We Have to Test Like That Who is Guru
BY: RASAPREMA DASA
Sep 12, USA (SUN) — Srila Prabhupada: "We Have to Test Like That Who is Guru… One Requires a Guru"
It took me some time to decipher what Janmastami dasa was talking about in his recent posting, but after re-reading his dirge I could understand where's he's at: He's weak and shy to come out and say it directly but he's a posthumous-rtvik advocate, and since Balavidya dasa has now blown that weird idea right out of the water with his quite brilliant insight in to the context of the time and the relevance of the July 7th conversation upon the July 9th letter, Janmastami is upset.
Talk about bad guru karma: First, you take initiation from a bogus GBC appointed guru in the shape of Kirtanananda Swami and then you start to advocate the posthumous rtvik idea.
Weew! How the pendulum of the material energy swings us back and forth!
Why not just accept the Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa of Santana Goswami that is being presented by Balavidya dasa and go the real direction, which is to closely associate with a Vaisnava for mutual examination and then beg for initiation if you find a personal rapport with that qualified Vaisnava? Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya personally instructed Sanatana Goswami to write the Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa to make all these points clear for His followers. That's the Vedic path now, that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be. Why? Because that's the way it's laid out in the Vedas, by the sadhus, and by Srila Prabhupada. Sastra, sadhus and guru, kindly see Srila Prabhupada's lecture below.
Balavidya is perfectly correct to say that neither exclusive-guru-by-GBC-committee- rubber-stamp nor posthumous-rtvik-guru are what's in the Vedas or most importantly in the directions of Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON. I agree that both the GBC and rtviks are nonsense for ignoring the Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa and concocting their speculative systems and then trying to force them on ISKCON, often violently. They are so much in ignorance that they can't see how much they are suffering for their garbage ideas, rather like dumb animals who can't realize the bad condition in which they find themselves, like Indra enjoying being a pig. Furthermore, the persons, so-called gurus, who comply with the concoctions, are demonstrating a great lack of qualification; they certainly aren't following Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya. No wonder, they fall down regularly. However, Balavidya is giving great direction by pointing out that mutual examination is the Vedic way. Yes, really it's the disciple that appoints his own guru, providing of course that the guru will accept him.
That's the solution: Forget what the GBC are pushing, forget what the rtviks are pushing, and just use your God-given intelligence to find a qualified diksa-guru.
If you actually want one, of course… Aye there's the rub!
***
Actually, Janmastami gives very weak counterpoints to Balavidya's time context points. Janmastami's assertions actually have no logical substance, they are just arbitary, self-serving dismissals, just opinions, as he himself says at the end. But what is most striking is that Janmastami completely avoids the main point of Balavidya's article, which is that in the July 7th conversation Srila Prabhupada says he will also directly decide initiates himself - Srila Prabhupada is on the list. Anyone with a little intellectual acumen and integrity will agree that this clearly indicates that Srila Prabhupada is not setting up something to run after his departure, but in his presence.
There is nothing in that July 9th letter or July 7th conversation to indicate the setting up a posthumous-rtvik-diksa-guru system for the next ten thousand years. Absolutely Nothing. Therefore, to propose such an idea is plain madness. Madness means one has lost touch with reality. And one is seeing things that don't exist.
Where does it say in the July 7th conversation that it this system is to run for ten-thousand years? Are the eleven names mentioned in the July 9th letter supposed to live for ten-thousand years? So why didn't Srila Prabhupada cover the obvious point of continuation after the initial eleven? Why doesn't the letter talk about the rtvik-gurus changing from being rtviks-gurus presently to being posthumous-rtvik-gurus after the departure of Srila Prabhupada? And why is none of this, and more, covered in the July 7th conversation?
Here's the actual premise of the July 7th conversation:
Tamala Krsna: … "We're receiving a number of letters now, and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since your becoming ill, we asked them to wait."
Prabhupada: "The local men, senior sannyasis can do that."
The reason for the system outlined in the July 9th letter is given there: There was a back-log of devotees waiting for initiation. How to deal with it? As Srila Prabhupada says, "The local men, senior sannyasis can do that."
Plain as the light of day: Srila Prabhupada deputes to the local senior men and sannyasis to have the final word on who will be initiated as Srila Prabhupada's disciples. But as Balavidya wonderfully pointed out: Srila Prabhupada will continue in India to choose his own disciples, as he wishes. Clearly then this system is to run in the presence of Srila Prabhupada. So simple, so clear.
