Harimedia Forum

I was reading ones a debate on Gaudiya Vaishnavism as practiced in ISKCON, I would like to present here for further discussion.

Remember that the Gaudiya tradition comes from my own place -- Bengal. And I know more about that tradition and its tenets than you have ever known till now. We in Bengal hold Chaitanya and Nityananda very dear. We also love the endearing flute-playing shepherd of Vrndavana, and the lovable butter-stealing baby of Gokul.

Understanding ISKCON and its confusion. Something all Hindus should know.
Excerpts from an online debate on ISKCON and Prabhupada.
Submitted by rkm to Sanghparivar.org/blog on 02/22/2009

"Though the all out deviation and deterioration of the ISKCON started after Srila Prabhupada passed away and the power went to the hands of his western followers, the *seed* of this deviation and ultimate Christianization was by all means sown by Prabhupada and his guru (B.S.Thakura). It may be held that they did not mean to, but they unwillingly did all the same. Prabhupada, like all other gurus who exported Hinduism to the America of the sixties, lowered the bar for entry into Hinduism for Westerners steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview, on the pretext of making it "easy" for them to "understand" Hinduism. By lowering the bar, generalising Hindu concepts, and not asking for tried and tested lifelong commitment, they paved the way for deviation and desertion once the initial fad for "exotic" Hinduism (see: Religion of the Vedic period) had died away.

That lowering of the bar was the fundamental and the common mistake made by all gurus who went to the West. The rest of the mistakes are just founded on this one mistake. That apart, the creed of Vaishnavism itself (especially the Gaudiya tradition) has strands and strains of thought that are by no means Hindu but are essentially monotheistic.

The Christian concepts and the Christian thought process are inherent in this tradition. Vaishnavism has always been the most "unhindu" of Hindu sects, right from its birth. Prabhupada's own books (translations, commentaries purports of the Bhagavatam, Gita, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu etc.) betray the same strands of intolerance, bigotry, sectarianism, henotheism, ecclesiastic hierarchy, preeminence of faith and devotion, frowing upon jnana, yoga, that are inherent in his tradition from the beginning. "Hurting my sentiments" is always the last resort of those who have nothing to substantiate or defend themselves with. And so the Muslims take to the streets for being "hurt" when the Koran (Qur’an) is analysed and evaluated in a scholarly work, the Christians take to the court and the media when their Bible and their church documents are exposed, and the Vaishnavas (ISKCON variety) whine about being hurt when faced with the daunting task of refuting others with reason and intellect, since intellect and reason is something they have thrown away for the jackals of Vrindavan to scavenge, while they frolick in their fantasy gopi carnival.

I add that true faith is the one that is founded on and acid-tested by reason and logic, and not that which shuns reason and logic. The moment a creed or a cult positions reason and faith as antithetical and excludes one to propagate the other, that creed/cult ceases to be *Sanātana Dharma*.

A state of mind that does not care to massage sectarian egoes and "religious sentiments", but goes by history, evidence and direct experience, is always seen as "non-objective" by those groups under criticism. Christians, Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and all other henotheists and fanatics of faith have to have the definitions of "objectivity" and "non-objectivity" turned upside down. That they have to do, to keep going along the path they have chosen. The above is highly condemnable to Gaudiyas. Just like "non-objectively" opposing Creationism is highly condemnable for Christians. Just like acknowledging other prophets is highly condemnable for Muslims. Just like advocating reason and logic and science is highly condemnable "devil's work" (...antiscience) for the watchdogs of Christ. My statements were about ISKCON in particular, and I of course will wholeheartedly agree that all the Vaishnava Sampradayas do not share the same outlook and approach. Far from that, I did single out the "Gaudiya variety" of Vaishnavism in my posts.

The reason is psychological. It is the same reason for which the Christians are obssessed with the one symbol which though their adversary, has kept them in business and had been their scapegoat all along. The Gaudiyas rant against "impersonal mayavada" ( mayavadera jnanis, see: Hindu philosophical concepts) because they cannot refute or defeat it intellectually. They have never been able to do that in history. And because it is the only goal to which scientific and logical spiritual quest can take a person. They are subconciously aware about it, just like Christians are subconsciously aware of the value of Satan and what the satanic ideals represent vis-a-vis their own.

That is why the Gaudiya Vaishnavas deliberately use the term "mayavada" as a reductionist labelling of Advaita vedanta. Because the premises and conclusions of Advaita (Sanskrit: "Nondualism") are strong meat for them. They want to remain in the comfort of dualism. They do not want to acknowledge the ultimate truth (sanskrit: satya ) that one who enjoys the sweetness of the sugar must also be one with the sugar. The Vaishnava temperament wants to remain in the relative truth where the taster of the sugar has not yet become the sugar.

Actually, those "intellectuals" who has to discard Shiva, Devi or Vishnu, in order to display their expertise in the Upanishads and the Brahmasutra, are not really intellectuals at all. They are psuedo-intellectuals with a disembodied, fragmented textbook intellectualism only. True intellectualism means to "master the idea as a whole".

