Parampara by birth

[theist 1]

The caste by birth thread reminded me that some people think there are guru lines by birth also. Accepting guru on the basis of birth vs. qualities strikes me as a most foolish proposition.

 

Anybody here accept guru by birth 'parampara's as legetimate?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The caste by birth thread reminded me that some people think there are guru lines by birth also. Accepting guru on the basis of birth vs. qualities strikes me as a most foolish proposition.

 

Anybody here accept guru by birth 'parampara's as legetimate?

 

There is no such thing as "parampara by birth" If you are talking about traditional Vaishnava parivars, nobody there is becoming a guru by birth right alone. And besides, how is becoming a guru by a vote of the GBC any better? Judging by the number of guru scandals in our movement, the old system was decidedly better.

[suchandra 1]

 

The caste by birth thread reminded me that some people think there are guru lines by birth also. Accepting guru on the basis of birth vs. qualities strikes me as a most foolish proposition.

 

Anybody here accept guru by birth 'parampara's as legetimate?

It surely creates faith when someone hears, such and such is born in a very respected Vaishnava family. On the other hand when a Western Vaishnava is around 70, has a faultless vita, is an expert preacher and is clearly ordered by his guru to be his successor, what do we want more?

 

"There are so many instances. Śrīman Rāmānujācārya’s guru was not from a brāhmaṇa family, but still, he accepted guru. So in the Vaisnava literature… Just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Haridāsa Ṭhākura, we give ”Jaya, Ṭhākura Haridāsa Ṭhākura ki jaya.” We say. This Haridāsa Ṭhākura was born in a Mohammedan family. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu made him nāmācārya, Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He was chanting Hare Krishna mantra daily three hundred thousands of times. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu selected him, nāmācārya. Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself came to broadcast the glory of Hare Krishna mahā-mantra. So instead of becoming Himself the ācārya, He designated Haridāsa Ṭhākura as ācārya. And similarly, Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, they also became Mohammedans. They were born in Hindu, sārasvata-brāhmaṇa family, but due to their association as minister of the then Muslim government, they were rejected from the brāhmaṇa society. Formerly, the brāhmaṇa society was very strict. Anyone becoming serving, serving, servant, he is immediately excluded: “Oh, you cannot become a brāhmaṇa. You are serving."

 

Bhagavad-gītā 2.26

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Hyderabad, November 30, 1972

[theist 1]

 

There is no such thing as "parampara by birth" If you are talking about traditional Vaishnava parivars, nobody there is becoming a guru by birth right alone. And besides, how is becoming a guru by a vote of the GBC any better? Judging by the number of guru scandals in our movement, the old system was decidedly better.

 

"Not by birth right alone" means birth is still a consideration even if there are other factors to be considered. I say birth is NO consideration. It may be of value to one's own growth but that is a different thing.

 

So why do you consider birth to be any part of one being qualified to be guru?

 

As far as voting gurus I have spoken out against the appointed acarya business and the later voting in guru by the GBC since 1978 so your challenge is nonsensical since I never advocated the same. Oh, and the Iskcon Instituion is not my movement. You know this so why bring up Iskcon Kulapavana?

[theist 1]

Right suchandra Prabhupada's disciples are his spiritual children and if they take up his instructions properly that is their qualification to be guru. The spirtual family is the only one that counts.

 

It is the spiritual connection that we seek and not a DNA connection of some sort. The flow of transcendental knowledge is transcendental and not genetic.

 

Haridas Thakur is our example.

 

The same example in reverse is that of Srila Prabhupada's children. Should they have been the natural successers to his Iskcon? Of course not.

 

We must be on guard against all these mundane conceptions that are ever lurking and waiting for any chance to pollute the pure teachings.

[cbrahma 0]

If one accepts varna-by-birth, then guru-by-birth is a logical corollary.

Guru are supposed to teach, and teaching by definition is a brhaminical function. Clearly, if varna is by birth, then minimally, so must guru be conditioned.

[matarisvan 0]

 

If one accepts varna-by-birth, then guru-by-birth is a logical corollary.

Guru are supposed to teach, and teaching by definition is a brhaminical function. Clearly, if varna is by birth, then minimally, so must guru be conditioned.

 

guru-by-birth does not exist.

 

In olden days it was common practice for the son to follow in the same line of work as his father. The goldsmith's son was a goldsmith, the king's son would be king, the potter's son was a potter. Because they would be trained in that line of work and were qualified to take up that profession.

[cbrahma 0]

 

guru-by-birth does not exist.

 

In olden days it was common practice for the son to follow in the same line of work as his father. The goldsmith's son was a goldsmith, the king's son would be king, the potter's son was a potter. Because they would be trained in that line of work and were qualified to take up that profession.

