Social: [Closed] Are the present "Gurus" Uttama Adhikari?"

Kula-pavana prabhu, again you are speaking to a point other than the one I have made.

There is no disagreement that a spiritual master in ISKCON must be following 4 regs and chanting 16 rounds.

The point is this: when a person who has been doing this, and has been authorized as a spiritual master, and has been accepted by disciples is found to be engaged in avaisnava behaviour, how are is the situation to be handled?

This is the issue that we are discussing. Not "what are the standards for ISKCON gurus". We know what these are. The question is: "how do we deal, in a mature and personal way, when a devotee is having trouble, and that devotee is (our) initiating spiritual master?"

The sastra explains that the duty of the disciple is to engage with their spiritual master in a process to help them get back on track, and that ***they are not to reject them out of hand***. That's the whole point that started this discussion.

If we want to start to talking about "someone else's spiritual master" or "from an institutional perspective" without considering "what do *I* do when my bona fide spiritual master has trouble" then we have gone from the purely personal realm into a more impersonal, abstract consideration.

If we don't discuss it on the basis of sadhu and sastra, but instead on the basis of "what makes sense" (without reference to the specific guidelines that have been given addressing this situation) then it is a departure from our traditional pramana.

That's my point about the subtle but dangerous shift. We're not talking about an institution here. We're talking about what you or I should do if our initiating spiritual master deviates from sad-acar. My point is this: take shelter of the process explained by Narahari Sarkar.

It has nothing to do with changing any standards.

sitapati:If we want to start to talking about "someone else's spiritual master" or "from an institutional perspective" without considering "what do *I* do when my bona fide spiritual master has trouble" then we have gone from the purely personal realm into a more impersonal, abstract consideration.

What you describe is just as much abstract and theoretical approach to guru fall-down as the strict policy I expect from ISKCON as an institution. I can tell you how I dealt with the deviation an fall-down of my diksa guru but it is irrelevant in this discussion. You actually expect a disciple to question his or her guru about his behavior or teachings in some solitary place in order to help him turn back on track? In the past that approach was seldom used and it never worked even when guru was chastized by his peers (Godbrothers). Worse yet, many disciples were intimidated, humiliated, thrown out of the temples, or otherwise adversly affected whenever they attempted to question guru's behavior. Sulocana dasa was even murdered for having the "audacity" to criticize Kirtanananda, with his murder directly arranged by the deviant "guru". What you propose is so absurd in the present day context I'm actually shocked you are serious about it. Over the years every such fall-down was kept secret for as long as possible by the GBC and Iskcon management in general, and as a result these fallen people kept initiating and preaching as if nothing happened often for several years. That ruined ISKCON reputation and in some respect turned us into a bogus, showbottle religion. What you propose is simply more of the same nonsense we have seen in the past, in the name of "following the shastra"... No wonder few people here agree with you on that issue.

To Sitapata; You consistantly say that you are quoting from guru, sadhu and satstra.
(The Standard) Yet, the lack of you quoting the Guru Srila Prabhupada, or even mentioning Him regarding this subject matter disqualifies your statements as being accurate, and therefore incomplete. They are in fact just sadhu and sastra quotes, and quotes from Narahari Sarkar. The Guru (Srila Prabhupada), is a vital component in this equation. Is it not? This absolutely necessary component Guru (Srila Prabhupada) is absent therefore, your statements are moot. Furthermore, having sastra be the exclusive form of measurement for this and other issues is not the prescribed method according to my understanding. If so, please show me prabhu. Hare Hrsna...All glories to Prabhupada.

Priyavrata, you asked a question. You got the answer.

I feel you are unable to accimilate information or possibly can not understand it. There are three kinds of uttama bhaktas. Not all ISKCON gurus or our sampradaya acaryas are on that level. Please read the quote from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu that was summaried very early by Prabhupada: Though all of the devotees of the different forms of the Lord are in the same category, still it is said that those who are devotees of Lord Krsna are the topmost in the list of all devotees.

Priyavrata das: What category you think _your guru_ falls in from the three examples below?

(1) Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta After giving up the gross material body, those who have perfected themselves through the practice of bhakti obtain sac-cid-ananda spiritual forms, which are just suitable for the service of the Lord as associates (parsadas). Such persons are the best of all uttama-bhagavatas.

(2) Nirdhuta-kasaya
Those who, although still residing within the gross material body made of five elements, have no trace of material desire (vasana) nor any material impressions (samskaras) within their hearts are called nirdhuta-kasaya (those who have thrown off all material impurities). They belong to the intermediate class of uttama-bhagavatas.

