Concerning Satsvarupa Maharaja GBC Executive Committee Statement

[Guest guest]

Sometimes, one goes to the psych for physical problems, and SdG seems to have such a malady. It is fine and dandy to philosophize about these things, but disorders and stress syndromes are real, and are chronically painful.

 

A devotee knows that he is not the body, but further than this, he knows that the body is not his possession to just let go. A devotee will do what he can to keep the body healthy, because such a body can be of service to krsna.

 

Now, there are drugs for headaches that Mds can give, but there are advising therapies that are also helpful in conquering these stress syndromes without drugs, SdG was correct in trying this method, much better than getting hooked on ludes or talwyns or xanax. A psychologist can give advise in pinpointing cues that bring about these anxieties that cause the physiological pain (anxiety here is not kuntha, it should not be confused with the context devotees use, it is a medical term describing biological and electrical triggers that release or stop the release of natural chemicals.

 

Anyway, his condition sounds normal, 20% of the US has such a disease.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksaqdasa

[Guest guest]

Seeking shelter from a psychiatrist is to my mind a greater fall than becoming affectionately involved with a lady. If a man cannot control his own wayward mind, how can he give guidance to a disciple about the message given by Sri Krishna in the Gita?

 

i completely agree

[krsna 3]

Twenty years ago when Jayapataka Swami and several other GBC members went to speak with Srial Sridhar Maharaj, just after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhar Maharaj told them what sort of situations might arise for the new Gurus. Hed said that if a Guru were to fall from the path then the disciples should wait for a while, and examine the behavior of the Guru, and see if he may come back onto the proper path.

 

From what I have read of Satswarup Maharaj's predicament, it is clear that Satswarup is a sincere Vaishnava. He has been very honest and humble in revealing his situation, it seems. So his disciples and friends may rightly feel that he is a sincere devotee.

 

But something else in what has been said seems to suggest to me that I cannot accept he is any sort of qualified Guru. That is, Satswarup Maharaj is seeing a psychiatrist and counsellor in regard to his internal turmoil.

 

This is not a good path to follow for a devotee. A devotee should take shelter of the holy name and his Guru's lotus feet.

 

Seeking shelter from a psychiatrist is to my mind a greater fall than becoming affectionately involved with a lady. If a man cannot control his own wayward mind, how can he give guidance to a disciple about the message given by Sri Krishna in the Gita? Has he turned his back on the teachings in the Gita, which has so much information about how to deal with depression, grief, and illusion.

 

I think Satswarup is a good devotee. But I also feel he is not qualified to be anyone's Guru.

 

- m.

[Guest guest]

Can someone tell me what really went wrong? I do not see any thing in Maharaja's letter that needs and apology except of course he lived with the Mataji, just the two of them continuously for a long time.

Radha Kunda das.

Vrindavan dhama ki jaya!!!!

[Kulapavana 0]

"I do not see any thing in Maharaja's letter that needs and apology except of course he lived with the Mataji, just the two of them continuously for a long time."

 

it is a big exception for a sannyasi. apology alone does not make it fine. I always liked Sarsvarupa Maharaja (and still do) for the services he performed.

 

I think his disciples did not protect him adequately. when a general is wounded in the battle, his troops must protect him from further harm... he may not be in the greatest shape right now as a guru (in terms of giving proper guidance to his disciples), but the duty of the servants of the servant of the Vaishnava is still there.

 

disciples leaving him right now are no better than common deserters.

 

[Guest guest]

the disciples are to be protected, not to protect guru

 

the fact is not so complex and difficult

 

satsvarupa prabhu is an excellent devotee, but he, being not fit, has accepted prematurely the role of sannyasi and of spiritual master making many good things, but also something not so good

 

and, as a demonstration that bhagavad gita is true, that god exist and protects him and us, now the mistake is revealed to let him and us to rectify his and our position in front of devotees and the society in general

 

and this rectification brings with her many, many, many other big problems, common thing in the material world

 

the disciples have no fault, if not the one to have been not blessed by taking shelter of a real guru

[Govindaram 1]

I think his disciples did not protect him adequately. when a general is wounded in the battle, his troops must protect him from further harm... he may not be in the greatest shape right now as a guru (in terms of giving proper guidance to his disciples), but the duty of the servants of the servant of the Vaishnava is still there.

 

 

 

Guru takes on the duty of Diksa and therefore takes away the Karmic Reactions of his dicisples. But if the latter continue with sin, then the Guru has to suffer..

 

Also the Guru does not require protection from anybody, he is protected by Krsna.!

[Kulapavana 0]

it is only natural fo a disciple to simply take, take, take from his guru. that part everybody agrees on. however, preaching in the West has created many unique challenges. it seems to me that disciples also need to protect their sannyasi guru from getting into possibly compromising situations. I do not blame Satsvarupa's disciples for his problems, but perhaps they could have done something to help in this situation. Just a comment.

 

it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and demand perfection from others. but the reality is a little more complex. if you think that this banyan tree of material existence is "not so complex and difficult" I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita more closely. ISKCON did not invent falling down sannyasis and gurus (but they certainly had a LOT of them!). It is all part of this very difficult task of becoming purified and purifying others. Hare Krishna!

