DEVIATIONS OF THE GURU REFORM NOTEBOOK

Satsvarupa’s “feet-washing“

Satsvarupa: “I have come to realise my participation in a grave error. I have allowed myself to be worshiped and regarded on the level of maha-bhagavata paramahamsa, far above my “non-guru” God brothers. As a result, I have slighted and offended my Godbrothers -and Srila Prabhupada- in various ways. And I have mistrained my disciples in these matters.” (Guru Reform Notebook)

DEVIATIONS OF THE GURU REFORM NOTEBOOK
By: Prabhupadanugas

Satsvarupa’s “Guru Reform Book” is actually more dangerous than his obvious miss characterization of a pure devotee, because of its philosophical deviation, perverted ideology and bogus siddhanta.

While we have to give credit to Satsvarupa’s personal reform, his GURU REFORM NOTEBOOK is a total contradiction of Vaishnava philosophy, because it advocates that “BAD GURUS” and/or “FALLEN ACARYAS” (such as in Iskcon) can be reformed. It thus creates a bogus guru system with a perverted ideology and bogus siddhanta.

But Srila Prabhupada states quite the opposite:

Reporter: But the bad gurus…
Srila Prabhupada: And what is a “bad” guru?
Reporter: A bad guru just wants some money or some fame.
Srila Prabhupada: Well, if he is bad, how can he become a guru? [Laughter.] How can iron become gold? Actually, a guru cannot be bad, for if someone is bad, he cannot be a guru. You cannot say “bad guru.” That is a contradiction. What you have to do is simply try to understand what a genuine guru is. […] A guru cannot be bad. There is no question of a bad guru […] Guru means “genuine guru.” (Srila Prabhupada interview with The Times, London, The Science of Self-Realization)

From Srila Prabhupada’s books we understand that ‘guru’ is synonymous with ‘pure devotee’ i.e. Guru never falls. Nobody in ISKCON during Srila Prabhupadas time even dreamt of a philosophy that accommodated the idea of a “guru falling down” or fallen gurus who have reformed?

“Which previous gurus or acharyas in the disciplic succession had to be ‘reformed’? Which previous acharyas were fallen or ‘voted in’ at all? Which previous acharyas were voted in with a known homosexual,” and so on and so forth?

This it self shows how badly Satsvarupa has not understood the siddhanta, otherwise he would not have advised a “guru reform” if he knew that gurus do not need reform? For that matter, sincere neophytes also do not need to be “reformed” from illicit sex, drugs and crimes like NM’s acharyas need to be rectified from? Which previous acharyas needed reform for deviations? Why does Satsvarupa think that acharyas are less advanced than the neophytes? Only a dull person in the mode of ignorance will accept that someone was a fake mahabhagavat guru, admitted his pretense, but still went on continuing being guru.

The fact that such lack of knowledge still remains today is evidenced by the necessity of a “Guru Reform Notebook” which, in and of itself, wrongly suggests that a guru is ignorant. However a true guru, uttama-adhikari is fixed and as stated by Srila Prabhupada: “One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari.”

So this is the first problem with Satsvarupa and his GURU REFORM NOTEBOOK, he helped the GBC’s promote the idea that their acharyas need “reform” and he thus helped the GBC’s contrive a whole convoluted system of — guru reform, guru suspension, guru monitoring, guru voting, guru rectification, guru removal, and even — gurus sometimes being demons and etc. None of this was mentioned by Srila Prabhupada.

This offensive attack on the guru-parampara is a continued pattern in Iskcon. The notion that “Krishna’s pure guru successors are subject to contamination” (and fall-downs) has expanded in the “living guru” project. For example, a “living guru” based in eastern India, lectured in January 1990, that sometimes, for a few minutes, Krishna’s great successor gurus, such as Lord Brahma, become bewildered by maha-maya (mundane illusion).

In the following conversation Srila Prabhupada clarified that the acarya has to be a pure devotee and that the idea that he falls down to mode of passion is a concocted one:

Akshayananda: “I was recently told by one devotee that the acarya does not have to be a pure devotee.
Prabhupada: What?
Akshayananda: That the acarya does not have to be a pure devotee.
Prabhupada: Who is that rascal?
Akshayananda: Well, he said it. Who said it?
Prabhupada: Who said? Who is that rascal? The acarya does not require to be a pure devotee?
Akshayananda: He said it. Nitai said it. He said it in this context. He said that Lord Brahma is the acarya in the Brahma-sampradaya, but yet he is sometimes afflicted by passion. So therefore he is saying that it appears that the acarya does not have to be a pure devotee. So it does not seem right.
Prabhupada: So who is that rascal? I want to know who has said.
Akshayananda: Nitai. Nitai dasa.
Harikesa: Nitai said that?
Prabhupada: Who is Nitai dasa?
Harikesa: Our Nitai.
Akshayananda: Nitai.
Prabhupada: Oh, our Nitai? Oh.
Akshayananda: He said he couldn’t understand it, but he thought, he said that he thought…
Prabhupada: He manufactured his idea. Therefore he’s a rascal. Therefore he’s a rascal. Nitai has become an authority?
Akshayananda: No, actually he said that he thought…
Prabhupada: He thought something rascaldom, and he is expressing that. Therefore he is more rascal. These things are going on. As soon as he reads some books, he becomes an acarya, whatever rascal he may be.” (Morning Walk — December 10, 1975, Vrindavana)

