The tendency of neophyte devotees is because we want to be God, we
want to be great. Therefore, whatever we are connected to we want to
feel that we are the greatest. My guru is the greatest. My line is
the greatest. There is always competition. This is a material
conception.
To you, he might be the greatest, but to someone else, someone else
might be the greatest. Krsna is the greatest. But He may be revealing
Himself to different people in different ways and different times. So
we should honour and respect Krsna how He is manifesting Himself to
different people in different ways.
You see, when we are thinking about Srila Prabhupada, it is not that
we have to be convinced that he is the ultimate, greatest and no one
is equal to or better than him, otherwise how would we have faith and
follow him. What we do know is, he saved us and therefore our
loyalty, our faith and our devotion to him is for eternity - without
second thought. That is why BR Sridhar Maharaja said, “I am worried about your ISKCON movement because you are not afraid of committing vaishnava apparadha.”
-Excerpt from the lecture by radhanath swami
WOW thats awesome. Before I came in contact with Swami, Radhanath Maharaja was one of the main preachers I listened to, it's great to see this. In my assesment he is acting ideal, as in being within the institution, but not spiritually governed by it. And it seems he is training his disciples very nicely. If people that have such a spiritually potent role in ISKCON begin quoting Srila Sridhar Maharaja, there will be no stopping it from filtering down, at least to the second generation!! This is very inspiring and hope-giving, thank you Vivek! :Nail Biting:
WOW thats awesome. Before I came in contact with Swami, Radhanath Maharaja was one of the main preachers I listened to, it's great to see this. In my assesment he is acting ideal, as in being within the institution, but not spiritually governed by it. And it seems he is training his disciples very nicely. If people that have such a spiritually potent role in ISKCON begin quoting Srila Sridhar Maharaja, there will be no stopping it from filtering down, at least to the second generation!! This is very inspiring and hope-giving, thank you Vivek! :Nail Biting:
Nitai you are brilliant for you age of just 18 years. I think good fortune has dawned on you so early in your life. I also have had listened mainly to Radhanath swami before coming to Maharaja and he has instructed his disciples to continue to take siksha from dhanurdhar swami even if he is out of ISKCON.
...and he has instructed his disciples to continue to take siksha from dhanurdhar swami even if he is out of ISKCON.
That is very nice. I just noticed that Sripad Dhanurdhar Maharaja is having his Panihati festival in New York and both Varsana Maharaja and Jayadvaita Swami will be there for the event! It's nice to see that some of his godbrothers are sending a message.
I remember once, at the ISKCON Chicago temple, I was at a lecture given by Radhanatha Swami on the disappearance day of Gadadhara Pandit and he was moved to tears....within minutes of that....the temple president was going around the 250+ audience giving out kleenex. I had never seen anything like that before. He is a special soul, no doubt.
I just happened to find the lecture by Radhanath swami where he specifically mentions to the devotees that the observation of B.R Sridhar Maharaja needs to be taken very seriously. Sridhar Maharaja said, " in ISKCON people are not afraid to commit vaishava aparadha and that is very dangerous". So Radhanath Maharaja advises devotees to take this warning seriously. Obviously I wish they stopped offending GM and SSM.
http://audio.iskcondesiretree.info/05_-_IS...N_Chowpatty.wma
How to see then the many vaisnava aparadhas which SP himself made towards many of his god brothers? It is said that vaisnava apradha is most detrimental for one's spiritual life, then how didn't it ruin his spiritual life? Is it because he apologized at the end, because he had this chance?
And actually if he did so much vaisnava aparadha and explained it later that it was for the sake of keeping ISKCON together, then what's the surprise if his disciples follow him in this respect as well? They consider that the goal excuses the means especially if their Guru also did it for the same goal.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur has stated that one who is surrendered cannot make any offenses. Therefore I don't believe Srila Prabhupada made any offences, although it might seem like it.
