Krishna Kirti Writes Wrongs (Female Gurus Update)

Thanks for giving me the karma of 20,000 people!

I could not have done this without

Krishna Kirti and ICC help!

Can you please hand me another 20,000 karmas before

I take all this karma into the next life?

So I can become a spider on Puranjana's garage floor? 

==========================

Dear ICC/IIAC/Bureau members, please accept my humble obeisances. All
glories to Srila Prabhupada.

All the posts so far have been about female diksha-gurus (FDG), but this
post will be about male diksha-gurus (MDG).

What does FDG have to do with MDG? Almost everything; FDG is a special case
of MDG.

Before FDG came up, it was assumed that candidates for guru would have to
be qualified as brahmanas. But with FDG, for a woman to act as diksha-guru,
she actually has to go against her svadharma. A man qualified as brahmana
through pancharatrika-diksha and who has actual brahminical svabhava is
independent. 

[PADA: Therefore, our male diksha gurus are only falling into illicit sex with men, women and children, and cats; and drinking Vodka and Peppermint schaaps; watching porno etc. "independently" and not under the GBC sanction, although we do sanction these debauchees to be acharyas. Why does the GBC keep saying that debauchees are following "brahminical svabhava"? Illicit sex with men, women and children -- is not even mundane karmi's religion's "svabhava."]

So, for him, acting as a diksha-guru does not pose any conflict with following his own varnashrama principles. 

[PADA: A person who has brahmana tejyas of an uttama adhikary can burn off sins from his followers, while a person who is still acting under the laws governing conditioned souls in varnasrama is not able to burn off sins. Notice they keep saying their gurus are (play) acting as gurus, and they are not actually gurus with brahmana tejyas. Yes, a neophyte can act as a teacher, but he cannot claim he is absorbing the sins of others because he is another Jesus.]

But a woman even though also given pancharatrika-diksha is never fit for independence. For a woman to act independently, it is against her svadharma. That is why Baladeva Vidyabhushana (https://bit.ly/3dPrVTc) says that only if someone has realized Krishna directly and is truly above the bodily concept of life

can a woman, a shudra, an antyaja, etc. become guru. 

[PADA: Ummm, the GBC gurus lineage, contains -- sexual predators, pedophiles and drunks etc., and this is "above the bodily concept of life"? Nope. The GBC's pedophile gurus are more contaminated than even the regular meat eating Joe six pack on the street, who would never dream of being a pedophile.]

And when he talks about shudra, he is talking about shudra by qualification, not simply by birth.

[PADA: Pedophiles are not, were not, could not have been gurus, nor could the supporters of pedophile guru programs like Krishna Kirti / ICC be above the shudra platform. Shudras worship Jesus, they do not worship pedophiles, because they are more advanced than Krishna Kirti and the India ICC. 

Sulochana said, even a dog will not bow down and worship a pedophile, because a dog is smarter than all of them put together. In other words, a dog has a higher dharma svabhava than the entire GBC gurus program, because a dog knows we should not bow down to pedophile gurus.]  

So, a further consequence of FDG is that now that non-liberated female devotees are allowed to become diksha-guru, what about non-liberated devotee shudras, men who by actual qualification are shudra and not brahmana? Can they also become diksha-guru? If a woman can become diksha-guru by going against her svadharma, why not also a man who may be a devotee but is not liberated and by actual qualification is still a shudra?

[PADA: Pedophiles are liberated and gurus, because they are in a man's body?]

And as a practical matter, is the GBC now willing to drop the requirement that men be brahminically qualified before becoming guru? If not, why not? Because FDG raises questions about the qualification of non-dvijas for becoming diksha-guru, FDG is necessarily a special case of MDG.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti dasa


P.S. The reason for posting these messages is that in this coming meeting in Bombay, on October 15, we will be discussing the FDG matter, so this is a service to assist everyone in keeping informed as to what are the positions between the two groups before the meeting happens.


These posts themselves are for the most part summary discussions of different parts of the correspondence between the ICC/IIAC and IISB leaders with the GBC EC. Because the posts from both are long (1700 words from the GBC EC and over 4000 words in response from the ICC/IIAC), different parts of the letters are presented in much smaller portions and with some additional discussion for clarification.

