Guru Issue Update by Dusyanta Das

[PADA: Dusyanta is a brave soul to be writing on behalf of the GBC guru program. Notice that hardly no one else is writing to defend it nowadays.]

GURU ISSUE UPDATE (From Dandavats web site)

By Dusyanta dasa

This article is not exactly originating from whether women can be Diksa Gurus. But the recent articles have brought up some interesting points. And I read all the articles including the comprehensive download called “Did Srila Prabhupada want Women Diksa Gurus” from eye of the storm books. In this download it came across that the book was biased towards trying to prove that Srila Prabhupada did want women Diksa Gurus. And I think that when you try to prove a point in this way the article takes on a biased colour and this colour shone through the whole download, unfortunately.

... Unless a person has attained this standard of maintaining the nine gates in the mode of goodness there is every chance of misunderstandings, misapplications and mis representation. And have we not already seen as historical fact this mode of operations in Iskcon since Srila Prabhupada is not here to correct all the failings.

[PADA: Dusyanta says (A) that the GBC's gurus are constantly falling, failing and making gross errors, simultaneously, (B) they are -- (pure devotee diksha) -- gurus. How can that be? It means Dusyanta himself has mis-understood what is a diksha guru. If a person is only a janitor, but he thinks he can perform brain surgery, why would we wonder when there are "errors" in his bogus surgery process? First of all -- the janitor is not qualified to perform brain surgery.]

*** The down load was a comprehensive writing but unfortunately from my point of view there were serious mistakes in its presentation. This was due to the fact that it was trying to prove the point rather than to present the truth. To present truths we have to be at least in the mode of goodness to make those presentations and we have to know the whole guru-tattva subject from every angle or else we will keep repeating Iskcon historical mistakes.

[PADA: Notice how this keeps going downhill, i.e. gurus are making all kinds of mistakes, and worse, the GBC's "diksha gurus" are out there making these "mistakes, illusion and cheating" often, every day and "repeatedly." Srila Prabhupada says that the guru must be free from the platform of mistakes and illusion, free from duality, free from mundane attractions (anartha nrvrtti) and so forth -- or else, he is not a guru. 

Srila Prabhupada also says that if we say gurus are defective, this is an offense to the platform of guru (guru-avajnya, guruvaparadha). One of the ten offenses is to consider that the guru is ordinary and defective, and yet Dusyanta keeps saying -- the guru is ordinary, defective and mistaken. He has not even understood what the ten offenses are, never mind higher principles.]

*** So for me the first mistake it made was the title. “Did Srila Prabhupada want women Diksa Gurus?” That is not the first consideration and it came across that we have learnt to run but can’t walk. Firstly we need to understand what Sri Guroh is, not what gender Sri Guroh is. We need to understand the function of Sri Guroh, the differences between the Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru, and what happens to our relationship with Sri Guroh after He is no longer physically present.

[PADA: This is actually good. The post of guru is not based on male or female bodies, its based on the internal realization of Krishna. So the whole argument of male or female is a red herring to start with. They need to discuss the actual qualities of guru. Good! Mother Yasoda has a woman's body and yet she has been given visions of the universal form from inside Krishna's mouth -- that are not seen even by the most advanced sages, yogis, demigods and even some of the greatest "men" devotees. A woman can have much higher realizations, so being a woman is not a disqualification for understanding Krishna. It is good that this is being forwarded at this point, albeit a day late and a dollar short.]

*** So just to show one example of the misrepresentation of the download there is a quote from the Chaitanya Charitamrta 1.34; "The Initiating and Instructing Spiritual masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krishna."

That’s how it appears in the down load but actually from Srila Prabhupada’s Book itself it reads like this;
"The Initiating and Instructing Spiritual masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krishna, although They have different dealings."

[PADA: Good, its quite common in "GBC guru world" to find that quotes are hidden, lost, mis-stated, mis-represented, changed, altered, chopped off, ignored and so on. Anyway, the neophyte devotee is a type of guru, aka agent, representative, preacher or teacher -- and he can preach in a limited manner to the conditioned souls. He can give the public some basic instructions, but as the "Nectar of Instruction" says, a neophyte cannot imitate the acharya or else he will become degraded. And denying that instruction is therefore the prime cause of the current epidemic of guru fall downs in ISKCON, they are imitating the guru and this causes degradation.]

*** Considering the length of the download why does the five words that are omitted not get included into the presentation. And these five words also illustrate the difference between the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru. In fact in the down load they actually put a full stop after the word “Krishna” as if it were the end of the sentence not even some dots……… to indicate there is more to the sentence.

