Guru Tattva Debate (update) | DUSYANTA DASA

http://krishnatube.com/pl.php?key=68b3dda6872e15005b9f
BY: DUSYANTA DASA

Nov 05, 2011 — UK (SUN) — Bearing in mind the importance of the Guru Tattva issue, that our whole Spiritual Life is 100% dependant on the mercy of our Spiritual Master, I wanted to further the debate on this issue. It seems that there are gaps in our understanding as to exactly what the nature of the Bona Fide Spiritual Master is.

The last article that I wrote, “Clarification and Statement to Date”, was rebutted by an Ernest Dras and Michael Garner in “Dusyanta dasa’s New Sampradaya”, which brought up interesting points of contradictory evidence. For all of us aspiring for Vaisnava status, this should be of importance to us. The problems that were addressed have conflicting conclusions and we need to understand the truth of them. I quote from the Dras & Garner article that was presented on the Sun a while back now:

“His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada can be, and should be, accepted as Siksha Guru by everyone who wants to take advantage of the teachings and process that He has given–to make genuine advancement in Krishna Consciousness.”

[PADA: Sorry, Srila Prabhupada said he would live on FOREVER in his books, and his books are giving us the CURRENT and PRESENT “divyam jnanam which destroys sins” aka diksha. Srila Prabhupada said we (neophytes) are the shiksha gurus, and he is going to be the diksha guru. People like Rocana and the GBC gurus have argued all along that Srila Prabhupada is limited to being ONLY the shiksha guru and certain GBC are (or can be) the diksha gurus. They have “reversed the roles” of the acharyas (the diksha gurus) with the preachers (the shiksha gurus).

In sum, neither the GBC nor Rocana (and others) have not shown us how the neophytes can give us “pure divyam jnanam which destroys sins” (diksha). For starters, Srila Prabhupada says a neophyte CANNOT absorb sins like Jesus is doing. Only a pure person can do that, just like Jesus can still absorb the sins of his followers. Neophytes are simply — not — on the level of Jesus, so they cannot give “diksha” (either by giving pure divyam knowledge or by absorbing sins) and I hate to have to be the one — to point this defect out — in these people’s ideas. A neophyte cannot give pure divyam jnanam, nor can he absorb sins, this is ritvik-diculous.]

DD: This seems on the face of it a very plausible, sincere statement. But it is not. It is riddled with many misconceptions and understandings that are contrary to Scriptural injunctions. This very statement is also mirrored by the official ISKCON GBC Resolution Number 35, GBC Minutes, 1994.

So what’s the problem with this point of view, which is what it is. Why can’t Srila Prabhupada be everyone’s Siksha Guru in absentia, which is what this statement is advising? Everyone can accept Srila Prabhupada as their Siksha Guru in absentia, in His non-manifest form, aprakata. The exact Truth concerning the Spiritual Master and His instructions/words are spelt out in Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.35:

“There is no difference between the Spiritual Master’s instructions and the spiritual master Himself.”

With that evidence in mind, it appears that the statement aforementioned makes sense and is the truth.

[PADA: If there is “no difference” between the Spiritual Master and his instructions, why do these people always use such odious terms like “post-samadhi, posthumous, in absentia, after departure,” emphasising that they are important because they are “physically present”? We never find the Christians or the followers of the great acharyas in India refer to their acharyas as “posthumous.” Either Srila Prabhupada is CURRENTLY present in his books or he is not? These folks imply he is not present in his books, so this is an offense to the shastra and is like saying: Krishna is not present in the deity. This is covert atheism.]

DD: And in my mind I totally agree with the statement by Dras & Garner and the official ISKCON GBC Resolution, so why does it not work? The point is it does work but the contradiction and problem is not the statement itself, but the inference it makes in the context of the Diksa Guru and Initiation. And therefore it is not a whole truth.

[PADA: The “truth” is that your statement above does not address the root issue, the neophyte can only act in the capacity of shiksha guru / preachers / ritviks, he cannot give pure jnanam nor absorb sins.]

DD: Nobody seems to argue against this postulation that Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s Siksha Guru in absentia, meaning that Srila Prabhupada Himself is our Siksha Guru even though He is not physically present. It’s not just His instructions and words but also He Himself that we are accepting as Siksha Guru in this scenario. So to illustrate the problem in the context of the Diksa Guru the following evidence is relevant.