Satsvarupa’s GURU REFORM NOTEBOOK alleges that:

– great liberated gurus and even the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself may also be great offenders (pages 24-25), while he stretches even further the attempts to “explain away” the many discrepancies manifested in the GBC’s “living guru” project.

Examples of great persons who considered themselves great offenders:
1. Lord Balarama, after killing Romaharshana Suta.
2. Parasurama, after killing the kshatriyas.
3. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, who refused to take mango, saying, ‘No, I am an offender.’
4. Srila Prabhupada, who begged forgiveness in his last days for offending his Godbrothers.
5. Narottama dasa and Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who lament in their songs not exactly for having committed offenses, but for wasting their lives in material life.”

And how do we know that the great, liberated eternal preceptor gurus never become materially conditioned? Because the Vedic literature and Prabhupada’s personal example confirm it.

How do we know that the “living gurus” are conditioned souls unqualified to hold the post of eternal preceptor gurus? Because, as seen above, they exhibit conditioned defects. They incorrectly misinterpret the Vedic scriptures by their imperfect senses. Some of them even boast that Krishna’s pure parampara gurus, such as the “living guru” project’s members, “make mistakes all the time.”

Then they amalgamate those conditioned defects into larger illusions which they forward as position papers, (GBC philosophical reports) and such illusions are supposed to be “the absolute truth.” This means that they are then exhibiting the cheating propensity. Finally, as described above, they shamelessly and unauthorizedly promote all their material defects as the qualifications of the great acharyas and Mahajanas.

Very dangerously, the “living gurus” portray the completely Krishna conscious eternal preceptor gurus as faulty, materially affected, mixed devotees. So again, Srila Prabhupada observes the great danger of this deviant philosophy: mixing the contaminated with the pure in Cc. Adi-Lila 7.72: “thus they clear their path to hell.”

Srila Prabhupada clarifies the reasons for the false criticisms towards real acharyas: “Influenced by an envious temperament and dissatisfied because of an attitude of sense gratification, mundaners criticize a real acharya. In fact, however, a bona fide acharya is nondifferent from the Personality of Godhead, and therefore to envy such an acharya is to envy the Personality of Godhead Himself. This will produce an effect subversive to transcendental realization…” (Cc. Adi 1.46)

And he remarks in Sri Isopanisad, Mantra twelve, of the potential consequences of misleading innocent people by falsely posing as an eternal guru, “By a false display of religious sentiments, they present a show of devotional service while indulging in all sorts of immoral activities. In this way they pass as spiritual masters and devotees of God. Such violators of religious principles have no respect for the authoritative acharyas, the holy teachers in the strict disciplic succession. To mislead the people in general, they themselves become so-called acharyas, but they do not even follow the principles of the acharyas.

“These rogues are the most dangerous elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they escape punishment by the law of the state. They cannot however, escape the law of the Supreme, who has clearly stated in Bhagavad-gita (16. 19-20) that envious demons in the garb of religious propagandists shall be thrown into the darkest regions of hell. Sri Isopanisad confirms that these pseudo-religionists are headed toward the most obnoxious place in the universe after the completion of their spiritual master business, which they conduct simply for sense gratification.”

ISKCONS “living guru” tactic of devaluing the great liberated devotees has continued in an expanding pattern throughout the years. For instance, the GBC’s “living guru” author Satsvarupa, who wrote the “Guru Reform Notebook” says on page 15, “On studying Dhruva Maharaja’s case, I do not see at first how it applies to me and my GBC guru Godbrothers. We didn’t pursue an obvious material desire as did Dhruva…” In short, the living guru author tries to paint the GBC’s guru project, with all of it’s odious degradations, sectarian violence, and so on, as somehow higher than a factual pure devotee.

But Srila Prabhupada writes: “Dhruva Maharaja was a maha-bhagavata, or a first class pure devotee…” (SB 4.12.8) “It is our duty to remember always that in comparison to Dhruva Maharaja, we are very insignificant. We cannot do anything like what Dhruva Maharaja did for self realization, because we are absolutely incompetent to execute such service.” (SB 4.8.73)

Strategies and Concoctions of Bogus Gurus Revealed
Srila Prabhupada: Who is Guru?