(3) Murcchita-kasaya
Those siddha-mahapurusas pursuing the path of bhakti in whose hearts there remains a trace of desire (vasana) and impressions (samskaras) based on the material mode of goodness are known as murcchita-kasaya. Due to influence of their bhakti-yoga, these desires and impressions remain in a dormant or unconscious state. As soon as there is a favourable opportunity, their worshipful object, Sri Bhagavan, somehow causes their desire to be consumed and attracts them to His lotus feet. Such elevated souls belong to the preliminary stage (kanistha) of uttama-bhagavatas

Devarsi Narada is an example of the topmost uttama-bhagavata. Sukadeva Gosvami belongs to the intermediate stage of uttama-bhagavatas (nirdhuta-kasaya). Sri Narada in his previous birth as the son of a
maidservant is an example of the preliminary stage of uttama-bhagavatas
(murcchita-kasaya).

Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu

Priyavrata wrote:<<already have all the answers and know everything.>>

It was you who asked the question in the first instance. . .

I just wanted to hear you confirmation on what level "you think" your guru is (being the topmost uttama adhikari) is he:
(1) Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta
(2) Nirdhuta-kasaya
(3) Murcchita-kasaya

I assume you think he is Bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta, uttama-uttama, e.g. on the same level as Devarsi Narada thus more advanced then Vyasadeva, Sri Narada and Sukadeva Goswami.

ccd: you want us to tag and categorize the whole parampara?
fools go where angels dont dare....
deena: as sad as it is, THAT is what transpires and is being mostly perceived by the inquisitive people of the world about us.

Deena prabhu:

"Guru can enjoy in a materially and spiritually deviant way and still be considered a guru."

I'm not sure if that was in reference to something that I said.

My point is that a human being in the role of guru may deviate, but can be rectified.

This relies on having a proper personal setup, which means the relationship between guru and disciple should be personal, and not institutional.

I think if we want an institutional, impersonal guru then we really do need some uber-acarya.

However, in practice we are better off working with someone in a realistic fashion, and luckily our tradition provides that in the form of Sanatana Prabhu's Hari Bhakti Vilasa and Narahari Sarkar's Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita.

deena:Interesting institutional philosophical positions: 1. Guru can enjoy in a materially and spiritually deviant way and still be considered a guru. 2. For being envious of Krishna, the jiva is kicked out of Vaikuntha. Put the two together and you get a philosophy that says: In the material world a jiva can be a sense enjoyer and still be a guru, but in the spiritual world, for a moment of enviousness the jiva is sent to millions of lifetimes of punishment. Is this the Vaisnava philosophy?

There is notion of perfection put on guru, as if he MUST be perfect to be guru. Thats a mayavadi idea of an omnipotent guru.

There is no requirement of perfection from guru besides representing the perfect in parampara. So requirement is to represent Krsna and know science of Krsna. Some gurus who are sampradaya acaryas are uttama adhikaris, they can not fall. All, until the stage of prema can fall due to bad association. Symptom of bhava is that even if one falls - he very quickly comes to the same platform.

sitapati: So I advocate for following our tradition. You have a personal relationship with your guru. You personally examine his character, and if he has trouble you stick with him and help him out until it reaches the hopeless point, then you walk away. This is 2008 and there are devotees that you can work with like that. There are still rock star acaryas as well, but it's up to each individual to find their guru personally. Off-loading that responsibility on an "institution" is not a good idea, because yes, the institutional rubber stamp is no guarantee.

There are no guarantees, period. Either from the institution or from our own initial verification. That verification must happen on both levels (institutional as well as individual), and must always be there, not just in the beginning, as things always change. The "rock star guru" style was invented by Srila Prabhupada's disciples for their guru because this is what they were used to: observing rock or movie stars and their groupies. Srila Prabhupada accepted that style because he wanted to impress upon their disciples the importance of following a guru. He even changed the tradition to include a daily guru-puja ceremony, which was to be performed in front of the Deities, clearly going against the scriptural injunctions. How do you think that affected the perception of guru later on? Was it in line with our tradition? How many of SP disciples got to spend a year with him in close contact? Was authorizing his disciples to initiate on his behalf (chanting on their beads, chosing names, etc.) in line with our tradition? How about using taped Gayatri mantra for second initiations? Srila Prabhupada departed from the tradition in numerous important ways, underscoring the need to evaluate our tradition in a dynamic way, and setting presedents for his disciples. Yes, this 2008 and we definitely need to learn how to judge things by the results they produce, because not all of these things proved themselves to be useful.