I just happened to find the lecture by Radhanath swami where he specifically mentions to the devotees that the observation of B.R Sridhar Maharaja needs to be taken very seriously. Sridhar Maharaja said, " in ISKCON people are not afraid to commit vaishava aparadha and that is very dangerous". So Radhanath Maharaja advises devotees to take this warning seriously. Obviously I wish they stopped offending GM and SSM.http://audio.iskcondesiretree.info/05_-_IS...N_Chowpatty.wma
I'm not sure whether I've posted this before, but Jayadvaita Maharaja gave a talk in Mayapur exhorting devotees to avoid Vaishnava aparadha as if it were the plague. He specifically mentions ISKCON's campaign of vilifying Srila Sridhara Maharaja as being at the root of the institution's problems.
How to see then the many vaisnava aparadhas which SP himself made towards many of his god brothers? It is said that vaisnava apradha is most detrimental for one's spiritual life, then how didn't it ruin his spiritual life? Is it because he apologized at the end, because he had this chance?
And actually if he did so much vaisnava aparadha and explained it later that it was for the sake of keeping ISKCON together, then what's the surprise if his disciples follow him in this respect as well? They consider that the goal excuses the means especially if their Guru also did it for the same goal.
Those devotees themselves asserted that there was no offense. Rather, Srila Prabhupada's disciples clearly misunderstood what he was doing and decided they could say any damned thing and justify it as following Srila Prabhupada's example. However, I heard a recording of a walk during which Harikesha launched into a crisiticsm of Bon Maharaja, who was often criticised not just by Srila Prabhupada, but most of his Godbrothers as well. Srila Prabhupada cut Harikesha off at the knees: "You may not say such things!" I mentioned this to Jayadviata Maharaja, who actually heard the same story from Harikesha himself.
You have to look at the historical context to understand why Srila Prabhupada said the things he did. You also have to remember that he was speaking about his god brothers. Within the immediate family there is much love and much familiarity. If you look at the balance of what Srila Prabhupada said you will see that he said that all his god brothers are pure devotees.
I might scold my brother or sister, but I treat my parents differently. Taken out of context Yamuna you might have a point, but when looked at in context then everything falls into place. You do have a point about Srila Prahbupada's disciples and that is most unfortunate. It is nice to see Radhanatha Swami speaking up on this issue.
I ment that Shrila Prabhupad said he made offences and asked for forgiveness.
I ment that Shrila Prabhupad said he made offences and asked for forgiveness.
That was an exemplary expression of natural humility. If your guru maharaja had said that he was among the most fallen of persons, would you go around telling people you met, "My spiritual master is among the most fallen of the human race"?
Regarding the offenses towards his god brothers I am not sure that it is the same as the example you gave considering all the things he was saying about them really. He might been loving his god brothers but he still said these things and it was in front of his disciples. He might be forbidding them later to quote him, but this does not mean that he did not say it in front of them and that they would not consider it as his opinion which they naturally joined.
My guru was telling me for that before when he was in ISKCON he used to marry devotees by telling them to do it, but now he considers this a mistake and is not doing it any more because he prefers them to take personal responsibility for this choice in their life. And I take his words as he said them. He was making mistakes and when he was confessing them I was admiring him for doing it.
If my guru tells me something about somebody else (not about himself) I consider it as his true opinion. That simple. And if this opinion is most softly said not favorable, most probably I will take his vision as the true one 99 %. If I have objections or doubts I would say them and will hear his back-up for his opinion.
That was an exemplary expression of natural humility. If your guru maharaja had said that he was among the most fallen of persons, would you go around telling people you met, "My spiritual master is among the most fallen of the human race"?
That is what most people have said also and hence continued in their vitriolic attack on SP's godbrothers. They feel that SP's criticisms were not mistakes but SP counted them as mistakes out of his humility. Only his criticisms represent the real picture for ISKCON devotees.
Regarding the offenses towards his god brothers I am not sure that it is the same as the example you gave considering all the things he was saying about them really. He might been loving his god brothers but he still said these things and it was in front of his disciples. He might be forbidding them later to quote him, but this does not mean that he did not say it in front of them and that they would not consider it as his opinion which they naturally joined.
