ROCANA: Our ISKCON gurus have to humbly admit, 'I'm not as advanced as Srila Prabhupada, and here's the philosophical explanation of 'how and why'.
[PADA: OK wait a minute, how did the ISKCON leaders "become gurus" from square one? When were the appointed as gurus? If they were never appointed as gurus (and they were not), then their whole claim to being gurus is bogus. Why do Rocana and others keep saying these ISKCON leaders are somehow or other "gurus," when there is no appointment of gurus, they are clearly not qualified to be gurus, etc. etc. The first person that needs to make a humble admission is Rocana, he has to admit -- they are not gurus, were not gurus, could not have been gurus, rather they are usurpers of the post of guru.]
ROCANA: That doesn't mean they can't be diksa gurus.
[PADA: OK a diksha guru is the person who gives "pure divyam jnanam which destroys the sins." These ISKCON leaders are clearly not capable of giving us pure divyam jnanam, ... they are not capable of doing that and neither are any of us, nor is there any evidence they can "absorb sins" (a part of diksha) like Jesus is doing? How can a neophyte absorb sins and give diksha? Rocana never explains.]
ROCANA: Actually, the biggest disqualification of all is to be a bluffer.
[PADA: The whole idea that neophytes can act in the capacity of acharyas / parampara members / Jesus -- and give pure jnanam and absorb sins -- is a bluff.]
ROCANA: But for one to be honest and simply admit that they're not that advanced, that is not a disqualification.
[PADA: "Let me be honest, Jesus can absorb sins, and so can I"? What! That is not honest at all, this is simply another bluff. Rocana needs to tell these people they CANNOT perform the function of a maha-bhagavata, period.]
ROCANA: In fact, it could be considered even more of a qualification. But it's not enough to just say the words, 'Oh, I'm not as advanced as Srila Prabhupada…' One must be able to philosophically explain the difference and the relationship, and should always emphasize that difference so that their own followers and disciples will not be confused about the matter.
[PADA: And that is all you are doing Rocana, you keep saying they need to take a lesser post, then you say they can give diksha and absorb sins like Jesus, you are fighting with your own shadow, and confusing people along the way. ys pd]
[PADA: OK wait a minute, how did the ISKCON leaders "become gurus" from square one? When were the appointed as gurus? If they were never appointed as gurus (and they were not), then their whole claim to being gurus is bogus. Why do Rocana and others keep saying these ISKCON leaders are somehow or other "gurus," when there is no appointment of gurus, they are clearly not qualified to be gurus, etc. etc. The first person that needs to make a humble admission is Rocana, he has to admit -- they are not gurus, were not gurus, could not have been gurus, rather they are usurpers of the post of guru.]
ROCANA: That doesn't mean they can't be diksa gurus.
[PADA: OK a diksha guru is the person who gives "pure divyam jnanam which destroys the sins." These ISKCON leaders are clearly not capable of giving us pure divyam jnanam, ... they are not capable of doing that and neither are any of us, nor is there any evidence they can "absorb sins" (a part of diksha) like Jesus is doing? How can a neophyte absorb sins and give diksha? Rocana never explains.]
ROCANA: Actually, the biggest disqualification of all is to be a bluffer.
[PADA: The whole idea that neophytes can act in the capacity of acharyas / parampara members / Jesus -- and give pure jnanam and absorb sins -- is a bluff.]
ROCANA: But for one to be honest and simply admit that they're not that advanced, that is not a disqualification.
[PADA: "Let me be honest, Jesus can absorb sins, and so can I"? What! That is not honest at all, this is simply another bluff. Rocana needs to tell these people they CANNOT perform the function of a maha-bhagavata, period.]
ROCANA: In fact, it could be considered even more of a qualification. But it's not enough to just say the words, 'Oh, I'm not as advanced as Srila Prabhupada…' One must be able to philosophically explain the difference and the relationship, and should always emphasize that difference so that their own followers and disciples will not be confused about the matter.
[PADA: And that is all you are doing Rocana, you keep saying they need to take a lesser post, then you say they can give diksha and absorb sins like Jesus, you are fighting with your own shadow, and confusing people along the way. ys pd]
Problem is Rocana doesnt quote Prabhupada anymore. Prabhupada: "Guru means the representative of God. As God is one, similarly, guru is also one. There cannot be different gurus. Because God is one, how there can be different gurus? The principle of guru is one. The original guru is Krsna."
ReplyDeleteEither someone is a real guru or he is not a guru. There is nothing in between, like "lesser guru", "less advanced guru".