My take is:

.--> wrong philosophical assumptions --> thwarted social milieu --> peer and social pressure

I might be wrong, that is why I ask Sitapati Prabhu.

Real mercy and respect for the soul Kirtananada "Swami" would be NOT to honor him as guru, on the plea of our eternal identity with Krishna cause that drives him to continue to think he is guru, that he is right after ALL the wrong he did and does, philosophically, managerially, and morally.

Please, read the real story about KS abandoning Srila Prabhupada in the early days, his deviant philosophy and practices, his continuous fall-down, devotees and child abuse, etc. Forms part of history and you seem not to accept or learn from that.

You mix pears and apples, here. We have to be taking decisions based on our level of understanding not on some platform that we do not even dream of having in this life.

What you are doing is violence on him and he should count you and people like you as enemies for his spiritual ultimate advancement.

Following your train of though would be contrary to our philosophy, more concrete, a deviation.

This is comically, the mood you have imbibed from him, that borders into sahajahism.

Sorry to be so direct, but I do it in pursue of REAL spiritual advancement.

Do you remember the example of the tiger? It is a pure spirit soul, but who will be sane to embrace it?

Lord Caitanya did, but He is God and could also do so many things we can't.

If you became initiated by KS, that is your misfortune, do not try to asses that as some kind of pastime, but again it is normal to try to asses some kind of good out of it, as we identify our guru with ourselves .

The only good KS has done to you is that now you know who NOT to approach as spiritual master.. or maybe not even that.

Houston, we have a problem. Come down to earth, spaceship.

Guys, you've missed the point that I am making with this statement.

Kulapavana prabhu, I feel that you have not understood what I said.

First of all, it has nothing to do with "Zonal Acarya brainwashing".

I did not say that Kirtanananda Swami "is a nitya-siddha who came here as part of his lila to deliver fallen souls."

What I am saying is this: you and I are relating with each other right now. We are doing that as a mixture of our present conditioned nature, and our underlying identity as krsnera-nitya-dasa, which is becoming progressively revealed to us. We are in the abhasa of nitya-lila right now. That is the nature of devotional service in the material world. As Swami B.V. Tripurari comments on the verse: "Of the non-permanent there is no factual existence, and of the eternal there is no change" - whoever is around us in ISKCON right now is going to be there forever, so we had better figure out how to get along.

Just as in the unmanifest lila there are no demons, similarly in the spiritual sky there are none of the inebrieties that appear in our relationships in this world. However, the same persons are there in their pure state, and the spiritual relationships that are glimpsed in their shadow form in this world, are fully manifested there.

Yes, Kirtanananda has his place in the spiritual world, and so do you, and so do I.

This is my point.

So while it may appear that a person is a madhyama-adhikari or other designation, this merely indicates the degree to which they have woken up to their spiritual identity. These designations are circumstantial and temporary. They change over time.

When you said: "Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship. So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear." you made it clear that you believe we all fell from Krsna-lila where K-swami has a superior position and thus he now acts as a guru for your wife - and that is precisely what the "zonals" were always preaching.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]When you said:

"Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship. So similarly we will reestablish our relationship with our eternal associates in each life progressively as we all become purified from the illusory conception, and then everything that has happened will become clear."

you made it clear that you believe we all fell from Krsna-lila where K-swami has a superior position and thus he now acts as a guru for your wife - and that is precisely what the "zonals" were always preaching.[/quote]


Dear prabhu, again I do not think that you have accurately understood or represented my position.

As for what I "believe" in this respect....

Different acaryas have described the nature of the jiva's contact with material nature in different ways at different times to different audiences because not everybody will be satisfied with the same answer.

I do not believe anything in this regard, although I have studied the different presentations given in various circumstances by Srila Prabhupada, by GBC scholars, by Bhaktivinode Thakura in Jaiva Dharma etc...

The point I am making here is simply this: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.

The eternal identity of the personality that we see in this moment as Kirtanananda Swami is that he is an eternal servant of Krishna. His identity as Kirtanananda Swami and the activities that he has performed are circumstantial and temporary. Thus they have no permanent existence.

Of the five factors described in the Bhagavad-gita, four are eternal and only karma is beginningless (as confirmed in Vedanta-sutra) but not eternal.

Therefore the identity of each living entity is eternally nitya krishna dasa. Including Kirtanananda Swami.