Guru must be brahmana.

Brahmana is by birth

Therefore guru is by birth.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

"Not by birth right alone" means birth is still a consideration even if there are other factors to be considered. I say birth is NO consideration. It may be of value to one's own growth but that is a different thing.

 

So why do you consider birth to be any part of one being qualified to be guru?

 

 

Of course being born in a Vaishnava family is relevant. It is a mark of a special soul. Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, one of the most prominent disciples of BSST, was by birth a member of the Nityananda vamsa, the family of Nityananda Prabhu. His previous name was Atulachandra Goswami. Many, many great Vaishnavas were born in these families. So it IS relevant. Not by accident one is born in such lineage.

[matarisvan 0]

 

Guru must be brahmana.

Brahmana is by birth

Therefore guru is by birth.

 

Not all Brahmanas are Gurus. Birth alone is not sufficient.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

"why bring up Iskcon Kulapavana?

 

because Iskcon (or post Iskcon) devotees often badmouth the traditional parivars while the system introduced in Iskcon is hardly any better. However you look at it, Iskcon failed to produce the purity of lineage in any significant amount. 90% of those given sannyasa by Prabhupada fell down, along with 80% or more gurus he appointed. I am not sure what are the numbers for traditional parivars, but it is clear that both systems are fallible.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Not all Brahmanas are Gurus. Birth alone is not sufficient.

Nobody said they were. But all gurus (teachers) are brahmanas.

[cbrahma 0]

 

because Iskcon (or post Iskcon) devotees often badmouth the traditional parivars while the system introduced in Iskcon is hardly any better. However you look at it, Iskcon failed to produce the purity of lineage in any significant amount. 90% of those given sannyasa by Prabhupada fell down, along with 80% or more gurus he appointed. I am not sure what are the numbers for traditional parivars, but it is clear that both systems are fallible.

So nothing can be said about the claims of other maths because it's an ISKCON thing.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So nothing can be said about the claims of other maths because it's an ISKCON thing.

 

What happened in Gaudiya Matha was no picnic (besides the predictable in-fighting, many left the Saraswata fold to join traditional parivars after BST left this world), but it was nothing compared to what happened in Iskcon. And the biggest problem is that it is still a real problem, like not much was learned from the past mistakes. Saraswatas placed a huge emphasis on the guru, elevating that aspect of tradition to enormous height. Unfortunatelly that approach has it's drawbacks. People are tempted to be gurus for fame profit and distinction or are corrupted by all the power and prestige it carries.

[cbrahma 0]

 

What happened in Gaudiya Matha was no picnic (besides the predictable in-fighting, many left the Saraswata fold to join traditional parivars after BST left this world), but it was nothing compared to what happened in Iskcon. And the biggest problem is that it is still a real problem, like not much was learned from the past mistakes. Saraswatas placed a huge emphasis on the guru, elevating that aspect of tradition to enormous height. Unfortunatelly that approach has it's drawbacks. People are tempted to be gurus for fame profit and distinction or are corrupted by all the power and prestige it carries.

When it comes to the maths, it's a crap shoot. I'll pass.

[theist 1]

 

If one accepts varna-by-birth, then guru-by-birth is a logical corollary.

Guru are supposed to teach, and teaching by definition is a brhaminical function. Clearly, if varna is by birth, then minimally, so must guru be conditioned.

 

Yes ,if for no other reason than a brahmana is considered guru automatically by lower castes. So if the child born in a brahminical family turns out to be a drunkard & womanizer and lives off the temple donations to the deity then what spiritual value can we expect from such an arragement?

 

Itis incombant for every individual to seek Krishna's grace in finding guru.Krishna is the starting point and ending point in God realization.

[theist 1]

 

because Iskcon (or post Iskcon) devotees often badmouth the traditional parivars while the system introduced in Iskcon is hardly any better. However you look at it, Iskcon failed to produce the purity of lineage in any significant amount. 90% of those given sannyasa by Prabhupada fell down, along with 80% or more gurus he appointed. I am not sure what are the numbers for traditional parivars, but it is clear that both systems are fallible.

 

Yeah but I mean why bring it up to me? Anyway two wrongs never equal a right.

[theist 1]

 

Of course being born in a Vaishnava family is relevant. It is a mark of a special soul. Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, one of the most prominent disciples of BSST, was by birth a member of the Nityananda vamsa, the family of Nityananda Prabhu. His previous name was Atulachandra Goswami. Many, many great Vaishnavas were born in these families. So it IS relevant. Not by accident one is born in such lineage.

 

No I admited it is helpful. No problem. But it is by qualification (adhikara) and Krishna's grace one is born into a family of an exalted Vaisnava. However such birth is not initsef a qualification. He who knows the science of God consciousness and controls the six senses is qualified to make disciples.