There's absolutely no mention of a posthumous-rtvik-diksa-guru system for ten-thousand years. Nothing about such a weird, non-Vedic idea is mentioned in the conversation or the letter. Why? Because the July 7th conversation and July 9th letter have nothing, zero, naught, nil, zilch to do with such a speculative, concocted, deviant, abnormal, invented, irregular, non-standard, ridiculous, idiotic idea. The July 9th letter was simply meant to clear up the back-log of anxiously waiting devotees because Srila Prabhupada shouldn't be bothered too much while he was unwell. No more, no less. Any other conclusion relies on sky-flower word jugglery.
Of course, as history informs us, not surprisingly the GBC didn't act on the instruction contained in the July 9th letter, but rather went mad for power and position and interpreted the letter as the appointment of the magnificent eleven exclusive paramahamsa zonal gurus. So we have two completely opposite deviations substantially built on one letter, both of which deviations have absolutely no support in the actual letter, or related conversation. This only confirms the motivated rascaldom of these two parties: exclusive diksa-guru-by-GBC-appointment and posthumous rtvik-diksa-guru.
Only great fools and cunning rascals will propose that such a great acarya as Srila Prabhupada would propose either idea both of which completely countermand sastra, sadhu and guru. These offensive fools and rascals, by misrepresenting Srila Prabhupada's teaching in his name, are booking their tickets to Hell. And the history of madness, narcissism, wastefulness, violence, sexual depravity, megalomania, murder, and untimely death that has attended upon the appointed gurus of ISKCON since November 1977 is clear confirmation.
Nonetheless, the destruction of the exclusive-appointed gurus does not prove the case of the posthumous rtvik camp; there is no logic there. There is no logic in saying "your dhoti is dirty, therefore my dhoti is clean". This is the dim-witted dynamic between the GBC-exclusive-appointers and the rtvik camp. They are like two drunks that are so intoxicated they have to lean against each other while they fight. It's only a matter of time before they both fall down and pass out after making public idiots of themselves.
So Janmastami, time to be a man and publicly admit you are wrong about posthumous rtvik-diksa-guru, just as you were wrong about Kirtanananda. Why stay on the dark side and argue such a foolish idea and go to Hell? Come to the Vedic path of light illumined by the sastra, sadhus and guru.
Balavidya isn't saying you surrender to anyone or any institution again. He's just saying that if one actually wants a diksa-guru, then the system in the sastra is mutual examination by close association. That's the Vedas and as such is the advice of the Supreme Lord Himself. Do you think there is better advice to be had?
In the market place, you have previously been cheated: You got an ego-tripper false guru who even ordered you to murder a disciple of Srila Prabhupada who was exposing his deviation. And the New Vrndavana management, still big in ISKCON, pulled you into such a murderous plot. You have been cheated, no doubt, and understandably you are disturbed. But ultimately why blame others? Why not blame yourself for being foolish? You're a big boy; nobody dragged you to the fire yagna. Take responsibility for your own mistaken actions, forget about trying to off-load your fault by pointing the finger at others and ISKCON. Only the fools will agree that it is not your fault. The wise are watching you. They know that the strong and noble accept responsibility for their own decisions. But right now you are like Arjuna at the start of the Bhagavad-gita, weak and crying, and offering false arguments for a nutty idea that is ultimately just a cover for the real intent of avoiding surrender to Krsna.
Sanatana Goswami quotes the Pancaratra in the commentary to Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa, 1.54:
"One who is initiated into a mantra by a guru who is a non-devotee or who is addicted to sense enjoyment must go to Hell. Therefore one should again be initiated properly, according to the prescribed method, by a Vaisnava-guru."
So, don't be a loser again by falling for this posthumous-rtvik-diksa-guru stupidity. Certainly one can accept Srila Prabhupada as a great acarya, who is teaching all through his books. But to say he is my posthumous-rtvik-diksa-guru is brainless. Rather if you sincerely want to surrender to a qualified diksa-guru, then accept the Vedic Path, which is to use your God-given intelligence in searching for a qualified Vaisnava to receive instruction from and serve accordingly.
"By the grace of Krsna, one gets guru, and by the grace of guru, one gets Krsna!"
Krsna in Kali-yuga is especially manifest in His Sacred Name, so chant, praying to the Name to grace you with a qualified diksa-guru.