As far as whether the specific identity of the living entity, their svarupa, is inherent or imparted - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati claimed that his guru told him that his spiritual form would be revealed to him through the chanting of the maha-mantra, thus making siddha-pranali initiation unnecessary.

So from this our philosophical understanding is that the svarupa of the jiva is already present. Whether we are using the "fall from the spiritual world" narrative, or the generated from tatasha-sakti and nitya-baddha (eternally conditioned) narrative - our understanding is that each of us has within us our eternal spiritual identity, and self-realization is the process of re-discovering that.

"sita pati uvaca: "As far as whether "a child molester"
(alleged or actual) can enter the spiritual
realm, the power of Bhakti is such that it can
destroy more sins than you can commit."

analysis: the "alleged or actual" quote (a gratuitous 'innocent until convicted' foil tossed into the discussion) reveals either a complete and utter naivete of the facts
or a deliberate disingenous presentation. could it be that sitapati's good wife did not practice the obligatory one year period of association that he has so vocally demanded all adhere to in order to receive the benefits of the relationship with such a "spiritual leader"? is he willing to send his spiritual responsibility, his son prahlad, into k swa's newly established den of iniquity that he operates from in hrsikesh? "eternal relationship, eh?"



"That's not a license to commit sins on the strength
of the Holy Name, but the statement that you
just made "that a child molester can enter the
spiritual world" is trivial."


response; yet, under the present circumstances, that is EXACTLY what these charlatans are using Srila Prabhupada's mission for. they have attemted to trivialize the offenses that they , and those others they have chosen to protect, have commited. we should even tolerate rape of our own person, without protesting, but we SHOULD NEVER EVER ALLOW THOSE KINDS OF OFFENSES
TO HAPPEN TO THOSE WE CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR "PROTECTING". anyone who does this and claims to be "a kastriya" or even "a devotee" is kidding themselves, and others, and should be seen as a pretender. child rapers are not to be "forgiven" as "an example" until a number a conditions(remorse, restitution, etc.) have been fully met and the child abuse settlement and the distressing fact that little or no individuals were prosecuted for such heinous activity is one of the most unseemly blights on the ISKCON of 2008. committing sinful activity on the strength
of the chanting of the Holy Name is the GREATEST OFFENSE, and many do that to this day.

"Mrgari the hunter is an example of a person of extremely sinful
nature who was redeemed and entered the
spiritual world by the power of Bhakti,
specifically Nama prabhu and sadhu-sanga.
Ajamila is another. "

response: Srimad Bhagavatam examples, dhruva and bharata, achieving success in one and three births, are noted for their rarity. even the cited example, ajamila, did not "go back to Godhead", as the ISKCON myth sometimes portrays events, rather he was simply recycled into the
jiva pools that flow from The Godhead. the false representation that some individuals are "free from karma", or "able to take the karma of the entire universe" is both utterly false (and therefore 'a lie', whether one intended it as such or not) and of dubious spiritual origin. good luck pursuing such a line of thinking.

<<sitapati prabhu: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.>>

The problem we have with this simple definition, is that based on it you draw a conclusion that Mrigari the Hunter definitely goes back home to Godhead, something one can get only after hundreds of lifetimes of austerity OR pure chanting of the holy names following the mercy of a Vaisnava. Its not just because your svarup is krsnadasa, therefore you will end up at Goloka, its only if you be so nice as to act on this and achieve the svarupa-siddhi, only then you will join other rare souls there, by their mercy. We should not ever think that its automatic.

So just because every child molester is by his svarupa a servant of krsna, he will go back to Godhead- a wrong attitutude, as there is long road from svarupa to svarupa-siddhi, when you get the rupa. Huge huge difference..

Its not impossible for bhakti, but is not a guaranteed effect of a namabhasa or a namaparadha. No material impediments can stop you, but lack of association with Vaisnavas and lack of desire resulting in pride. My only objections to kirtananada is not his transgressions, but his absolute lack of deep remorse and presence of pride, its only on this basis I assume its impossible for him to develop such rare position as the one of personal associates of Krsna, rare indeed.

Its not that Upadesamrita 1 is the only definition of the qualities of the guru. By that definition a mayavadi sannyasi will be guru of everyone. No, its just a warning to those who want to imitate Rupa, but live like monkeys on the Radha-kund, after all Siddhanta sarasvati following Bhaktivinoda rejected association of the child abusers and pedophiles who pretend to be gurus there.