 

Birth has nothing to do with it in that an advantage can be squandered away just as the disciples who were close to Srila Prabhupada daily are the very ones that misdirected his movement immediately upon his leaving his body.

[theist 1]

 

I am not sure what are the numbers for traditional parivars, but it is clear that both systems are fallible.

 

AGREED! But now what is the infallible system. That we need to know.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

When it comes to the maths, it's a crap shoot. I'll pass.

 

no, it is NOT a roll of dice. you have to take your time, be very sober, inquisitive, and observant. sooner or later you will find advanced Vaishnavas you can take shelter of, be it in Iskcon, or in other Vaishnava sangas. I see nothing wrong with the traditional paramparas either. It all boils down to finding the right person for you.

[cbrahma 0]

 

no, it is NOT a roll of dice. you have to take your time, be very sober, inquisitive, and observant. sooner or later you will find advanced Vaishnavas you can take shelter of, be it in Iskcon, or in other Vaishnava sangas. I see nothing wrong with the traditional paramparas either. It all boils down to finding the right person for you.

That spiritual life should depend on so many material contingencies is too strange to believe.

[raghu 2]

 

Guru must be brahmana.

Brahmana is by birth

Therefore guru is by birth.

 

Guru must be a brAhmana, but it does not follow that a brAhmana is necessarily a guru. cbrahma's argument is just another backdoor attempt to win the varna debate, cbrahma being unable to do that on scriptural grounds.

 

Brahmana is by birth as a matter of *convention,* but one's birth into a brahmana family still requires taking up the necessary duties and vows. Numerous scriptural pramAnas including Swami Prabhupada's own words have already been cited to demonstrate this.

 

If one does not follow the brahminical vows, then he is a brahmana by name only.

 

There is no national association of gurus to legislate who does and does not become guru in Vedic society. Then again, iskcon has that, and they still have bogus gurus all the time. In a culture where varnAshrama is followed almost universally, problems arising from degraded gurus are minimal.

 

In today's society where materialism is rampant, a sishya has got to be that more dedicated to discern a proper guru from a bogus one. This means not only an attitude of personal sincerity and self-restraint, but also applying one's self to study of the shAstra and pointed questions to aggressively remove all doubts. The ox-like mentality of many internet vaishnavas, in which one is expected to simply shut up and accept whatever is spoken, simply will not do. A proper guru can remove all the doubts of the sincere sishya. I realize that "sincere" may also be a term that may mean different things to different people - iskcon people equate "sincere" with "servile." Basically one has to be prepared to submit questions and hear and try to understand the answers. Any guru who bullies is student into avoiding questions and doubts is no guru worth following.

[shvu 1]

 

That spiritual life should depend on so many material contigencies is too strange to believe.

 

Baed on what? The Christian idea that you simply accept jesus as your savior and everything is take care of?

 

There are no such shortcuts here. Certainly not what the Gita says...

After several lives, the wise man reaches <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<a href=""" /><st1:State><st1:place>Me.</st1:place></st1:State> Very rare indeed is the great soul who understands that Vasudeva is all there is. BG 7.19

 

There are Upanishads which describe the path as hard as walking on a knife's edge due to worldly distractions. But since you and your camp do not attach any importance to Upanishads, let us not use them in discussion.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma 0]

 

Baed on what? The Christian idea that you simply accept jesus as your savior and everything is take care of?

 

There are no such shortcuts here. Certainly not what the Gita says...

After several lives, the wise man reaches <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<a href=""" /><st1:State><st1:place>Me.</st1:place></st1:State> Very rare indeed is the great soul who understands that Vasudeva is all there is. BG 7.19

 

There are Upanishads which describe the path as hard as walking on a knife's edge due to worldly distractions. But since you and your camp do not attach any importance to Upanishads, let us not use them in discussion.

 

Cheers

Is that what you're doing? Searching? What have you discovered? Are you initiated yet?

I am really getting bored with your self-serving assumptions about 'my camp'. I don't represent a camp. That's too easy an ad hominem. And yes it is a contradiction in terms that the spiritual should depend on material chance, absolutely. It is a question of knowledge and surrender. That is what the quoted verse is about, not a random triage looking for just the right camp or the right guru. Such dependencies are ridiculous.

[Baobabtree 0]

 

The caste by birth thread reminded me that some people think there are guru lines by birth also. Accepting guru on the basis of birth vs. qualities strikes me as a most foolish proposition.

 

Anybody here accept guru by birth 'parampara's as legetimate?

 

I'm not sure if it is the based idea out there, but I don't have anything against any sampradayas who have family lineages (if that's what you are refering to).