[PADA: To “illustrate the problem” is simple, Srila Prabhupada says when a neophyte imitates, the diksha guru / acharya he will eventually become degraded, and we see this all the time, these GBC gurus degrade into all kinds of deviaitons.]

DD:

“There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the Initiating and Instructing Spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service.” (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.47)

[PADA: OK, so when people say Srila Prabhupada is only acting as a neophyte shiksha guru, and the illicit sex acharyas program are the advanced diksha gurus, they are discriminating against him.]

“The Initiating and Instructing Spiritual Masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krishna, although They have different dealings. Their function is to guide the conditioned souls back home, back to Godhead.” (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.34)

DD: If we are to agree that Srila Prabhupada is indeed all of our Siksha Guru, Spiritual Master in absentia, that He Himself is acceptable to us all in His non-manifest feature, aprakata, then the argument also stands that He is all of our Diksa Guru, Spiritual Master in Absentia.

[PADA: OK now we are making progress, he is the diksha guru, but why the posthumous in absentia emphasis?]

DD: That we can accept He Himself in His non-manifest feature, aprakata, as Diksa Guru. Why? Because the Diksa Guru and the Siksha Guru function equally although they have different dealings. And it is an offense in the discharge of devotional service to discriminate between them.

[PADA: Good.]

DD: If we agree that Srila Prabhupada is all of our Siksha Guru in absentia and is NOT all of ours Diksa Guru in absentia then have we not created a contradictory paradigm?

[PADA: Exacta-menta!]

DD: The Scriptural Injunction is that the Spiritual Master’s words/instructions are not different from He Himself. And that the function of the Diksha Guru and Siksha Guru are not different, that is to guide the conditioned souls back to Godhead. So how can we distinguish the difference in functionality of the two.

“It is the duty of the Siksha Guru and Diksha Guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to Sastric injunctions, there is no difference between the Siksha Guru and Diksha Guru, and generally the Siksha Guru later on becomes the Diksa Guru.” Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32

This quote illustrates that the equality of the Siksha Guru and Diksa Guru are of the same point, that they both instruct the disciple in the right way of executing a process.

What is that process? That process is the principle of initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which the disciple becomes freed from all material contamination, which is the definition of the process of Diksha.

Otherwise what process is the Siksha Guru instructing? Coupled with the fact that the Siksha Guru later on becomes the Diksa Guru, the conclusion is that Srila Prabhupada is all of ours Siksha Guru and then He Himself later on becomes our Diksa Guru if we execute the process.

[PADA: OK good.]

DD: The rationale may not be the same as the time when He was physically present, but can we expect the rationale to be the same? The difference is the conception of presence as defined in Elevation to Krishna Consciousness, pages 57-58. There are two conceptions defined by Srila Prabhupada — physical presence conception and vibrational presence conception — and of the two conceptions He emphasizes the vibrational conception:

“…..therefore we should give more stress to the sound vibration of Krishna and the Spiritual Master – then we’ll feel happy and won’t feel separation.”

The great contradiction performed by the Dras & Garner article was that they advised the reader toward the end:

“All the concocted stages of this watering down – “ISKCON,” Ritvik, the envious Gaudiya Matha so-called gurus, and this non-manifest siksa/diksa nonsense – should be completely rejected.”

[PADA: The rtivks are saying we need to worship Srila Prabhupada now, why should we reject the worship of the pure devotee?]

Firstly they illustrated that all of us should accept Srila Prabhupada as our Siksha Guru in absentia, non-manifest, aprakata, and then secondly that we should all reject this non-manifest siksa/diksa nonsense. So what’s it supposed to be then? Rejection or acceptance?

your servant, Dusyanta dasa

[PADA: OK making progress. The plain fact is that the “ritvik argument” — that you need to worship a pure devotee aka Srila Prabhupada — is gaining steam all over the place. Sometimes we hear the foolish GBC and their clones like Naranarayan Dasa Visvakarama saying “what preaching are the ritviks doing”? Well, why are these idiotic folks spending $4m suing us ritviks if we “are not doing anything”? No, you are suing us because we are making headway all over the planet. The real question is, why are you spending $4m to stop us — and you then have no money to even pay the rent on your temples, so the 26 2nd Avenue temple is about to shutter down because you are spending all your money suing us? ys pd]