Srila Prabhupada was trying to ensure that we did not repeat some of the mistakes made by some Gaudiya Math leaders. But he did not want us to think ill of those devotees--just to be careful how we associated with them. He had a vision he was trying to share with us, one most of them did not share. I take his admonitions much like the king's trying to fill a well that's drying up. Perhaps you know the story. The king issues an edict that everyone in the village must come the following morning with a cup of milk. When everyone shows up the next day with a cup of water, he was quite satisfied. When one subject asked how this was so, he replied, "If I asked them to come with a cup of water, they would have brought half a cup, which would not have been sufficient. So I asked for a cup of milk." So I take it that Srila Prabhupada's cautions were given in strong language to make an impression on us.
And as far as our "naturally joining" in his "offenses," we had the clear example of Mahaprabhu's behavior with Ramacandra Puri. Mahaprabhu declined to ever say anything against RP, or even to take exception to his faultfinding, because RP was the Godbrother of Mahaprabhu's own guru. Many of us understood the lesson. Some still don't get it, even after decades of hearing the pastime.
My guru was telling me for that before when he was in ISKCON he used to marry devotees by telling them to do it, but now he considers this a mistake and is not doing it any more because he prefers them to take personal responsibility for this choice in their life. And I take his words as he said them. He was making mistakes and when he was confessing them I was admiring him for doing it.
If my guru tells me something about somebody else (not about himself) I consider it as his true opinion. That simple. And if this opinion is most softly said not favorable, most probably I will take his vision as the true one 99 %. If I have objections or doubts I would say them and will hear his back-up for his opinion.
Well, you're dodging my question. I was trying to get at how you would understand an expression of humility, which would not be at all uncommon in such a magnanimous soul. If Sripad Narayana Maharaja had made such a remark ("I am the lowest of human beings"), and you heard it, would you then tell others he was the lowest among human beings? That's much like your saying Srila Prabhupada committed vaishnava aparadha. He no doubt spoke strongly in many instances, but that was to make a point. When he asked for forgiveness toward the end of his pastimes, it was an expression of natural vaishnava humility, not an admission of fault, or some way to clear "bad karma" so he could get a better birth, or something like that.
Anyway, enough is enough. Next question?
I know that it would have been the best if we could say that guru is infallible and unmistakeble, it would be most easy. Thus we would have repeated perfectly the long way of the Catholic church, who considered and anounced the Pope infallible, but then later when too many contradictions came they had to change it... forced by the facts.
Unfortunately I am not a person who accepts the claim of the unfallibility and unmistakeability of guru. Sorry. Facts speak otherwise.
When Dhanurdhara Swami admits that he made some terrible mistakes for which he is deeply sorry do you also take this only as vaisnava humility or you consider that there is also some truth in what he says?
Perhaps you're just missing my question. The premise on which I ask it, and the reason I keep posting, is that I see a difference between making a mistake and committing Vaishnava aparadha. My contention is that Srila Prabhupada committed no such aparadha, despite his strong statements. (And I'd offer as evidence the assertions of the sadhus he spoke strongly about that there was no offense.) The same goes for Srila Sarasvati Thakura's preaching against devotees whose practices distorted Mahaprabhu's movement, even drained it of its vigor. And Vrindavana das Thakura, who said he'd kick on the heads of those with faith in Mahaprabhu but not in Nitai.
Perhaps you are missing my point. And my point is that both can be true simultaneously (achintya bheda-abheda) - that he is saying it out of humulity and still it is true.
Dhanurdhara Swami did he just "made a mistake" or that mistake was involving also vaisnava aparadha? Did he apologize only out of humility or he also made a mistake and apologised because of it?
And those godbrothers of SP when he apologised dying, didn't they strongly declare that not to worry since there was no offence, don't you consider that also they did it out of vaisnava humility? Can't be again simultaneousity of true fogiveness for a true mistake + humility?
As I said about my gurudeva I consider there were both humility and truth in what he told me... that he made a mistake and humbly admitted it and didn't repeat it again. I don't see him as unmistakeable and neitehr I see this way SP, otherwise I would be approving his anti-female statements and attitudes, but I don't. I am not approving them, I am accepting them and have my vision for the reasons why maybe he said them, but I am not happy about them. I see these satements of his also as some kind of mitakes, but I am able to forgoe them because of the many other great things he did. Someone who did many great things is permitted some minor mistakes as well and I am not afraid to name them "mistakes".