====================

Dear ICC/IIAC/Bureau members, please accept my humble obeisances. All
glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Yesterday's email was about FDG being a special case of MDG (male diksha-guru), because according to pancharatrika-vidhi and our acharyas (https://bit.ly/3dPrVTc), not only are devotee women prohibited from becoming diksha-guru, but so are shudras. But if they have directly realized the Lord, like Yamaraja, then they can act as diksha-guru.

What is important here is that this vidhi for qualification given in Narada
pancharatra distinguishes between two classes of devotee that Srila Prabhuapda himself speaks about frequently with regard to the bona fide guru: one is a perfect, liberated and fully self-realized soul, and the other is not liberated but rightly situated on the path of sadhana-bhakti.

Srila Prabhuapda says,

"A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession." (Letter to Janardana, 26 April 1968)

Up to now, all of ISKCON's MDGs have been in this second category, those who may be rightly situated on the path of sadhana-bhakti but are not yet liberated. So, what rules need to be followed by gurus who are not liberated?

Some rules include not accepting too many disciples. In Lord Caitanya's
teachings to Sanatana Gosvami, the thirteenth principle of the 64 principles of sadhana-bhakti, the Lord says that one should not accept too many disciples.
bahu-śiṣya nā kariba. . . "(13) One should not accept an unlimited number
of disciples." (CC 22.118).

In this regard, Srila Prabhupada comments that if one is not a very highly
advanced devotee, if he accepts too many disciples, he himself may become
overwhelmed by accepting their sinful reactions and thus become disturbed in his own devotional service. This does not happen with liberated souls.

Accepting an unlimited number of devotees or disciples is very risky for one who is not a preacher. According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, a preacher has to accept many disciples to expand the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This is risky because when a spiritual master accepts a disciple, he naturally accepts the disciple’s sinful activities and their reactions. Unless he is very powerful, he cannot assimilate all the sinful reactions of his disciples and has to suffer the consequences. Therefore one is generally forbidden to accept many disciples.

The point here is that there are rules for non-liberated, sadhaka-gurus to follow that liberated and perfect acharyas need not follow. 

Another rule is that persons of a lower varna should not initiate those of a higher varna. Srila Prabhupada begins his purport to CC Madhya 8.128 (kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya, yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei ’guru’ haya) commenting that although Srila Ramananda Raya was a sudra by caste, he was nonetheless fit to be a spiritual master of everyone in all castes.

This verse is very important to the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. In his
Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura explains that one should
not think that because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was born a brāhmaṇa and was
situated in the topmost spiritual order as a sannyāsī, it was improper for Him to receive instructions from Śrīla Rāmānanda Rāya, who belonged to the śūdra caste. To clarify this matter, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu informed Rāmānanda Rāya that knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is more important than caste.

An important point to note in this purport is that all of the examples that Srila Prabhupada gives to support his point are all liberated souls, persons who are on the topmost platform of Krishna consciousness and who have directly realized Krishna. Ramananda Raya is beyond doubt such a person. So are all the other examples. 

This fits perfectly with what the Bharadvaj-samhita itself says (1.44),

*kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarva-yoniṣu*
*pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ naiṣāṁ cintyaṁ kulādikam*

*kim*—what;* api*—if;* atra*—here; *abhijāyante*—they are born;
*yoginaḥ*—*yogīs; sarva-yoniṣu*—in all possible situations in terms of birth;> *pratyakṣita-ātma-nāthānām*—of those who have seen their worshipable Lord
in loving devotion, due to their perfection in self-realization; *na*—not;
*eṣām*—of them;* cintyam*—is to be considered;* kula-ādikam*—their family
situation and so on.