That is, of course, if you actually want one.
Your servant, Rasaprema dasa
**************
Here Follows Part of a Wonderful Lecture
by Srila Prabhupada Covering The Above Topic, Toronto June 18 th 1976:
So we have to follow the injunction of the sastra. We cannot manufacture our own ways of spiritual advancement. That is not possible.
yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya
vartate kama-karatah
na sa siddhim avapnoti
na sukham na param gatim
[Bg. 16.23]
Anyone who transgresses the regulative principles recommended in the sastra, sastra-vidhi, yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya, giving up sastra-vidhi, vartate kama-karatah, whimsically does something, na siddhim sa avapnoti: he never gets success. He'll never be successful. Na siddhim na param gati: neither any salvation. Na siddhim, na sukham: neither even any material happiness. So we must accept the sastra vidhi. Sastra-vidhi, as in the sastra it is said, I have already quoted, kalau tad dhari-kirtanat.
krte yad dhyayato visnum
tretayam yajato makhaih
dvapare paricaryayam
kalau tad dhari-kirtanat
[SB 12.3.52]
In this age the sastra-vidhi is hari-kirtana. The more you chant Hare Krsna maha-mantra, the more you become perfect. This is sastra-vidhi. And Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirmed it. Sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya. We have to be fixed up, first of all, what is the injunction of the sastra. Then what the sadhus, those who are devotees, what they are doing. What they are doing, sadhu, sastra, and guru. And what guru is asking. We have to follow these three principles. Sadhu-guru-sastra-vakya tinete koriya aikya. Who is sadhu? Who is abiding by the injunction of the sastra. Or guru? Guru means he's also abiding by the injunction of the sastra. Then he's guru, he's sadhu. He's sadhu . And if one, sastra vidhim, yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya... If sastra-vidhi you give up, then where is the question of guru and sadhu? Na siddhim . He's not siddha. He has not attained the perfection, because he has rejected the principles of sastra. So he's bogus. We have to test like that who is guru.
tasmad gurum prapadyeta
jijnasuh sreya uttamam
sabde pare ca nisnatam
brahmany upasamasrayam
[SB 11.3.21]
The sastra says who is guru. Tasmad gurum prapadyeta. One has to surrender to guru. That is, tad vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. One must approach guru. This is vidhilin. Not that it is optional, may accept the guru or not accept guru. No. Must. Gacchet. Gacchet means he must. It is vidhilin. This verb is used where the purport is "one must."
Otherwise, it is not possible. Tasmad gurum prapadyeta. And who will go to guru? It is not a fashion, that we make some guru and we are engaged in our own business and I can say in the society, "Oh, I have got a big guru who can show magic." No. Guru is necessary for him who is inquisitive of transcendental subject matter. He requires a guru. Not ordinary man. Just like somebody keeps some cats and dogs as fashion. Guru is not like that. Guru means one... First of all, who requires a guru? Tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. One who is inquisitive to know about the spiritual world. Uttamam. Uttamam means ud-gata tamam: transcendental to this darkness. This material world is called darkness, ignorance. Actually it is dark. Because it is dark, material world, therefore we require the sun. By the grace of Krsna, we have got the sun. Yac-caksur esa savita. Savita means sun. Om bhur bhuvah svah tat savitur varenyam. This is Gayatri-mantra. So who requires a guru? Jijnasuh sreyah uttamam. One who wants to go beyond this world of darkness. Tamasi ma jyotir gama. This is Vedic injunction. Don't remain in this darkness. Jyotir gama. Go to the world where light is there.
yasya prabha prabhavato jagad-anda-koti-
kotisv asesa-vasudhadi vibhuti-bhinnam
tad brahma niskalam anantam asesa-bhutam
govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami
[Bs. 5.40]
Yasya prabha, that spiritual world is full of effulgence. Just like we have got example: the sun planet, sun globe, there is no darkness. There is always light. On account of presence of the sun, we are getting so much light and heat; just imagine what is the position in the sun globe, sun planet. It is always light. This is the example. Similarly, in the spiritual world, it is only light. Not only this light, but the light of knowledge. Therefore sastra says, tamasi ma: "Don't remain in the darkness." Jyotir gama: "Come into the light."
So one who requires to go to the world of light, he requires a guru. Tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh [SB 11.3.21].