So this extra part that they neglected to put in “ although they have different dealings” means that there are also differences and they are not just equal. So what are the differences between the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru? What is the difference between the dealings and how do they affect our relationship? And lastly how does the Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru change functionality after they no longer physically exist?

Now if we start answering these questions then we are on the right road of understanding who is Sri Guroh not what gender Sri Guroh is. If we actually start reading Srila Prabhupada’s books all the answers are there but we have to ask the right questions and the question of gender is not the right question, because it is not dealt with in a transparent way.

[PADA: Good, the "gender issue" is not the real issue, its a smoke screen to avoid the real issue, that these neophytes are always failing because they are not qualified to be gurus.]

In Srimad Bhagavatam the right answers are there if we find them and we seek from a transparent place. If we are trying to consciously prove what we believe then we have already made the mistake of colouring our inquiry. That’s why we have so much debate in Iskcon because we colour our enquiries and therefore our answers are also coloured. And the more we actually study the down load the more we can see its colouring. It looks as though it’s a brilliant and comprehensive article but there are so many mistakes in it that we would need another book to rebut the misunderstandings, mistakes and misapplications.

I thought that the presentation really supports the ritvik ideology. If there is no difference between the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru then the relationship and dealings are equal.

[PADA: This is not ritvik ideology? The ritvik ideology in a nutshell is: (we) neophytes can ONLY act as some form of instructing gurus (i.e. shiksha representatives of the guru). And thus we neophytes are not EVER equal to diksha gurus. Where do we say that the neophyte shiksha gurus "equal" the messiah level diksha gurus? We never said this? 

We also previously cited the Chaitanya Charitamrta that the diksha guru is a PARISAD (associate of Krishna) whereas the neophyte Shiksha gurus are SADHAKA devotees. In other words, there are many levels of shiksha gurus, some of  whom may only be kindergarten level devotees in training. We never said the PHD level diksha guru and the kindergarten level sadhaka are the same thing? 

There are different levels of shiksha (instructing) gurus, some may be pure -- or they may also be only kindergarten level -- sadhakas, but the diksha guru must be a parisad associate. This is why Srila Prabhupada says that the acharya must be a resident of Krishna loka, an uttama adhikary and so on. The sadhaka might attain Krishna loka -- maybe so -- and maybe not -- and as such, he might fall down and start taking LSD, having illicit sex, and behaving like a fool, and drop straight back into the material ocean, as we see among the GBC's so-called acharyas. 

What we say is, the (neophytes) sadhakas are not EVER to be considered as, and worshiped as, a pure devotee diksha guru (parisad). And we have never said that we (neophytes) are equal in any way to diksha gurus, or that neophytes in general are diksha gurus,or that the dealings with the neophytes are "equal" to dealings with a pure devotee diksha guru. This is Dusyanta's mis-quoting what we said, that is the problem here. He is creating a straw man argument. Either that, or he never actually read what we wrote and stated?] 

*** If the Diksa Guru is Diksa Guru after he is no longer physically present then why can't Srila Prabhupada be everyone’s Diksa Guru after He has departed.

[PADA: The books of Srila Prabhupada are, since the 1960s and until the present day, the ongoing source of divyam jnanam that destroy sins (diksha) for the devotees and the mass of public. Dusyanta fails to identify his source of pure divyam jnanam that destroys sins in his proposal? Dusyanta implies that the GBC guru's idea is correct, that neophytes are "equals" to the diksha gurus who absorb sins, and thus these neophytes are giving diksha, but that is not possible as we pointed out many times earlier:

--- Neophytes cannot absorb sins:

http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2013/03/gbc-accepting-sins-is-not-authorized.html

--- Neophytes will get sick and fall down if they artificially become diksha gurus:

http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2012/02/kanistha-cannot-be-diksha-guru.html]

--- Neophytes are not capable of absorbing sins like Jesus:

http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2012/01/taking-sins-like-jesus-is-not-for.html

*** According to the GBC resolution, Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s Pre-eminent Shiksa Guru after He has departed, especially after He departed. So if the Shiksa Guru is exactly equal to the Diksa Guru then Srila Prabhupada must also be everyone’s Diksa Guru after He physically departed. There is no difference between the Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru according to the download article so that supports the ritvik notion that Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s Diksa Guru, period.

[PADA: We never said there is no difference between us neophytes, who may act as shiksha gurus, and the pure devotee diksha guru? Where did we say that? The (shiksha) preacher in the Church is not the same as Jesus. We never said they are equal. This is a total distortion of what we said.] 

*** So that’s wrong then. The Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru are not equal because their dealings and therefore the relationship for the disciples are different. (Cc 1.34.) . So what we have to establish is how the dealings are different and what criteria has to be in place to apply that difference. For instance if Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s Diksa Guru after He departed then He must have also been everyone’s Diksa Guru before He appeared. But He wasn’t. We did not even know Him until He made His presence felt. This is another difference between the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru.

