Social: How can one give long term support to serious criminals and still become a GBC or guru?

This brings us to the eternal question:"Who is guru?"
As the swami in question got sannyasa initiation from a fallen guru![Kirtanananda],involved in criminal activities,that are not yet completely solved,as there have been multiple murders,including children.
The criminal,jailed for life[Tom Dresher] was awarded sannyasa in jail,and is now a preacher for prisoners.He receives many visits from former New Vrndaban residents.
Other friends of Kirtanananda are still in power,enjoying salary of $80,000/year as president of NVrindaban temple.
http://tirthainprison.com

My godbrother Ramacandra recently told me he asked Radhanath back in 1986 if he knew who it was who murdered Sulochan. Radhanath is said to have replied, "I don't know, but whoever it was, was doing the will of Krishna." There were others who were privy to more incriminating conversations; one of Bhaktipada's servant/drivers, and another, a former gurukula boy, were witness to some of these conversations detailing the orders to destroy the demon. Both spoke to me recently but were extremely reticent to speak what they know outright, perhaps because of fear for their own safety. They lived through those times of fanatical devotion and saw the hideous results of such devotion. Perhaps they fear that it is better for them, both materially or spiritually, to keep quiet and out of the limelight. I cannot blame them, and I respect their desire to remain anonymous. I believe if Radhanath was actually involved as a key player in these activities, as Janmastami claims, and as others have collaborated, his pain today must be very very great, because he is not a megalomaniac like Bhaktipada, who actually believed he was Prabhupada's Only Son and Pure Devotee Savior of the World. I think Radhanath understands his position as lower than the straw in the grass, and he must bitterly regret any past activities enacted under the dark spell of illusion and ignorance. Of course, I cannot speak directly for Radhanath. Perhaps the years of serving as an initiating spiritual master himself and accepting adoring disciples may have subtly changed his vision. Perhaps he feels that he has a responsibility to protect ISKCON and his disciples. I do not know. I can only hope and pray that he continues to serve Prabhupada as a humble Vaishnava, but perhaps more importantly, that he not continue to hide anything which, if discovered in the future, might serve to discredit himself and ISKCON. I say if a sincere seeker of the truth finds in Radhanath the inspiration he needs to reject material life and accept the path of Bhakti Yoga, I recommend he go for it. But please make sure you understand that the worship you give to your guru is for Krishna. Guru is like the postman, delivering Krishna. At least that is what we hope. Your Fallen Servant

There's also Sulochan's as well as Charles St. Denis's son..[both found dead].Demons?
or dangerous witnesses?

mishra prabhu asked:
"Just a question out of curiosity: Do you still think Sulochana was a demon and he deserved to be killed? Does Radhanath Swami think like that too? "

as hrishikesh prabhu has pointed out, only radhanath can say what he thinks now,
and publicly, he's not speaking on these matters. legally, he can't. not if he values his freedom to come and go in the US&A, WITHOUT revealing how it is that he managed to avoid prosecution when many with far less involvement than him were
subpeonaed. everyone else at his upper level of involvement has been prosecuted
and convicted. i fear that those taken into his "inner circle" will face the same crisis of faith when faced with insurmountable evidence proving the "less than infallability" of their "Gurudev". still, the alternative, looking the other way, is not acceptable.
their presumably "infallible Guru"

Where does the idea that His Holiness Radhanatha Swami is "infallible" come from? He is of the category of jiva, or tatastha-sakti. By definition he is fallible. Only Krishna is Acyuta, "Infallible". The fact that we are here in the material world is proof not only of our fallibility, but of our fall.

So any initiating spiritual master that you take official initiation from is of the category of fallible living entity. As you take siksha you should take it from someone who is connected with the spiritual line at the time they give it, and you can ascertain this from their personal behaviour and by measuring their instructions against the standards of sadhu and sastra.

I would be careful about overemphasizing the role and position of Guru. It's that exclusive reliance on the guru and the unrealistic expectation that he is infallible that lead to the whole deviated culture of the 80's and 90's, including the Kirtanananda cult.

As it explains in the 11th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam: The Supreme Absolute Truth is one without a second and is described in various ways by different sages. Therefore it is not possible to ascertain the complete truth from only one spiritual master.

It's not meant to be a personality cult. The Guru is a guide. There is a map book also, the scripture, there are other guides, and ultimately it's up to you to walk the path and see where you are going. It doesn't all rely on one single point of failure.

if your choice is to get a madhyama adhikari guru, it is OK for me. Others could not be satisfied with that.
question: Is Srila Prabhupada fallible (as in jiva category, tatastha-sakti.)?
If not, then is it proper to worship your madhyam guru and Srila Prabhupada at the same level?

dave: You'll hear something about everyone, but the question is weather you believe it or not. So how to judge who to believe?