*"But, because perfect yogis (or nitya-siddha devotees) who are on the stage of yoga-pratyakṣa (i.e. are self-realized – seeing God face-to-face), pratyakṣitātma-nāthas, may take birth in any family tradition, in such cases no consideration of kula, gender, etc. as mentioned earlier applies (they can become ācāryas)."*

(Full PDF with word-for-word synonyms: https://bit.ly/3yaGaJm)

But what about those who are not on this level? What about the less
qualified, or not liberated? Also as per Bharadvaj-samhita, they have other
rules to follow:

svayaṁ vā bhakti-sampanno jñāna-vairāgya-bhūṣitaḥ |
sva-karma-nirato nityam arhaty ācāryatāṁ dvijaḥ || 1.40 ||


nācāryaḥ kula-jāto ’pi jñāna-bhakty-ādi-varjitaḥ |
na ca hīna-vayo-jātiḥ prakṛṣṭānām anāpadi || 1.41 ||

Even if a twice-born brāhmaṇa (dvija) happens to have some non-devotees in his family line, or has not been fortunate to take birth in a renowned family of devotees, he nevertheless always deserves to be an ācārya if he is endowed with all good qualities like knowledge and renunciation, is engaged in his prescribed duties (sva-karma), and is steeped in loving devotion to the Lord. (1.40)

[PADA: How is supporting pedophile acharyas "endowed with all good qualities"?] 

On the other hand, one cannot become an ācārya even if one is born in a great family line (as mentioned before) but is devoid of jñāna, bhakti, good qualities, etc. Also, unless there is an emergency, an ācārya from a lower birth or age should not initiate a person from a higher birth or age. (1.41)

[PADA: Right, the shudras who worship Jesus are on a higher platform that the GBC who promotes pedophile worship. So the GBC should not stop a person from worship of the pure devotee to transform that person into a pedophile worshiper.]

Note the last sentence in the above translation: "Also, unless there is an emergency, an ācārya from a lower birth or age should not initiate a person
from a higher birth or age."

This is a law that Srila Prabhupada himself apparently criticized in his purport CC Madhya 8.128:

It is stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa that one should not accept initiation from a person who is not in the brahminical order if there is a fit person in the brahminical order present. This instruction is meant for those who are overly dependent on the mundane social order and is suitable for those who want to remain in mundane life.

Many think that Srila Prabhupada is absolutely rejecting this shastric injunction in Hari-bhakti-vilasa or, in this case, Bharadvaja-samhita. But it's a shastric injunction, so it is perfect and never to be rejected outright. Hence, if it is not appropriate for some class of persons, it's necessarily appropriate for some others.

Who are those others? It's ISKCON's members in general, and specifically ISKCON's present gurus. Why? Because history has shown that ISKCON's members are in fact dependent on the "mundane social order" for their
purity and progress in Krishna consciousness.

==============

Therefore Srila Prabhupada said that making someone a Vaishnava is not easy, and for persons at a lower stage of advancement, varnashrama is required for their progress in spiritual life:

Prabhupāda: *Yes. Vaiṣṇava is not so easy. The varṇāśrama-dharma should be
established to become a Vaiṣṇava. It is not so easy to become Vaiṣṇava.*


Hari-śauri: No, it's not a cheap thing.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore this should be made. Vaiṣṇava, to become Vaiṣṇava, is not so easy. *If Vaiṣṇava, to become Vaiṣṇava is so easy, why so many fall down, fall down?* It is not easy. The sannyāsa is for the highest qualified brāhmaṇa. And simply by dressing like a Vaiṣṇava, that is... Fall down.

(Room Conversation Varṇāśrama System Must Be Introduced, February 14, 1977,
Māyāpur)

[PADA: Correct, Srila Prabhupada said in this conversation, no more sannyasa. So if they are not qualified for sannyasa on February 14, 1977, how are they qualified to be acharyas on February 14, 1978?]

Hence, male diksha-gurus require varnashrama-dharma, what to speak of the rest of ISKCON's member. And the prescribed regulations for their status includes the regulations that Srila Prabhupada spoke critically about. We have to follow them because were are not yet on the liberated platform, from which we can directly see Krishna.

Otherwise, like Srila Prabhupada says, "why so many fall down?".

Hence, the appropriate policy for ISKCON's members to follow necessarily include these varnasrama regulations. Given the general adhikara of ISKCON's topmost leaders, who are still sadhakas and not yet liberated, these regarding higher and lower status with regard to who may or may not initiate are to be followed.

Your servant,

Krishna-kirti dasa
Convenor
ISKCON India Scholars Board
https://iisb.co.in

[PADA: Well hee hee, yep, why so many of their acharyas fall down? Because they are not acharyas. ys pd] angel108b@yahoo.com

Wow. Divine lila -- or vision of hell?