American Acharya

[theist 1]

 

Whatever he's doing has little effect on most of us here.

 

Oh I thought he was claming to a pure rep of Lord Caitanya. My mistake. If he is only calling himself a Hindu then who cares.

[bija 0]

By the design of super-soul a man has gotta do what he gotta do. I think this way too Stonehearted.

 

If Frank nurtures and cares deeply for his disciples, I feel God would honor that, and assist him in his own personal spiritual journey and the pitfalls that can come across the path. Any designation of spiritual value, like acarya, does not make one super-guru.

 

This label 'American Acarya' is possibly just tag allowed for a specific reason:

 

 

Shrila Prabhupada in SB 1.5.16 purport:

"The expert devotees also can discover novel ways and means to convert the nondevotees in terms of particular time and circumstance. Devotional service is dynamic activity, and the expert devotees can find out competent means to inject it into the dull brains of the materialistic population. Such transcendental activities of the devotees for the service of the Lord can bring a new order of life to the foolish society of materialistic men."

Shrila Prabhupada inCc Adi 7.31-32 purport:

"Here is an important point. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Mayavadis and others who did not take interest in the Krishna consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an acarya. An acarya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Krishna consciousness may be spread."

 

 

 

When analyzing this man's ministry I would consider level of care/nurture he has for his spiritual children (those who take his shelter). The fruit will manifest from there. And I am sure God would honor his sincerity.

 

What sect he mainly identifies with (if any), is only really relevant to those who take his shelter. That is their choice of spiritual counsel.

[stonehearted 0]

I just checked the bio on his Web site. As far as I can tell, he's presenting himself as a Hindu teacher whose qualifications come from his life as a practitioner and a scholar. Even the reference to his initiation is very vague. So he has a post as the leader of a Hindu community in the Midwest. It's probably a nice gig that gives him the chance to share his experience with Sanatana Dharma with others, support ethnic Hindus, and help Westerners gain some appreciation for Hindu practice.

[theist 1]

 

I just checked the bio on his Web site. As far as I can tell, he's presenting himself as a Hindu teacher whose qualifications come from his life as a practitioner and a scholar. Even the reference to his initiation is very vague. So he has a post as the leader of a Hindu community in the Midwest. It's probably a nice gig that gives him the chance to share his experience with Sanatana Dharma with others, support ethnic Hindus, and help Westerners gain some appreciation for Hindu practice.

 

 

That seems alright. I was thinking he was dishonest in his presentation of himself but I was wrong and apologize if my statements caused those who appreciate his teaching any discomfort.

 

 

Just another lesson in controling the urge to speak.

 

 

[bija 0]

Maybe Frank Morales is simply a self actualized soul, who is manifesting service.

 

Self-actualization in service mood would be desirable to find one-day. If he is the real deal, he is a good man.

[raghu 2]

 

Even more to the point, would he have gotten the job if he taught that moksha is not at all desirable, at least when it's devoid of bhakti. Krishna das kaviraja considers the desire for moksha as a symptom of the cheating mentality the Bhagavatam rejects right off the bat.

 

The idea that there is a "moksha" that is devoid of bhakti is, as far as I can tell, a belief that is peculiar to Gaudiya Vaishnavas and mayavadis. This is not a belief of most other Vaishnava traditions of which I am aware, and certainly not the mainstream ones.

 

In any case, the point I was making is that he is supposedly initiated into a Vaishnava lineage but is making a fairly broad pitch that really does not address Vishnu-sarvottamatva. This might make one logically question the legitimacy of his position as an "acharya." What exactly, is he an "acharya" of? What is his sampradaya? Who does he represent? Which Vedanta commentary does he follow?

 

Of course, in all fairness I have also met "initiated" Gaudiya Vaishnavas who disagree with Baladeva Vidyabhushana about anAdi-karma, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnvas who think that kama-sutra is sacred scripture, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas who want gay marriage, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas who think that Jesus is a Vaishnava, etc etc. So, let there be no suspicion that I am against this particular individual in any way. On the contrary, I hold everyone to the same standard of honesty.

[Smiley 1]

 

By the design of super-soul a man has gotta do what he gotta do. I think this way too Stonehearted.

 

If Frank nurtures and cares deeply for his disciples, I feel God would honor that, and assist him in his own personal spiritual journey and the pitfalls that can come across the path. Any designation of spiritual value, like acarya, does not make one super-guru.

 

This label 'American Acarya' is possibly just tag allowed for a specific reason:

 

 

 

When analyzing this man's ministry I would consider level of care/nurture he has for his spiritual children (those who take his shelter). The fruit will manifest from there. And I am sure God would honor his sincerity.

 

What sect he mainly identifies with (if any), is only really relevant to those who take his shelter. That is their choice of spiritual counsel.

 

Thank you. You just spoke the words that I would have if I had your knowledge base.

[suchandra 1]

 

Maybe Frank Morales is simply a self actualized soul, who is manifesting service.

 

Self-actualization in service mood would be desirable to find one-day. If he is the real deal, he is a good man.

Once again the only measure for Westerners if someone is a bona fide acarya is the saying, time will tell. Nothing else can be taken into consideration to teach followers if they are doing the right thing.

 

 

 

 

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

[Sonic Yogi 0]

 

I think the real question is, would they have appointed him an acharya of the temple if he had actually started teaching about Vishnu-bhakti as the ultimate path to moksha. I can't help but notice that despite his supposedly Vaishnava background, the subject of Vishnu rarely, if ever, comes up in his sermons. But, I welcome correction as always.

 

Vishnu-bhakti is not the path to Moksha.

Vishnu-bhakti is the path to Vishnu-bhakti and Moksha is just a by-product of Vishnu-bhakti.

 

Those who think Vishnu-bhakti is the path to Moksha are generally impersonalists who want to become God.

 

Vishnu-bhakti is the end, it is not a path Moksha.

Those who use Vishnu-bhakti as a path to Moksha and not the path to Vsihnu-bhakti or love of Godhead are self-interested.

 

Desiring Moksha is a selfish ambition.

That is why the Gaudiya acharyas only teach that the goal of love of Godhead should be the only desire.

 

We should not seek Moksha.

We should only seek service in love.

Moksha is a by-product of that.