That is exactly the quid: the decision rests on you after pondering all info available and that is why information and education is soooo important. If GBC wants to preserve ISKCON's sanctity in the guru issue, that is what is needed, free flow of information, not guru position appointment and covering up if problems come

mishra:if your choice is to get a madhyama adhikari guru, it is OK for me. Others could not be satisfied with that. question: Is Srila Prabhupada fallible (as in jiva category, tatastha-sakti.)? If not, then is it proper to worship your madhyam guru and Srila Prabhupada at the same level?

Worship of guru is not based on the level he is on. Its based on him being external representation of antaryami and for the development of humility. It was certainly humbling for many to worship KS, Radhanatha admitted that it was very hard to be under him, but was it not the will of god?

mishra:

Worship of guru is not based on the level he is on. Its based on him being external representation of antaryami...

I will worship Sai Baba and will become the most humble then, and of course will be the will of God... Thank you for the tip!!

It has nothing to do with the level, but has everything to do with guru being in right line and not deviating. He can be uttama-uttama, madhyama-uttama, kanistha-uttama, uttama-madhyama, madhyama-madhyama and the type and level of worship by the disciple will not change just because of the level, of course he should be a vaisnava guru, Sai Baba is not a devotee, so he is not on any level...

key point in the wording of this question, "long term support"
and therefore the BG 9:30 defense does not hold by virtue of the warning Srila Prabhupada issues in His purport,
"No one should take advantage of this verse and commit nonsense and think that he is still a devotee. If he does not improve in his character by devotional service, then it is to be understood that he is not a high devotee."

so the question then becomes one of defining what is "accidental falldown" and what is "long term". and if, after knowing of k swa's deviations and continuing behavior since the mid, or even the early, 1980's, whether not reacting negatively to such behavior until after the mid 1990's, and then only in furtherance of their own agenda, be that "supporting Srila Prabhupada's original mission" or not,
was "the proper course of action". that remains for each devotee to decide on their own, knowing the facts.

[quote][cite] kes:[/cite]quote from sitapati:

I would be careful about overemphasizing the role and position of Guru. It's that exclusive reliance on the guru and the unrealistic expectation that he is infallible that lead to the whole deviated culture of the 80's and 90's, including the Kirtanananda cult.

I find this advice very difficult to take since Srila Prabhupada clearly says in The Nectar of Instruction "Therefore a disciple should be CAREFUL to accept an uttama -adikari as a spiritual master." It seems to me that at present we have infallible spiritual masters in Iskcon, and the our philosophy is being changed to make things fit in.[/quote]

Up to and including the stage of bhava, the penultimate stage of development of love of god, one can still fall down. Maharaja Bharata is the example of this. In the stage of prema one can no longer fall back.

Unless your guru is a nitya-siddha, the odds are that he is fallible.

The difference between a madhyama-adhikari and a uttama-adhikari is that a madhyama-adhikari may give up. They have faith, and they have strong scriptural knowledge. They have reason on their side, in addition to faith. A kanistha has faith, but not strong reasoning.

The weakness of the madhyama-adhikari, however, is that he relies to a certain extent on reason to support his faith, and thus he may be reasoned out of his faith, especially by his own mind if it wants to justify an anartha.

An uttama-adhikari, however, is beyond reasons. Here's an example of an uttama-adhikari: a reporter asks Srila Prabhupada, "What would you do if you found out that Krishna wasn't God?" Srila Prabhupada smiles and replies: "I would do the same thing, because I'm happy."

An uttama-adhikari may fall down, or be seen to fall down, but this is prarabdha-karma or special arrangement of the Lord for his purification, and he does not give up his determination.

I think the question, in the case of Radhanatha Swami's eligibility to hold an official position, is more a social one. My personal reading of him is that he is sincere, and capable of giving good guidance in the application of the process. The question is really one of "what will people think?"

The fact is that most ISKCON gurus come from an incredibly sinful and disqualified personal background according to the Vedic standard. Again, we have to use discriminating power. Categories are there to aid us in discrimination if it is difficult to discriminate at that level. And that's what the official rubber stamp is - it's a category to aid you to discriminate. However, even the GBC, who do the rubber stamping, freely admit that it's ultimately up to you and at your own risk. They admit that the official GBC endorsement is not a guarantee.

If you have doubts then stay away. Find someone that you have no doubts in. Ultimately my realization is that we know that Srila Prabhupada isn't going to fall down, so repose your faith in him, and connect yourself with a serious advanced practitioner who is following him and can aid you to balance out the insincerity that creeps in and makes us blind to our own faults and mistakes.