Jesus also made some mistakes... he prayed twice "please God let this bitter cup pass me by", but then he saw his mistake and prayed "let it be your will as you wish not as I wish". Of course majority of Christians would jump if I say "Jesus made a mistake", but still they would not be able to explain then why did he prayed twice this way and then changed his prayer...
You can see SP as perfect and unmistakeble. I don't see him that way, neither I see my gurudeva as unmistakeable. I agree to disagree.
What also matters for me that I have seen that for the preaching purposes my opinion is better accepted by the people because it sounds too fanatic for them to say "guru is infallible and unmistakeable".
I don't see him as unmistakeable and neitehr I see this way SP, otherwise I would be approving his anti-female statements and attitudes, but I don't.
Nope--just his anti-gay statements. And would you concede that you're fallible (other than as an expression of your natural humility)?
But we're talking past each other., and I have service to do. Good night. As I said before: Next question?
I know that it would have been the best if we could say that guru is infallible and unmistakeble, it would be most easy. Thus we would have repeated perfectly the long way of the Catholic church, who considered and anounced the Pope infallible, but then later when too many contradictions came they had to change it... forced by the facts.
Unfortunately I am not a person who accepts the claim of the unfallibility and unmistakeability of guru. Sorry. Facts speak otherwise.
Do you have any sastric evidence to support your point of view?
Do you have any sastric evidence to support your point of view?
Do you need shastric evidence when so many life evidences are there?
My own gurudeva was saying that he can err. Why should I not believe him? Did SP ever say that he cannot make mistakes?
Nope--just his anti-gay statements. And would you concede that you're fallible (other than as an expression of your natural humility)?
But we're talking past each other., and I have service to do. Good night. As I said before: Next question?
You take his anti-gay statements as mistake. I take some other statements of his like mistake. Seems that we are even in that regard. And we both accept him as guru.
Sure I am fallible, never doubted it and never thought anybody was doubting it either.
And those godbrothers of SP when he apologised dying, didn't they strongly declare that not to worry since there was no offence, don't you consider that also they did it out of vaisnava humility?
This is a good point to consider for objective analysis but for a disciple of SP it will uncomfortable to feel that SP did make offenses. Rocana makes the same point like Babhru but he puts it more strongly so that SP's disciples can keep on offending his godbrothers calling a spade a spade to protect ISKCON.
And those godbrothers of SP when he apologised dying, didn't they strongly declare that not to worry since there was no offence, don't you consider that also they did it out of vaisnava humility? Can't be again simultaneousity of true fogiveness for a true mistake + humility?
Well, of course it was an expression of humility, for goodness' sake! And that means they meant it--that there was no offense. And in his humility, Srila Prabhupada meant his apology; he genuinely felt sorry for the things he said. That doesn't make them vaishnava aparadha, and it doesn't meant that such utterances can be imitated.
Moreover, you seem to persist in conflating mistakes such as advising people to marry with deliberately vilifying vaishnavas. Those are different kinds of "mistakes," aren't they?
And you keep bringing up some straw-man infallibilty/"umistakeability" argument that I haven't put forward. So please pardon me if I simply decline to respond.
As we say in Hawaii, I'm pau (done) with this topic. Others may feel free to pursue it if they think it appropriate. Aloha.
This is a good point to consider for objective analysis but for a disciple of SP it will uncomfortable to feel that SP did make offenses. Rocana makes the same point like Babhru but he puts it more strongly so that SP's disciples can keep on offending his godbrothers calling a spade a spade to protect ISKCON.
It's not a matter of feeling uncomfortable with some sort of objective analysis. I'm not a 13-year-old girl, for Pete's sake. I've been around the block a couple of times. It's a matter of having spent 40 years analyzing in a way that helps me make sense of these things. And my take on it is quite different from Rocana's. This poor fellow often displays a lack of discrimination and completely--along with too many others in ISKCON--misses the lesson of Mahaprabhu's behavior with Ramachandra Puri. These people may need to be locked in a room with a copy of Srila Puri Maharaja's book, The Heart of Krishna.
