Admin. send me an address where I can send the letters, etc. regarding Umapati prabhu. Please send thru my personal address.

Vaisnava audience should pray for all involved so the damage is as minimal as possible.

Abhiram prabhu, what is it that you can see coming? Please share your foresight.

CCD, I don't understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic or what? Why should anyone take initiation from these people you mention directly in order to avoid confusion of living in the real world? What is this confusion of living in the real world you speak of? Don't pull any punches with me, just give it to me straight up Bubba. What exactly do you mean by your comment?

Reading that email1 the letter from Praghosa Prabhu makes so much sense, I feel it would solve so many problems at once, if only those in authority would take note. I do not know Praghosa Prabhu but I hope he can get the pocess put in place in ISKCON, it would mean more choice & honesty for everyone.

yes i am convinced...i will become a ritvik now. thank you!

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). Have a look at this conversation here, around Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita by Srila Narahari Sarkar: http://www.atmayogi.com/node/384#comment-511

"having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru,"
must be "according to time and circumstance", or is that "only in the australlian
yatra" ?

sitapati:

Also, having a homosexual relationship with a disciple is not in itself sufficient grounds to disqualify someone from the role of guru,

prabhu...are you serious????

I agree with sita pati - any evidence should be supported by sastra. I do not think you will find much evidence where bhakti-marge sucess is conditioned by material adhikara. But sastra praman is essential for this sort of discussion, not just translations of the translation of tikas or timpanies, you should refer to sruti or smriti to be conclusive. ys

Just to amplify on that a little bit: This discussion must take place on the basis of sastra, not simply popular sentiment.

The indicated smrti-sastra is Narahari Sarkar's Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita, which I linked to in my original posting.

Many people have a misunderstanding about the role and nature of guru.

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura's initiating guru was Srila Bipin Bihari das Goswami. Heard of him? His name does not appear in the Disiciplic Succession at the start of the Bhagavad-gita. In fact, many of the initiating gurus in our line do not appear there. The reason is that only the most prominent and powerful personalities appear.

What is the implication of this? The implication is that the disciple or student can be more powerful than the guru, and that some gurus are more important in the bigger picture than others. Not all gurus are maha-bhagavat paramahamsas who get in the list. In other words, while every person in that list took initiation from a diksa guru, their diksha guru was not always of the stature to get into the list.

Diksha gurus are human beings. They are also spiritual practitioners of varying strength - hence Narahari Sarkar's comparison of them to waves of different sizes. They are all spiritual, but even so, some are more potent than others. Some may be siddhas. Others are sadhakas. Some may fall from the path, or experience difficulty. Therefore Narahari Sarkar has written about this. He gives the process that a disciple should follow when he observes his guru engaged in activity that he should not be engaged in (such as having an affair with a disciple).

He does not say: "This is proof that that person is bogus and they should be rejected at once!"

The mere fact that he gives a process to deal with situation is evidence that such a situation is not only possible, but actually not at all surprising. It is not expected that all gurus are maha-bhagavat paramahamsas, nor do they need to be.

The process is that the guru should be confronted in private and the inappropriate behaviour respectfully brought to their attention, and the disciple should preach to them to rectify their consciousness.

The disciple should take shelter of devotional service, and previous instructions, his own intelligence, or another senior Vaisnava to maintain himself while he waits for the guru to rectify himself.

This says two things: one is that misbehaviour is possible and not an "i guess you weren't a pure devotee after all, so you weren't a bona-fide guru" affair, and the other is that misbehaviour is not an automatic disqualification (my point).

Narahari Sarkar then explains that if the guru does not rectify himself and develops further symptoms of deviation, mainly based around philosophical misconception, then he should be given up.

One's guru may be of limited spiritual potency and may struggle, but if he is sincere then having accepted him one should not abandon him in difficult times. However, if he is proud and dishonest, and philosophically deviates, then he should be given up.

I'll take Narahari Sarkar's advice over vox populi any day of the week. :-)

You see, for someone to have sexual relations with a disciple, or some other sensual deviation, and still be able to transmit the philosophy properly they have to be able to say:

"This is the philosophy, and I'm out of it. I'm having a really hard time with my senses and I can't make the standard."

This person cannot be rejected but should be supported and helped. On the other hand the person who modifies the philosophy to deny that they have a problem and that they are deviating from the standard has to be rejected if they persist.

In this light, based on the publicly available information that I am aware of I would not have rejected Prthu Prabhu had he been my initiating guru, but I would have rejected Harikesa Swami.

Im still waiting for any clarification (not on jagat-guru but) on regular guru sastric statemnts from smrti/sruti

There are examples of sexual connection between guru disciple in vaisnava line of both Advata and Nityananda lines. Ramacandra Kaviraja on contrary is an example of disciple of the daughter of Srinivasa acarya (who had two consorts) and he started his apa-sampradaya saying that only sannyasi can be a guru.

I wonder if anyone here thinks like that? That only a sannyasi can be a guru and a woman or a young married man can not.

Does anyone here thinks that sudra can not be a guru? (not talking about jagat guru)

ys

CCD:

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krishna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya

"Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra -- regardless of what he is -- he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Krishna."

Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 8.128

So this also relates to the Upadeshamrita verse that Mishra prabhu quoted. That verse is conditional. This verse is universal. The qualification to be guru is to know the science of Krishna. The qualification to be jagat-guru is that given in Upadeshamrita.

I was confused for a little while about your introduction of the term "jagat-guru" - at first I thought you meant "Jagat Guru" (Chris Butler) who was a sannyasi and then married the wife of one of his disciples. Anyway, not to muddy the waters more - I understand that you mean "one who is qualified to make disciples all over the world", as referred to by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Upadeshamrita.