That's the role of guru. As Kripamoya explained recently, it's like a doctor and the nurses. Srila Prabhupada is the doctor, the current ISKCON gurus are like nurses, helping with the administration of the treatment plan given by the doctor.

From the comments of Sitapati, it seems the ritvik philosophy is perhaps correct.

[quote][cite] kes:[/cite]From the comments of Sitapati, it seems the ritvik philosophy is perhaps correct.[/quote]

Kes, Ritvik-vada, which is more than a philosophy but is also a social and organizational doctrine, is based on a kernel of truth.

The guru should always feel themselves to be nothing more than a stand in for their own guru. "I have no personal qualification except that I am following the orders of my guru." Srila Prabhupada expressed this inner sentiment out loud on many occasions.

This is the internal mood of a devotee who is discharging the service of guru. Having this internal mood makes them a transparent via medium. Because this was missing in the Zonal Acaryas, the Ritvik-vada has developed as an external means of enforcing this idea. A guru should internally have a ritvik conception ("I am simply representing my guru, who is the real source of mercy"), and the external system should follow our tradition.

I think the easiest thing is to pull a definition of uttama adhikari, their qualities and how they act personally in all humbleness.
The problem I find with your statements above (not you) is how to apply jnana into vijnana: the philosophy in our practical lives.
If one takes the humble statements of the pure devotee as a proof of their limited scope and then it translates that to the current gurus, isn't that kind of strange sleight of hand to explain OUR famous real problems?
In any case why you quote Srila Prabhupada's humble statement? To back up what exactly? Please explain.

Many took direct initiation from Srila Prabhupada-I don't know the exact figures:5000?]helped by assistants in some cases,who performed the ceremony and even chose the names of the devotees.The reason was that Srila Prabhupada was constantly on travel,but relied on his disciples to make new ones.From these 5000,how many are left practicing Krsna Consciousness?

Maybe we forget that going up to the top of of the ladder of devotional service is not for the masses,but only for a few?Still everyone is gradually advancing,even if we stumble in our sadhana,make mistakes but the big problem is those who are in top positions of the Movement,and obviously ,have not understood or do not wish to understand the orders of the Founder Acarya,but prefer to speculate their own ways of management,profit from the assets difficultly earned and rich disciples' donations,while full time devotees are decreasing and large sections of the planet ignored,due to mismanagement.

Don't claim you are following Srila Prabhupada in saying he was an nitya-siddha.

You either follow Prabhupada and accept him as he presented himself and asked us to accept him (Prabhupada As He Is), or you go your own way.

There is great philosophical danger in "glorifying" Prabhupada in ways he never taught us to. Something to do with advancing more than your spiritual master..?

If it was good enough for Prabhupada to present himself one way, I will not become so great that I will present him another way. That is called ati-vada, becoming more advanced than the spiritual master.

Prabhu, the other thing is that I do not equate Prabhupada with the current spiritual master's position. That's an artifact of your own thinking.

The point is that Prabhupada presented that we could all follow the process he followed and get the same result.

It's like Jesus said: "Become like me."

Modern Christians will say that: "No-one can be like Jesus." That's philosophically incorrect, and not what Jesus himself taught, and asked from his followers.

Everyone has the potential to achieve the perfection that Srila Prabhupada demonstrated, and that's what we have to do, following in his footsteps.

Now, where each person is relatively in doing that is one thing, and I'm not making any judgement calls on that here, simply spelling out the philosophical framework.

I think nowadays the mood is mainly the following: To downsize the greatness of Srila Prabhupada, using such things as his view of himself, doubting the power of his books, etc and exaggerating the qualities of the current "acaryas". These seem to me go strangely hand by hand. And next time your spiritual master says he is fallen or something humble about himself, please take it literally, not as a product of his vaishnava character. Perhaps if he insists on being fallen (out of humility) you must consider abandon him. (to better follow his instructions).
(This comment is for the sake of argument, not a personal balance)

OK, a personal comment:

There are ISKCON gurus that I have observed and said: "I'll stay away from that guy."

Some have publicly had difficulties, others continue in their service.

As I said, the GBC stamp is no guarantee. It's up to you to be able to discriminate. Don't become angry and reject everything blindly because you accepted, or see people accepting blindly. Become qualified to be a bona-fide disciple by being able to tell who is a bona-fide guru.

Dear Misra Prabhu,

A request. According to Vedic standards of debate the way to counter argue is to say:

"What you say is... is that correct?"

"Yes."