This is a good point to consider for objective analysis but for a disciple of SP it will uncomfortable to feel that SP did make offenses. Rocana makes the same point like Babhru but he puts it more strongly so that SP's disciples can keep on offending his godbrothers calling a spade a spade to protect ISKCON.
"calling a spade a spade"? What odes thi mean?
It is amazing if somebody can read Shridhara Maharaj and not to fal in love with him! So much power and vision is in his words... I wish I would have met him!!!
Do you need shastric evidence when so many life evidences are there?My own gurudeva was saying that he can err. Why should I not believe him? Did SP ever say that he cannot make mistakes?
It may be helpful for the expression of your realization and experience if you can find some correlation in the sastra. Without evidence from the sastra, those vaisnavas who are familiar with the sastra and look to it for understanding will not be able to receive your message very well.
Certainly the statements of the guru will also find some sastric support. If you take the time to look for the statements of your gurudeva in the sastra, it will certainly lead to a deeper understanding of what he has said. :Batting Eyelashes:
Certainly we have faith in the statements of guru, that faith will be strengthened when we look to the sastra to understand those statements, more questions may arise and our understanding and faith may be deepened by our sincere inquiries.
OK, I undertand that the vision of the devotees here is that Guru cannot err. I don't have this vision... what to do. Fate has different ways for different people. Is my vision harming my ability to follow Guru? Time will show...
The question if saying something strong and sharp against a person is aparadha or not is also not an easy one. Obviously most consider that it depends who is saying it and what has in mind and heart while saying it.
Regarding evidence from shastra, what will help me a shastric quote saying "guru never errs" if I see it happening? Would it mean then that he was not a real guru? Or would it say that I didn't see it right what he did and that it cannot be said if it's a mistake or not? If a guru is breaking regulative principles while preaching them then am I wrong to say that guru can err without concluding that he is not a guru if he errs?...
Shastra many times says contradictory things. I can quote words in favor or not. But reality can show other things. I cannot deny reality in favor of quotes. There should be some common sense.
I can quote 6 verses from Gita saying "na nivartante" (never returns) that the soul once reaching the spiritual abode never returns, but still the whole ISKCON believes that the souls are fallen from the spiritual world to the material and preaches this. What is the use of my quoting shastra then? Does it change their opinion? No. Do they answer my question how they believe so if there are these 6 verses telling it so clearly and how do they undertand them in order to believe otherwise. I never got a single answer. And they are sure they follow shastra. And I am wondering how... but this is it.
Their gurus believe that the soul is fallen from Vaikuntha. Do they err then? Do they follow shatra? Do they preach right siddhanta? Are they gurus?
My opinion is that they are gurus and they still err.
Will it be considered an offence if I ask Maharaj "can you err"?
Yamuna,
Why to you think that 'devotees here' don't think a guru can err? I didn't see any post that even remotely expressed such an idea.
From what I have read 'devotees here' are merely stating that they don't believe that Srila Prabhupada was an aparadhi, or that he offended vaishnava's. How do you go from there to 'devotees here' don't think a guru can err?
You asked if a 'guru' can break devotional principles while preaching them and be seen as a erring guru, but nonetheless, a guru. My answer to that is that such a guru will have limited capacity to help his or her students. If a person in the position of guru is still conditioned materially, they will have limited capacity to help others who are seeking to reach beyond their own conditioning. It doesn't mean that such a person cannot help others, but their ability to do so is limited.
Making a mistake and consciously choosing to act selfishly are entirely different things. In the example you gave of your Guru Maharaja telling you he had erred in telling devotees to marry rather than telling them to take responsibility for their choices - this may or may not have been an error on his part - but regardless of that, he was attempting to help foster spiritual growth in those he counseled so he advice was in the spirit of devotion and therefore, faultless, although he learned through his own personal experience that a different type of advice would be of greater benefit in most cases.
