Word Up!
BY: JANMASTAMI DAS
Dec 20, WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) —
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less."
- The Queen of Hearts, from 'Lila in the Land of Illusion' by Kirtanananda Swami
In his most recent posting citing one of his own earlier works, Sita-pati prabhu has offered us one of his own selected positions as both the sadhu and shastra aspect of "Guru, sadhu and shastra." With opinions as prolific and varied as he has had in the past, the one presented is only one you are able to challenge, since it is offered as the one accurately representing his opinion. We will not consider those other contrary opinions that he has posted in the past, but simply this one for now.
We understand that for his preaching to be bona fide and to have a positive spiritual influence, he must be coming in an unbroken line of bona fide acaryas. The simple fact that even his wife and he cannot agree as to "who is a bona fide Guru?" poses no problem to him in his spiritual quest, and he expects that such contradictions pose no impediment to others in accepting everything he says as scripturally authoritative. The absurdity of such a proposal is lost on him and thus he feels that such challenges to his philosophizing are personal attacks. He makes that charge in some of his remarks.
"In a society of blind men, the one-eyed dwarf is king", and since this has worked for his collection agency in the past, he certainly expects it to continue indefinitely. Hence, the shock, surprise, outrage and bewilderment that can arise with the furtherance of bogus philosophizing has not yet become a consideration for his future, at least not in his own mind. the "I am right, regardless!" mentality that he and his wife have acquired from their philosophical mentors, while consistent in theory, are not consistent, in fact. As Srila Prabhupada has often stated when He warned His disciples to avoid hearing from His Godbrother spiritual masters, "only He could lead them" because if one of those other opinions were to vary from His, it would be a cause of chaos among His disciples. ISKCON has apparently overlooked this warning in their rush to appear "unified" and the contradictions of such "unity through expediency" philosophy are avoided rather than addressed. Non-parallel lines may appear to be parallel for some time, but over the longer course of time, these deviations will ultimately result in philosophical train wrecks, just as Srila Prabhupada had intuitively admonished.
Demoniac intentions are often covered with scriptural references, just as Kansa did to Vasudeva and Devaki, or as Hiranyakasipu did to Prahlad. That tendency is there among the conditioned souls. We consider this as we read Sita-pati's quotes enclosed in his presentation. He has said:
"Sometimes a guru...does something that is out of alignment with his role as guru,...If this occurs it falls to the disciple to hold the guru accountable, and give the guru support and give the guru the opportunity to rectify himself. Narahari Prabhu describes how the disciple should handle this situation, what they should do, and under what circumstances a person should be rejected as guru."
And yet he still feels that even after all this time and so many transgressions, that point of rejection has not yet been reached. One wonders exactly what it might take to reach that point, for one as tied to support of deviants as some ashram dwellers are today.
He has also made the point that:
"Sentimentalism.... it causes nothing but disturbance to society."
- Bhakti-Rasamrita-Sindhu 1.2.101
But he has not cited these examples, rather he has held that these attempts at securing profit, adoration or distinction were bona fide because "We need some guidance on this matter, because our process is to follow the footsteps of the mahajanas". He has therefore incorporated some scriptural references trying to prove his conclusion that such individuals are "mahajans". He and his companions seem to be the only ones finding the "jet set gurus" to be "mahajans", and thus equivocation over the use of the word "mahajan" arises. This is also the case with "sadhus" when it only refers to those that he and his compatriots recognize as "sadhus". Were we to accept his conclusions (which he feels that he has successfully proven), we might agree when he says, "The sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate." Since many do not accept his "mahajans" as those personalities mentioned, SPECIFICALLY NAMED as "mahajans", there is disagreement in belief, which cannot lead to a common understanding.
Many also take exception with his proposal, "The guru is empowered by God, and at the same time is a human being - he has a human side and is fallible." And they feel that the bona fide spiritual masters total reliance on the Personality of Godhead for His protection has taken Him from the realm of "fallible individuals", and that, in all matters spiritual, Guru is infallible. It is not surprising that this policy is no longer an ISKCON tenet.
Given this abundance of misunderstandings, lacking bona fide spiritual guidance, it is no wonder that he would come to conclusions such as:
"When the guru does fall down, as many in ISKCON have unfortunately experienced, it is the duty of the disciple to help him pick himself up again.
***
"The guru, as Srila Prabhupada explained, is a peon - he is a postman whose duty it is to deliver the message. The message is the important thing. The postman may go astray, but the message stays the same."
***
"If the father should fall from grace completely, then the son should redeem him with his own character."
We do, however, agree with his one philosophical proposition: "If one's guru acts contrary to his duty...is inordinately proud because ordinary people flatter him, or imitates Krsna -- then he should be rejected." And we wish him Godspeed and good luck in that regard.