"OK, so my point is..."

Rather than saying: "What you are saying is (something that I am thinking) so therefore..."

In this case I do not equate the process of Krishna consciousness with an institution, which you have mistakenly done here, and then ascribed it to me.

Within ISKCON they are institutions within institutions. You can participate in different yatras, you can participate in different groups within yatras. There are many leaders, many moods, many organizational styles.

So you can move around in ISKCON to find somewhere where you are comfortable. Or you can hang out at home and visit your local temple, or start your own sanga, or open your own center. Whatever you want. The point is that you don't make the mistake of thinking that the social tradition or an institutional organization is the process. That's the mistake of the kanistha-adhikari. He cannot separate form from substance because of a lack of developed discrimination.

As far as being able to copy and paste this explanation from various places, if you take the time to actually process it you'll find some value in it, and no you can't copy and paste it from anyone except here. I know you didn't read it because in the last one I placed (according to my personal perception) Srila Prabhupada and current ISKCON spiritual masters in two different categories.

Please don't keep restating what I say, and misrepresenting it.

Your point, if I understand it, is that you think I am saying Srila Prabhupada and the current ISKCON spiritual masters are on the same level. Please correct me if this is wrong.

If I am right, and this is what you are saying, then I have to say, "Sorry prabhu, that's not what I'm saying. Please read it again."

All is said on my part about this. I guess we both have to reread our points and hope we have learned something. Haribol!

How can one give long term support to serious criminals and still become a GBC or guru? that's a " no-brainer ", just go ahead and support them,who is going to say anything about it?

Aren't we all a bunch of serious criminals for being in the material world in the first place.

The question is too vague.

Deena, you might get more clarity in your question if you have more clarity on why you are asking it. You can't separate the questioner from the question and the possibility of having it answered satisfactorily.

What you are seeking is to satisfy something within yourself through asking this question. It's not the answer to the question that you seek, but the satisfaction of that thing. When you know what that thing is, then you will be able to find the answer you are looking for.

It's pretty zen, but that's what's going on.... :-)

In fact, that seems to be what's going on with a few questions here...

'Saktyavesa' has quite a broad definition range. E.g.:

- preaching empowerment:

Generally the eternal associates of the Lord in the spiritual sky do not come to the material world. Sometimes they come, however, by the order of the Lord—not to hold any administrative post, but to associate with the Lord in person or to propagate the message of God in human society. Such empowered representatives are called çaktyäveça-avatäras, or incarnations invested with transcendental power of attorney. (SB 3.5.21p.)

The Caitanya-caritämåta states that in the Age of Kali the only spiritual function is to broadcast the holy name of the Lord, but this function can be performed only by one who is actually empowered by Lord Kåñëa. The process by which a devotee is thus empowered is called äveça, or sometimes it is called çakty-äveça. (CC 1.10.59p.)

- srsti/pralaya empowerment:

Since Lord Çiva is in charge of annihilation, why should he be approached for protection, which is given by Lord Viñëu? Lord Brahmä creates, and Lord Çiva annihilates, but both Lord Brahmä and Lord Çiva are incarnations of Lord Viñëu and are known as çaktyäveça-avatäras. They are endowed with a special power like that of Lord Viñëu, who is actually all-pervading in their activities. Therefore whenever prayers for protection are offered to Lord Çiva, actually Lord Viñëu is indicated, for otherwise Lord Çiva is meant for destruction. Lord Çiva is one of the éçvaras, or the controllers known as çaktyäveça-avatäras. Therefore he can be addressed as having the qualities of Lord Viñëu. (SB 8.7.21p.)

another point regarding the "transfer of funds", it did not happen as per the indictment. radhanath collected the laxmi from dharamatma and brought it to k swa's house, where k swa counted it, thereby putting his fingerprints on it (as were radhanath's and dhar's) and the following morning radhanath delivered it to his center in kent, ohio where the assassins were hastily trying to plot an escape.
they were arrested as they went to the bank at 9 AM to transfer the cash into travellers checks but they had been followed for the entire time BECAUSE THE FBI HAD SET SULOCAN UP TO BE KILLED BY NV including allowing kuladri and gaura shakti to look through and tape record the contents of sulocan's personal diary that had been locked up with his other personal effects on his arrest for the weapons possession. the assassination of sulocan, orchestrated by the US government and carried out by randall gorby and the wheeling FBI office, using the NV devotees as pawns in their game, was a brain child of ron reagan's attorney general, edwin meese in their plan to remove all cults with membership of more than 25 people who they saw as a threat to the american lifestyle. after the 20 year time period, all these records should be available under the freedom of information act.