Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
sitapati:Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru, although it may indicate that they require some time to rectify themselves (hence the idea of "retirement" from active duty).You can chose anyone to be your guru, even an active homosexual, child abuser, wife beater, thief, or a crook. You can, but why would you want to do that? If ISKCON standards sink to such an abysmal level that people like those listed above are accepted as gurus, then we are no better (and possibly much worse) then Gaudiya Vaishnava apa-sampradayas like Auls, Bauls, Sahajiyas, etc.
My point, again, is that a person experiencing difficulty is alone not sufficient grounds, according to our Gaudiya Vaisnava traditional etiquette, to reject them as guru. There are grounds and boundaries, and they are explained by Narahari Sarkar. They are not arrived at by consensus of conditioned souls based on their common "sense" and with no reference to sadhu and scripture. *That* is apa-sampradaya.I am not so sure that based on one or two arguably vague and unspecific comments of previous acharyas like Narahari Sarkar one can conclude like you did that "having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru". There is little doubt that the standards for accepting someone as a guru set by Srila Prabhupada were very, very high. These standards are not negated by references you quoted. Ultimately it is up a disciple to decide whether his guru is sufficiently qualified to help him on his way to Krsna, but Iskcon as an institution needs to set clear boundaries of acceptable behavior for devotees acting as officially recognized gurus. When you say that an active homosexual person is to be seen as "saksad Hari" by his disciples you are debasing the entire Vaishnava tradition and make a mockery of our doctrine.
sitapati: Once we understand that gurus can and do fall down, we can be more realistic about the situation and how we choose our guru, how we interact with them on an ongoing basis, how to help them to be accountable and avoid the circumstances that lead to difficulties, and how to help them if they do run into difficulties. This will lead to a more healthy institution than continuing to promote the "infallible guru" myth, which actually contributes to guru falldown.I agree with you here, but it is a direct result of the way Srila Prabhupada presents the position of a guru in his writings, and the way his disciples acting as gurus adopted after his passing. If we as a society (ISKCON) adopt a very low standard for our gurus, the new disciples will eventually ask: "Why would I listen to this guy? He is obviously an ordinary man, who has bigger problems then I do?". I talk to new devotees all the time and none of them are even remotely interested in accepting as their guru someone like Umapati, Satsvarupa, or Dhanurdhara. You can quote Narahari Sarkar all you want, but most people are just not buying such reasoning. I'm not buying it either. IMO the above passage refers to a more subtle fall-down then having sex with his disciples. Look at that passage: "But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: ‘A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.’ " Do you really need arguments and logic to convince your guru that having homosexual relations with his disciples is wrong? If you do, then he is a total ignoramus certainly not qualified for his position. Narahari Sarkar is obviously not talking about such situations. And that is why I said that this passage is somewhat vague and unspecific. You probably know that I am not a proponent of ritvik-vada in any way, shape, or form. ISKCON has many qualified and devoted gurus who deserve the respect they get. Unfortunately there are also gurus who are guilty of serious abuses and transgressions and which continue to be a serious problem to our society. They are directly responsible for a terrible crisis of faith and the prominence of ritvik-vada among the members of our society. Thus one serious deviation is followed by another.
sitapati:Kula-pavana prabhu said: "If we as a society (ISKCON) adopt a very low standard for our gurus..." OK, now I get it. You guys are not arguing with my point. You are arguing with something else.Yes, and no. I am saying that for your private use you can attempt to rectify your guru despite what the nature of his anartha might be, because it is a private matter. It is your call. But as an institution, ISKCON does not have that option and must clearly specify the rules. For example the rule might be, that if a person recognized as guru has homosexual relations with his disciples, he is OUT of his job, end of story. If his disciples want to continue their relationship with such a person, it is their own private business, but he can not accept any more disciples and act as a guru in ISKCON temples. Otherwise the abuse of position will continue among the gurus because the standards are vague and they are not punished until things get pretty horrible. By that time the damage to the society is already very severe. That is what I call "adopting very low standards for our gurus". When we look at the past cases of guru fall-downs in ISKCON, a very clear pattern emerges, where the management tries to keep a lid on the story for as long as possible, hoping that the guru rectifies his errors, and when that fails (as it always does) the damage is already enormous and the abuses or transgressions are real nasty. To keep a lid on such stories both gurus and their helpers are forced to lie or even to intimidate people to keep quiet. Thus more damage to the institution is done in the name of helping the guru get straight.
ccd:there is no such a thing as "institutional standards" of being of "uttama adhikari". it was never an institutional requirement (bar the zonal acharya days). what we are dealing now with here is a 'nuclear' fallout from the zonal-acaryas times when every guru must be paramahamsa-sannyasi - if he (not she!) is not as KP said - out of job. guru does not have to be uttama adhikari, paramahamsa etc. anyone can be guru if they know the science of krsna. we keep mixing in acharya or jagat-guru with regular guru concepts.Prabhu, with all due respect... since when the ability of following the 4 regs makes one a paramahamsa? I - and most of the devotees I ever talked to - expect people who act as gurus in ISKCON to at least reliably and verifiably follow the 4 regs and chant 16 rounds. That is definitely a rock bottom standard and requirement. Otherwise, as I stated before, one begins to question what benefit is there in listening to a guy, who can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of our sadhana. Personally I have nothing against senior matajis acting as gurus - it is just not practiced in ISKCON and that is why I did not address the issue in a gender nutral way.
sitapati: I would argue that it is exactly an impersonal "institutional" conception of the guru and the relationship between disciple and guru that is at the root of the problem. It makes people into more than they are and removes the personal accountability that would otherwise help to balance out unhealthy excesses.There is nothing impersonal about requiring that a guru must follow the 4 regs and chant 16 rounds daily if he wants to be considered a guru authorized by ISKCON. You may call it an institutional policy, but please do not use the word impersonal in this context because it is part of our most rudimentary sadhana requirements. Is our sadhana impersonal? Is requiring that gurus in our institution follow the sadhana an impersonal request? Devotees often use such words as a mere propaganda tactic to "fortify" their position. I have an impression that the phrase: "subtle but potentially dangerous shift" is in that category as well. Prabhu, this is not rocket science. It is a very simple and honest approach. If a guru is sexually exploiting his disciples, is a liar and a pretender in his attempts to cover up such abuses, he should not be seen as a guru in our society. Period. What on earth is impersonal about that approach?