[Kulapavana 0]

"Also the Guru does not require protection from anybody, he is protected by Krsna"

 

sometimes Lord Krishna uses others to protect His devotees. that may include Godbrothers and disciples. you probably noticed that Lord Narasimhadeva does not jump out from a pillar every time He decides to protect someone.

[Guest guest]

it is only natural fo a disciple to simply take, take, take from his guru

 

-the only way to give something to the guru is to follow his instructions

 

however, preaching in the West has created many unique challenges.

 

-purity and transcendence are enough to face any new and unique challenge.. prabhupada had no difficulties in keep them wheen he went in the west

 

it seems to me that disciples also need to protect their sannyasi guru from getting into possibly compromising situations

 

-if one needs to be protected he has not taken fully shelter in krsna

 

it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and demand perfection from others. but the reality is a little more complex.

 

-in this case... not too much, someone was repressing him to bear a role that he was not fit for..

 

if you think that this banyan tree of material existence is "not so complex and difficult" I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita more closely.

 

-this case is very simple... if you want to add some other flavour you fall in speculation

 

ISKCON did not invent falling down sannyasis and gurus

 

-of course... it is not our subject and this is a problem for gaudya vaishnavas in general. All over the world iskCon and KrsnaConsciousness are synonims for the general public

 

 

[Guest guest]

...i would add that we are not in front of some big philosophical challenge, some misinterpretation of a difficult tattva and so on... we are simply speaking of a "sannyasi" embrassing a god sister and falling in love with her... there's not much to speculate

[Kulapavana 0]

we could debate all these point forever.

 

 

"the only way to give something to the guru is to follow his instructions"

guru dakshina can have many forms.

 

 

"prabhupada had no difficulties in keep them wheen he went in the west"

dont expect everybody (actually: ANYBODY) to be like Srila Prabhupada.

 

"if one needs to be protected he has not taken fully shelter in krsna"

yes. so if that happens to your guru, what do you do, eh? abandon him in need? that is SO very non-Vedic and materialistic.

[Kulapavana 0]

as far as I can tell, the issue of complexity was raised in relation to the responsibilities (if any) of disciples in this situation. as far as SM behaviour: yes, it is a simple case of maya.

[Guest guest]

guru dakshina can have many forms.

 

-also keeping sannyasa guru from meeting the fiancee?

 

dont expect everybody (actually: ANYBODY) to be like Srila Prabhupada.

 

-i expect that a guru must be pure and detached as prabhupada. Purity is purity, there's not more purity or less purity (my guru who gave me harinama is as pure as prabhupada, and i have accepted such guru following prabhupada's instructions)

 

yes. so if that happens to your guru, what do you do, eh? abandon him in need? that is SO very non-Vedic and materialistic.

 

-we are not speaking to abandone a devotee in maya, we are speaking to have him as guru. If your guru falls, he is no more your guru (and he never been...), you take shelter of a pure guru and you help the "previous" as a friend or as a master, maybe bringing him to take suggestion, advices and shelter to your real guru. If you still consider him as a guru, you are not helping in any way. Maybe you are making the situation more bad..... And the only system to help someone spiritually is to be really and purely connected with parampara' and pass to him the spiritual values of disciplic succession. If we are not connected with krsna we cannot help anybody.. even our fallen previous "master"

 

[Kulapavana 0]

I did not suggest that disciples of a compromised/fallen guru should keep taking instructions from him as if nothing happened. Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja advised such disciples to wait some time to see if their guru rectifies his standards. both guru, and disciples have responsibilities in this relationship.

 

"my guru who gave me harinama is as pure as prabhupada, and i have accepted such guru following prabhupada's instructions"

 

good for you. many others think (or thought) exactly the same. time always test our faith. it is a marathon, not a 60m dash. you are probably a disciple of Narayana Maharaja. He is certainly very, very qualified. Count your blessings prabhu... Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

i am not disciple of narayana maharaja

 

you're not a great mind reader

[theist 1]

So what value will our attempts to diagnose Satsvarupa's medical condition have? Either to condemn him or excuse him. A usless excercise? I think so.

 

Now a subtle(or not so) deflection of some of the blame to his students.

 

One thing is for sure it shows the current GBC system(whatever it is this year) is faulty.

 

Such confusion. All in the name of "you must take 'initiation' formally from a "living" guru.

 

If ISKCON simply limited their initiations to Brahmana intiation for the purpose of Deity worship and dropped the 'eternal savior' business they would be much better off. That would make sense ecclesiastically as well as spiritually.

 

These disciples of Srila Prabhupada will develop siksa guru relationships naturally and informally with newer students and things would go on smoothly. When the teacher hits a rough spot it wouldn't have a faith shaking effect on others.

 

If one or more of them started to take on a initiating guru relationship with some of them as dictated by the Lord in the heart of guru and disciple then they could just rent a house apart for guru puja etc. while still working with and within ISKCON. Or they could just work separately, branching off.

 

Is there something wrong with this idea? If so please enlighten me. As it is this guru falling down and creating havoc problem has become institutionalized and will not stop.