[PADA: Jesus cannot be the current guru of the Christians, because otherwise he would have had to have been the guru before he appeared? What? No, the guru manifests, then he empowers his disciples to act as his shiksha representatives. That is what Srila Prabhupada did, he appeared, then he empowered people to act as his book distributors, temple presidents, preachers, leaders and so on, and his movement expanded thereby. 

The ritviks are saying, that is the only way forward, to re-establish the system he created. Srila Prabhupada's books were giving the divyam jnanam all along since the 1960s, and still are now. And that is how the Christians have had so much success, they act as shiksha representatives of their guru -- and so they are able to make a cooperative program that includes millions of followers. 

They have a Governing body, a Council of Churches or etc. which promotes the acharya Jesus and everything else operates on that principle, and so they are able to grow and build things all over the planet. Whereas the so-called current GBC guru system of worship of conditioned souls artificially posing as messiahs, and acting as independent mavericks, is not working.]

*** In fact if you read Cc 1.34 from a different angle of English language all it is saying is the Diksa and Shiksa Gurus are equal-manifestations of Krishna not that they themselves are equal to each other. And in the introduction to Chapter one of Cc we find this corroborating evidence; "The first manifestation described is the Spiritual master, who appears in two plenary parts called the initiating spiritual master and instructing spiritual master. They are identical because both of them are phenomenal manifestations of the Supreme Truth." This quote does not support the concept that the Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru are equal and identical to themselves but “identical manifestations” of the Supreme Truth.

[PADA: The Chaitanya Charitamrta also says there can be many (includes neophytes) shiksha gurus but only one diksha guru. That means many neophytes can preach unitedly as shiksha gurus to support their diksha guru, and that is the process used by Srila Prabhupada to form ISKCON. Guru also means teacher, so there are pure gurus and there are neophyte preachers who support the pure guru, BUT the sadhaka preachers and the parisad acharas are not in the same category. The PHD professor is never the same as the kindergarten child, they are not equals.]

*** They are identical manifestations, not identical to themselves. And they are identical manifestations of the Supreme Truth. And simply they are described as “two” plenary parts; otherwise it would state they appear in “one” plenary part called the initiating spiritual master and the instructing spiritual master. Why have two words “Diksa” and “Shiksa” to describe a manifestation of the same equality and identity?

[PADA: No, the neophyte book distributors, the temple presidents, the temple priests and preachers and so on are only shiksha gurus, not diksha gurus, they are not equals to the diksha guru. Where does Dusyanta get the idea the neophytes and the uttamas are "equals"? And where did the ritviks say that?]

*** If we consider the relationship and dealings we have with our Spiritual master we have to understand what our service is to our Spiritual Master and how it is functioning and the presence of the Spiritual master that bears down on that relationship. So how do we know what it is? How to apply it and what changes with physical disappearance?

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said, after I depart DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. He also said, change is dangerous and so on.] 

*** When Srila Prabhupada was physically present He was Shiksa Guru and Diksa Guru.

[PADA: No, he said he is the diksha guru and his followers are the shiksha gurus. And he said, after I am gone, do not change anything. This process needs to continue.]

*** He instructed us to serve His physical body when He was physically present.

[PADA: No, he said -- even when he was here, we have to serve his words, his Vani. Most of his devotees hardly ever saw Srila Prabhupada, except on very few rare visits. A number of his disciples never even met him at all, they were initiated by him via a letter. He never said his followers would have to serve his physical body when he was present here? Where is this stated? No, he had his devotees serving his instructions all over the planet, they could not serve him physically because they were almost never with him physically.

Only a very small group of people acted as his personal secretaries, while the mass of disciples were expected to serve his mission, serve the Vani, and "serve in separation." There was never any great expectation that the mass of devotees would serve him personally, or that they could even see him personally. 

That was not the mood of his mission. Dusyanta seems to think the 5,000 disciples were all with Srila Prabhupada serving him direct and in person. No, they were spread all over the planet. Most of them did not see him at all, except very rarely. And only a few spoke to him personally. Many never saw him at all in person, ever. There was no "direct personal service" going on except in a few rare cases. And even when he was here, he said we have to serve the Vani (his words) and not the Vapuh (body).]

*** But the service and dealings and relationship ALL change when He is no longer physically present.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said, do not change anything, where does he say everything was supposed to change when he departed? He said the exact opposite, when I am gone DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. Where did he say that everything has to change when he departs? He said, serve my Vani , and he said that even while he was here, what was supposed to change?]