Sexual connection between guru and disciple (except in the case of pati-guru, which means the husband, who is the natural spiritual master of the wife) is socially inappropriate.

In Vedic culture women were not initiated by someone other than their husband. The way that ISKCON has things structured right now introduces a socially distorting factor, but that's a whole other conversation.

Considering Umapati Swami associated intimately with and may have been homosexual before he joined Iskcon, associated with known homosexuals as well as paedophiles (Kirtanananda) for a major part of his time in Iskcon, and as we now know engaged in homosexual acts long after he knew better, do you see any value in him remaing a guru? What is the value of keeping him in that position? What would you suggest as the rectification process for him? I'd like to see the devotees here put their money where there mouth is and send their firstborn sons to the study under Umapati Swami. Your son might get engaged in homosexual acts, but don't worry about that because he'll be learning about Krishna too and anyway Caitanya Mahaprabhu says Maharaja can be a guru.

Why did Satsvarupa have to 'retire,' while Kesahava Bharati 'Goswami' (who fell with a prostitute), has been be allowed to start giving intiations? (last week at Govardhana) It seems to be an inconsistent standard.

Mishra, have you read Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita? It's a book that tells you how to deal with that very situation - when the guru is engaged in behaviour that is inappropriate. Now why do you think that the author, Sri Narahari Sarkar wrote the book?

Sorry to burst the "Guru is God" bubble, but the guru is a human being.

Damodara Priya, yes, of course - that's why we've developed this system of women being initiated by men other than their husband. The whole system is mashed up right now.... However, it has it's implications. I'm not advocating that we should just start mindlessly mimicking the ancient Vedic implementation without taking into account the fact that we live in a completely environment. At the same time, we need to work our way back to a sane human civilization, making necessary adjustments to the insane conditions along the way.

Very nicely put Mishra prabhu. Especially the part where you say, " to elevate that to a practical category, that is demeaning and I would dare to say offensive to the real figure of the guru that is as good as god". I dare to agree. It is demeaning and extremely offensive. Therefore, it naturally manifests into Guru-Aparadha, a very dangerous position. Those implicated in this offense go to a place that had to be specially created by Yamaraja. It is known as Kumbhipaka. One who is sent to this place takes with him ten generations backward and forward. That's the intense gravity of this offense. In any event, I appreciate your wisdom regarding this matter. I applaud you Mishra.

From Narahari Sarkar's Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita:

Verse 59:

"If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava regulative principles then in that case one should in a solitary place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, **but one is not to give him up**. "

You can read the complete text here: http://spirituality.forumup.de/post-169-spirituality.html

This is a very nice book and it describes the fully integrated human experience of bhakti.

To ccd, re the statement of smrti and sruti:

"The Narottama dasa, he has sung so many Vedic songs. Narottama dasa's song, although it is written in Bengali, it is considered as sruti, Vedic. "
" All Vaisnavas, songs are like that, Vedic evidence. "
- Srila Prabhupada

So for us, Narahari Sarkar's book Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita is sruti/smrti evidence.

Mishra prabhu, you speak on the basis of your experience, and that's fine. But this is not about "my experience versus your experience". I'm speaking on the basis of Narahari Sarkar's book.

My statement that the guru is human springs from the contents of that book, and the instructions that Narahari prabhu gives on dealing with the situation of the guru deviating from sad-acar.

The guru is not to be rejected in this situation. He is to be confronted in a solitary place and the disciple should preach to him for his rectification. This is the instruction of Narahari Sarkar.

It's not my statement. It's the statement of the 40th branch of the Caitanya tree.

mishra 1 - sitapati 0

sitapati:

The guru is not to be rejected in this situation. He is to be confronted in a solitary place and the disciple should preach to him for his rectification. This is the instruction of Narahari Sarkar.

just want to add to this... last statement... if the disciple preaches to the guru, doesnt that make him the guru of his guru? which technically still denounces the guruship of a deviant guru...

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, "'Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate.'"

Advocating a shastra quote out of context in opposition to what you call "mental speculation" and I call common sense, is none other that our dreaded brother fanaticism, unless you are a self realized soul.

Try to get the whole picture of Srila Prabhupada's teachings on guru tattva and you will see that your conclusion is nowhere to be found, and it is in fact misleading. Srila Prabhupada himself warned us not jump over his teachings to previous acaryas in our line. He could foresee this conversation.

I´ll ask you a somewhat personal question if you permit...

What is the understanding of your guru, who he is and where it is situated ?
Is he fallible?, Can he fall down? If you do thing like this, I think you haven't understood the guru-disciple principle at all, no matter how many quotes from Sri Narahari you produce.

Is Naraharis book about how to surrender to a fallen guru? How many quotes speak about fallen gurus? But then you forget the millions of quotes extolling the qualities of true guru.

You are focusing in that problem, probably because you are up to the neck on it and you think everybody else will be.
Focus on educating about true guru qualities, and if you find no personality with those qualities, then let there be no initiation. Taking initiation of someone that you think can fall down... well, that is just nonsense.
Better to stay Bhakta John than to buy such a watered-down, filtered, convenient and new age concept of Sri Guru.

and to top it off :)
"A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the intermediate platform (second-class devotee) can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance." - Nectar of Instruction 5, Purport

Probably most of what has been said here if not all, it is truth by itself.
But when applied to present context, your emphasis is detrimental to the health of our movement and mine is probably lot healthier for the time being.
A book? I can write down the whole conversation in my blog for posterity, if you graciously so permit. :)