You will not be an offender to ask if our Guru Maharaja makes errors. He will tell you, 'yes, of course I do'. You are right that this is obvious and has to be reconciled with the fact that a bona fide guru is to be seen as 'good as God', and more importantly 'dear to God'. But understanding the humanity of Sri Guru and thinking that it means he/she is immune to the effects of vaishnava apradha, or that he/she may be an aparadhi, or that Sri Guru is a conditioned soul - that is a misunderstanding of guru-tattva.
If a guru can err by not following regulative principles is he a conditioned soul? Then according to your words should I say that he is not a guru then in order not to misundertand guru-tattva according to your words?
One more question - if a guru sends an email to all the ashrams and disciples of another guru in which he is speaking to those disciples against their guru, is he making vaisnava aparad and aparad to guru-tattva?
Aparadha is a personal thing. Only you will know if you are committing it. It has been said that aparadha can be taking offense at the actions of others. Our reasons for doing things is what makes all the difference. Who are we to say who has committed aparadha against us? But we are definitely one to say if we have committed aparadha against others.
Those who commit aparadha don't think they did. They don't see it this way.
But the disciples of that guru can say that an aparadha was made towards their guru. And they are right to say it.
I'm not a 13-year-old girl, for Pete's sake. I've been around the block a couple of times. It's a matter of having spent 40 years analyzing in a way that helps me make sense of these things. And my take on it is quite different from Rocana's. This poor fellow often displays a lack of discrimination and completely--along with too many others in ISKCON--misses the lesson of Mahaprabhu's behavior with Ramachandra Puri. These people may need to be locked in a room with a copy of Srila Puri Maharaja's book, The Heart of Krishna.
I did say that your take is different from Rocana. But sorry to have made you feel that I was clubbing you together.
I did say that your take is different from Rocana. But sorry to have made you feel that I was clubbing you together.
There's nothing to apologize for. However, since you wrote, "Rocana makes the same point like Babhru but he puts it more strongly," I just wanted to make certain the distinction between Rocana's idea and mine was clear. In fact, I don't think Rocana and I make the same point at all.
OK, I undertand that the vision of the devotees here is that Guru cannot err. I don't have this vision... what to do. Fate has different ways for different people. Is my vision harming my ability to follow Guru? Time will show...
The question if saying something strong and sharp against a person is aparadha or not is also not an easy one. Obviously most consider that it depends who is saying it and what has in mind and heart while saying it.
Regarding evidence from shastra, what will help me a shastric quote saying "guru never errs" if I see it happening? Would it mean then that he was not a real guru? Or would it say that I didn't see it right what he did and that it cannot be said if it's a mistake or not? If a guru is breaking regulative principles while preaching them then am I wrong to say that guru can err without concluding that he is not a guru if he errs?...
Shastra many times says contradictory things. I can quote words in favor or not. But reality can show other things. I cannot deny reality in favor of quotes. There should be some common sense.
I can quote 6 verses from Gita saying "na nivartante" (never returns) that the soul once reaching the spiritual abode never returns, but still the whole ISKCON believes that the souls are fallen from the spiritual world to the material and preaches this. What is the use of my quoting shastra then? Does it change their opinion? No. Do they answer my question how they believe so if there are these 6 verses telling it so clearly and how do they undertand them in order to believe otherwise. I never got a single answer. And they are sure they follow shastra. And I am wondering how... but this is it.
Their gurus believe that the soul is fallen from Vaikuntha. Do they err then? Do they follow shatra? Do they preach right siddhanta? Are they gurus?
My opinion is that they are gurus and they still err.
O.K., Well, thanks for sharing your opinion.
If a guru can err by not following regulative principles is he a conditioned soul? Then according to your words should I say that he is not a guru then in order not to misundertand guru-tattva according to your words?
If I remember correctly Srila Sridhara Maharaja explains in Sri Guru and His Grace that there are different kinds of gurus according to their qualification. A devotee may still have some conditioning and still act as a guru to others. As Audarya-lila pointed out, such a person's capacity to help others will be limited. A devotee who is no longer conditioned would be considered a sat-guru and as such fully capable to assist others in overcoming their conditioning.