*** Srila Prabhupada says the disciple has to change the service, at the time when He is no longer physically present, from serving His physical body, His Vapuh, to serving His words, His instructions, His Vani. From serving His Vapuh we are instructed to serve His Vani only when He is no longer physically present.

[PADA: The devotees were all along serving his Vani, even when he was here. Almost all the devotees associated with Srila Prabhupada via his books and instructions, hardly any associated with his vapuh form. And many of those who served his "personal form" got into maya anyway, because they did not serve the Vani.]

*** The two different conceptions of the presence of the Spiritual Master are the physical conception and the vibrational conception. Srila Prabhupada says the physical conception is temporary and the vibrational conception is eternal.

[PADA: So now Dusyanta is making the same exact point the ritviks are making, that the relationship with the Vani is eternal, it does not change, ever. Meanwhile he says the GBC guru program is faulty, defective, and not eternal. He is agreeing with us, and is arguing with his own shadow.]  

*** The eternal relationship with our Spiritual Master then is through the eternal vibrational presence not the physical presence. When He is physically present the Spiritual Master is served through His physical body, which is temporary, but when He is no longer physically present the service is changed to serving His eternal Vani, sound vibrational presence.

[PADA: You got it, that is what the ritviks actually are saying, and you are saying the same thing. Good!]

*** The Spiritual Master exists eternally through His Vani, that’s before He physically exists and after He physically exists.

[PADA: No, he always exists in his Vani, whether he is here or not? His books convinced people to become devotees when he was here, and his books are doing that now. Its eternal.]

*** This is an absolute requirement for a disciple to relate eternally with the Spiritual Master.

[PADA: Right, so when the GBC gurus fall down left, right and center, there is no eternal relationship.]

*** Otherwise how is the eternal relationship exhibited through a temporary physical presence? The Diksa Guru only exists temporarily when He is physically present and only accepts service and therefore relationship through His physical body.

[PADA: Except hardly no one was serving his body, the mass of the devotees served his vani, even when his body was here.]

*** Krishna Himself teaches us as the Instructing Spiritual Master (Shiksa Guru) from within and without. From within He teaches as Paramatma, our constant companion, and from without He teaches from Bhagavad-gita As It Is as the Instructing Spiritual Master (Shiksa Guru). The Bhagavad-gita is Lord Krishna’s Vani and in this form He teaches as the eternal Instructing Spiritual master and Srila Prabhupada our Spiritual Master is also our eternal Shiksa Guru in His Vani.

[PADA: OK, except divyam jnanam which destroys sins is also called diksha. There is no difference between the shiksha and diksha gurus when we are discussing Krishna and His Pure Devotees.]

*** When the Spiritual Master instructs us to serve Him after He is no longer physically present it is through His Vani as Shiksa Guru.

[PADA: The Vani is called divyam jnanam (di) -- that is the "di" in diksha. The Vani is the source of the divyam jnanam. Divyam jnanam is part of the word "diksha."]

*** But when He is physically present He instructs us to serve His physical body as Diksa Guru. We serve our Diksa Guru when He is physically present through His temporary physical body and when He is no longer physically present we serve His eternal vibrational presence, His Vani.We cant and don’t serve the Diksa Guru after He is no longer physically present or before He is physically present, this is how the dealings and relationship are different between the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru.

[PADA: We do not serve the guru's Vani when he is no longer present? Where is this stated? Meanwhile, he just said we serve the guru's Vani eternally. He is fighting with his own shadow.]

*** Service to the Diksa Guru is only whilst He is physically present, whilst service to the Shiksa Guru is eternal.

[PADA: Where is all this stated?]

*** This is just dealing with only one small part of the download book that is found as a link from the article by Kaunteya dasa. This item is dealing with the synthetic premise that the Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru are equal in all respects and at all times and with the same functionality. Clearly that premise is flawed by the evidence that they present in the downloaded book by missing out applicable points even within the same sentence. To provide a comprehensive book that is trying to establish truth means it has to be transparent. Transparent in its questioning and transparent in its answering and I think it fails on both accounts.

Whether the Diksa Guru is male or female is tertiary and irrelevant in all cases, what we have to establish in a transparent way are the primary questions on Guru tattva. Otherwise we just wind up with another inconclusive book that answers another coloured idea.

And another Iskcon mistake on the guru tattva subject. In material life it is said that mistakes are the pillars of success but in spiritual life mistakes are the pillars of more mistakes and this down loaded book is an illustration of how this is exhibited. If we want to build a foundation of spiritual strength in Iskcon it would be more favourable to ask questions and answer questions in a transparent way, only then will we start to progress.

[PADA: OK so answer the questions herein about your article and lets make progress. ys pd]