those who crowded around Srila Prabhupada's body. Not as glorious as they seem to think. We see it being set up to repeat now by other groups. This is how it always has been I believe.

 

Hare Krsna

and

dandavat pranams

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

 

I know I tease you about being a multiheaded guy. I need to say though that one of those heads i really love and you soeak from it all too infrequently. That is the one that draws attention to the preaching of Mahaprabhu in south India. How the name was so free given and from it vaisnava consciousness took off like a wild fire in a wind storm. How Srila Prabhupada is directly to be appreciated in his words. All that gets said but then covered up by this ritvik stuff.

 

I've come in contact with a lineage of devotees who are from Chennai (Madras) whose parampara comes down from Sri Chaitanyadeva, from when Mahapabhu visited the south 500 years ago.

 

The say that Mahapabhu has remained in this world in the form of the Mahamantra, and that if you chant the mahamantra you are automatically given diksa by the mantra since Sri Guru / Govinda are non-different from Sri Nama.

 

Interestingly, they say the ultimate reality is Brahman - and they are Advaitins. They say bhakti is the means to attain liberation.

see here for more info:

 

http://www.ozmadhuramurali.org/

 

They offer honour to all sages, and quote the Advaita-vada sages such as Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Shirdi Sai Baba, Ramana Maharsi etc. In many ways I like this idea that we should not abuse the mystics but instead that we should see they are advanced mystics on the path towards God. I never really felt comfortable attacking the mayavadis. But then let them dissolve in Brahman if they want, I guess. They are all somewhat like the Muslim Sufis who believe matter, man and God are in effect one single entity and essence- and that God in his ultimate state is a formless oneness of being (wihdat al-wujood).

 

If you have no connection to great, living Vaishavas who can explain the truth about the Nama, Guna, Rupa and Lila of Krishna, then the path of monism can seem like the eternal path of the great sages. If you promote the idea that you don't need personal contact with a Guru, then it's not a great step further to say Personal relationships are superseded when you realize the omnipresence of pure Spirit.

[Guest guest]

 

It is the attempt to restrict and restrain the acharya that is apa-sampradaya because it is APA-siddhanta and goes directly against the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

 

THIS is the teaching of Mahaprabhu:

 

kiba vipra, kiba sudra, nyasi kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya

 

ANYBODY who says a person who truly knows Krsna cannot become a GURU is a deviant and offender to Mahaprabhu!

[Guruvani 0]

 

THIS is the teaching of Mahaprabhu:

 

kiba vipra, kiba sudra, nyasi kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya

 

ANYBODY who says a person who truly knows Krsna cannot become a GURU is a deviant and offender to Mahaprabhu!

of course that brings up the question of what is knowing Krishna in "truth".

 

Krishna tattva.

 

What exactly is "tattva".

 

What does it meant to know Krishna in "truth".

 

Tattva is most often understood to mean "reality".

 

At what point does the devotee know Krishna in reality?

 

Sometimes tattva is translated as "principle".

 

So, it seems that there could be two ways of looking at this verse.

 

Does the devotee have to know Krishna in "principle" or in "reality"?

 

What is the difference between the two, if any?

[AncientMariner 0]

Ah!

 

Another day in the pursuit of Krishna Consciousness engaged in the same "transcendental debates" that have been going on for years and years and years.... Sorry, just kidding around. No offense meant to Krishna, His devotees or any of His acaryas.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Ah!

 

Another day in the pursuit of Krishna Consciousness engaged in the same "transcendental debates" that have been going on for years and years and years.... Sorry, just kidding around. No offense meant to Krishna, His devotees or any of His acaryas.

 

a love orgy would be better eh?

But, that would get old fast.

 

If we didn't argue my friend we wouldn't have anything to talk about!

[Guest guest]

 

of course that brings up the question of what is knowing Krishna in "truth".

 

 

and you have a Krsna-truthometer that you applied to Prabhupada and got 100% while Narayana Maharaja got 65%? LOL!

 

THIS IS A MATTER SETTLED ONLY BY THE FAITH OF A PROSPECTIVE DISCIPLE

 

Yet, NOBODY can say: "From this day forward you will only have my vritviks, because no-one will know Lord Krsna in truth by following the process I'm giving you"

 

Do you realize how utterly ABSURD the ritvik system is in that context?

 

Probably not, because you fell for it the first time.