On the other hand a honest and humble kanistha or madhyama vaisnava is a nice guru, of course its better to have an utttama guru, but who is qualified to follow the footsteps of Madhvacarya?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]<<sitapati prabhu: jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya dasa.

The eternal identity of the living entity is as the eternal servant of Krishna.>>

The problem we have with this simple definition, is that based on it you draw a conclusion that Mrigari the Hunter definitely goes back home to Godhead, ...[/quote]

CCD, I feel you have missed my point here. I am not talking about the process of liberation. I am talking about the fact that everyone has their eternal spiritual identity. The fact that it is eternal means that it exists *right now*. Just like we can see that some days the sky is cloudy and we cannot see the sun, the sun is still there shining purely, it is simply obscured by the clouds, which are not an intrinsic characteristic of the sky, but rather something temporary passing in front of the sun.

Similarly, a person, whoever they may be - Mrgari, Kirtanananda, Sita-pati das, CCD, Janmastami prabhu, whoever, is eternally a pure spirit soul, uncontaminated and with an eternal intrinsic spiritual identity. Due to circumstances that pure spiritual nature and identity is obscured by the passing of karmic clouds - *but it is still there* above the "clouds".

My point is that as we enter into devotional service in practice, which is what we are doing, the clouds begin to thin, and our eternal spiritual nature begins to shine through, and we begin to perceive vaguely not only our own spiritual identity, but also our eternal relationships with others.

Over time and lifetimes of practice the iniquities are purified and the relationships remain.

If you hung out with Kirtanananda Swami in this lifetime, guess what - you'll be hanging out with him forever.

Luckily he's a pure spirit soul underneath the karmic conditioning and in the nitya-lila there are no pastimes with demons or demoniac mentality, which are features of this world.

sitapati: Even Kirtanananda Swami, in spite of his transgressions in this life, is krsnera-nitya-dasa: he has his eternal identity in Krishna-lila. My wife was initiated by him. She has some relationship with him in the eternal realm, and their relationship in this life is part of the abhasa, or shadow manifestation, of that relationship....So it's not that we will take initiation from a madhyama or an uttama adhikari, although these circumstantial appearances will be there. We will take initiation from our eternal spiritual master. That is why he should not be given up out of hand. When he is "rejected", this is also a pastime. The relationship is eternal.

The assumption here is that one is automatically initiated by their eternal spiritual master life after life. However, this is not true. It is highly likely that you have not met them yet, having instead accepted someone that compliments your consciousness. For example: Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, Of course, to search out a guru is very nice. But if you want a cheap guru, or if you want to be cheated, then you will find many cheating gurus. But if you are sincere, you will find a sincere guru. Because people want everything very cheaply, they are cheated." (Science of Self Realization, Ch. 2. Choosing a Spiritual Master-Saints & Swindlers.)

Is it so difficult to reject a proven pedophile, active homosexual, philosophically deviant, nuts case as KS?
Can we condone criminal behaviour as transcendental in the name of being "devotees" and ultimately pure spirit souls?
Oh my, gross ignorance, what is next, virgins in heaven as prize?
It must be something wrong in the "disciple", some kind of sentimentalist distortion of the philosophy, passing as transcendental, to convince oneself that he/she is right, no matter what.
Pull one verse of the millions we have out of context and it will approve ANY activity, even murder.
This is such dangerous tendency, and sitapati is in charge of an ashram? Oh my. God save me.
Anybody, get this lad out of the dangerous street even if a slap is needed, it seems that his "spiritual master" is not capable of it.

1968 April 26 : "It is not possible to say everything in this letter, but you may know he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1968
by letters at April 26, 2008 01:06 PM

borokrsnadasa:is it about Bon Maharaja? I have heard he went off the bhakti path into academic mayavada and included Vivekananda as course material in his schools?

Bon Maharaja was directly authorized to initiate by his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and that is the only opinion that matters. The charge of "going into mayavada" in his case is totally baseless, regardless of what course materials were used in his school. You only need to read his books for proof of his devotional status.

I have no clue (or need to judge) as to what caliber of a devotee was Bon Maharaja. At the very least IMO he was an upper madhyama adhikari, based on his activities and writings that I am familiar with. Rumours and accusations are just that, unless a proof is presented. BSST authorized some (2?) of his sannyasi disciples to give initiation to their own disciples even while BSST was still present in this world. Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj was one of them (he initiated a first Western disciple in GM, an Australian named Burchett) and Bon Maharaja was another.

My god 144 replies!!! I dont know what you are talking about!