 

It is like someone who has trouble walking due to a lower back misalignment refusing to take the simple chiropratic adjustment needed to fix the problem choosing instead to keeping limping along in pain.

[Govindaram 1]

sometimes Lord Krishna uses others to protect His devotees. that may include Godbrothers and disciples.

 

 

 

Guru need/may need protection from His own disicples in regard to his own body.

 

Prahladha Maharaja was not in need of help for Spiritual Protection, he was Not in any danger in that aspect, because he knew Lord Narasimhadeva would protect him.

[Kulapavana 0]

I am certainly not a mind reader. I have enough difficulty trying to read words. the arguments and points you were making reminded me of discussions I have had in the past with disciples of Narayana Maharaja. My mistake. Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

One thing is for sure it shows the current GBC system(whatever it is this year) is faulty.

Such confusion. All in the name of "you must take 'initiation' formally from a "living" guru.

--it is not fault of the "living guru" or "present guru" system... we would be very narrowed in our vision if we judge the guru system only by these 25 years of krsna consciousness in the west

 

If ISKCON simply limited their initiations to Brahmana intiation for the purpose of Deity worship and dropped the 'eternal savior' business they would be much better off. That would make sense ecclesiastically as well as spiritually.

---if a guru is false, he cannot give to you any brahmana initiation. Brahmana means "one who has realized brahman", and brahman is realized following (=learning from)another who has already realized it. So if you are suggesting "NO INITIATION" you can also send the non initiated people in the altar, the damage is already done.

I am very surprised that you see deity worship as something bureaucratic and mechanical and that a formal designation by someone can give legitimation for it. If guru tattva is failed, deity worship is also failed

 

These disciples of Srila Prabhupada will develop siksa guru relationships naturally and informally with newer students and things would go on smoothl

--there's no trace in our siddhanta for the fact that siksa requires different skills form diksa. All our scriptural injunctions speak about guru. Guru is frst of all fit for teaching, then, secondarily, he gives initiation. So "informally" and "guru" or "siksa guru" are two words than do not combine together. One who is not fit to be our real transcendental guru but he gives to us suggestions and advices, and we feel ourselves free to choose if these instructions are good or bad, he's not a siksa guru, he's a friend.. maybe senior.. but a friend not a guru.

 

If one or more of them started to take on a initiating guru relationship with some of them as dictated by the Lord in the heart of guru and disciple then they could just rent a house apart for guru puja etc. while still working with and within ISKCON

--this is not a great problem and there's no need to make ISKCON a guruless math... if a man is really worshipable as guru, there's no need to relegate his worship in private (this is the very idea of SDG in guru reform book), but it would be very nice for everyone to spread this great and nice thing to everyone. If this men is not fot for serving as guru..... better not to worship at all and advice devotees to stop this activity. We have the duty to help people to go back to godhead, if we do not care for the guru-disciple aspect, what we do care for? for the color of the kurta, for chocolate and mushrooms?

 

Is there something wrong with this idea? If so please enlighten me.

--the idea is the ancient one... if we are sincere krsna sends to us a sincere guide, if we are not sincere krsna sends nothing or a fake (in my case i have no merits or good karma.. it is only mercy)

 

As it is this guru falling down and creating havoc problem has become institutionalized and will not stop.

-when we are young and our father dies (=disappears), some brother takes the role of father.. if no one feels himself fit, we go to the uncles to ask them to protect us as fathers. Very simple... this has not done... and it is not done

 

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

the "blame" for the condition we find ourselves in rests firmly with us, but that does not mean we should face all life's tribulations alone, in a needlessly hostile institutional environment. that is why SP established his Society in the first place.

 

just as ISKCON could have done better with respect to the guru/initiation issue, perhaps Satsvarupa's disciples could have done better too. there is no deflection of blame - only an indication that possibly more could have been done to avoid this problem altogether.

 

anyway, it is just my personal opinion, and I'm not very attached to it /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kulapavana 0]

"if we are sincere krsna sends to us a sincere guide, if we are not sincere krsna sends nothing or a fake"

 

according to this formula, seems like a huge (more than 90% ?) percentage of post-Prabhupada devotees were nothing but a bunch of insincere pretenders.

 

I think that actually many devotees on both sides of the guru-disciple relationship were sincere, and many of them still are. they still serve Krishna and other Vaishnavas and still continue to make advancement in their devotional life. what choice did "sincere" devotees have under the old zonal acharya nonsense? if you are sincere you will continue your devotional life despite the fact that your guru (or several gurus) fell down.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Such confusion. All in the name of "you must take 'initiation' formally from a "living" guru.

 

 

 

Inspite of this being the case where initiations are being taken (and given) to garner some acceptability in the Vaishnava community, the original intent of having a living guide/guru is very important. It is the Guru who will teach. When one really hankers to get something, then the need for a true Guru is understood. When that hankering is not there, all this Guru business is hogwash and those who realize the hogwash do not feel the need for a teacher.

[AncientMariner 0]

As far as I am concerned Srila Prabhupada is a living guru.

[Guest guest]

As I said, this is a matter of hankering, not argument. When the need arises, when you want so badly what you want, no argument is satisfactory.