I understand the Upanishads and the Gita and the Brahmasutra better because I understand the significance and symbolism of Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu well. And I understand their depth and significance because I understand the Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahmasutra well. The truths are different in degree, not in kind. In the Sanatana worldview, one moves not from false to truth, but from the lesser truth to the higher truth. As Ramakrishna used to say, when the bhakta's bhakti expresses itself, various maifestations of the supreme truth such as the gods and goddesses take shape like icebergs in the ocean of the absolute. And again when the sun of jnana rises and thaws the ice of dualism, the manifestations all merge back into the ocean of Supreme Reality. So that is the secret -- grasping the idea as a whole. The vision and the heart of the Mahakavi of the Mahakavya (classical Sanskrit literature). An all emcompassing, synthetic appraoch. The only valid approach in sanatana dharma.

Then there would have been no need to rant against Advaita Vedānta - the highest point of human spiritual quest -- in order to uphold the relative truth, the step lower by one in the same staircase, dvaita-vada. But who will make these Hare Krishnas and the Gaudiya Goswamis understand that? The Arya Samaj is part of the same civilizational fallacy that made us take the wrong direction. They too, like the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and some dualistic Shaivas, adopted a fragmented view.

Just like the Gaudiyas have a bhakti and dualism fetish, so did the Arya Samajis have a "vedic purity" fetish. The object or concept of the fetish may be different, but the disease is the same. It is the same fragmentation of a holistic, all encompassing worldview in our medieval age, due to alien contamination and internalisation of monotheistic tenets. The lesson remains the same -- grasping the idea as a whole.

Krishna isn't he a zealous god when he says in Gita "mam-yekam saranam vraja"? To answer the point first -- it was not Krishna the person speaking all those words in the Gita. It was the supreme brahman, speaking through Krishna, who uttered those words in a state of yoga. This evidence is present in the Mahabharata and also the Gita itself. Only henotheists can propagate this laughable notion that by saying "sarva-dharmam paritajya mam-ekam sharanam vraja; aham tvah sarva-papevyo moksha-ishyami ma sucha" (Bg. 18.66) -- Krishna is meaning himself.

Contrary to what Vaishnavas and specially the Gaudiyas like to believe and proclaim, the Gita is not the patented intellectual property of the funny-tilak-on-the-nose, singing-dancing- laughing- crying, self-righteous, overtly sentimental Vaishnavas who think Radharani and her gopi girlfriends were for real and want to identify themselves with Krishna's milkmaid companions and revel in mushy-mushy madhura bhāva gender-reversal gopi role playing.

The yoga-dharma of Krishna has nothing common with the Gaudiya Vaishnava cult and it's sensual over-the-brim exaggerated bhakti-rasa and unabashed and un-Hindu like bigotry and henotheism. The personality of Krishna has nothing common with the pretty-frolicking-over dressed flute playing shepherd of their erotic sensual Krishna lila.

Not that the erotic and the sensual are not paths to Godhead. (in Tantra too, the adepts use as mediums towards realization those very things that are the cause of bondage). But not being forthcoming about this underlying sensuality and eroticism and acting, the bairagi are certainly not the paths to Godhead.

These people who claim to worship Krishna have done the greatest damage to the image of that purushottama. They have turned that magnificient personality into a peacock feather sporting, mischievious caricature of the yatras and kathaks (storytellers).

<< The Gita and the Mahabharata were created long before Vaishnavism ever existed. The modern Vaishnavas are the ones who have twisted the message and the purport of the Gita and the personality of Krishna to suit their own needs. They are responsible for the bigoted reductionism of the all-encompassing, synthetic, universal message of the Gita. >>

They have turned the supremely noble, virtuous, honourable, majestic personality of the historical Krishna into the effeminate, flute-playing, flirting, sensuous, playful pretty boy of the Vrindavana of their fantasies.

They have downplayed the importance of the Mahabharata, the only true, oldest, historically significant account of Krishna, rejected and suppressed the great words and teachings of Krishna, his deeds, they have suppressed the importance of the Harivamsa (appendix to the Mahābhārata). They have instead highlighted the Bhagavatam and the Brahma-vaivarta (IAST Brahma-vaivarta purāṇa) for propagating their own tenets, those most unhistorical, exagerated, and fantastic of all accounts on Krishna. And in doing that, they have sabotaged Krishna and made him into something that holds no significance and no relevance for the modern mind.

They have placed Krishna on such a pedestal from where he can be of no example or of no significance and inspiration to humans at all. From real and relevant, they have made Krishna and his supreme yoga-dharma irrelevant and fantastic. Instead of true, higher Bhakti, they have wallowed in decadent spiritual sensuality and have frowned upon all other mārga's (Sanscrit: path) that lead to the supreme truth. All these, the Vaishnava's, especially the Gaudiya's have done.

Remember that the Gaudiya tradition comes from my own place -- Bengal. And I know more about that tradition and its tenets than you have ever known till now. We in Bengal hold Chaitanya and Nityananda very dear. We also love the endearing flute-playing shepherd of the Vrindavana, and the lovable butter-stealing baby of Gokula. But the general people have the sense to differentiate between history and allegory, between Krishna of history and his later symbolic and allegorical manifestations. We acknowledge our debt to the Vaishnava Gurus who have served the Hindu civilization by spreading the Gaudiya tradition around the world. But we have no use of their bigotry, narrow-minded exclusiveness and their stupid henotheism. We have no use of the Krishna bhaktas' comic mannerisms, Hare Krishna and Hari-bol shouting and dancing.

And we certainly laugh at their womanly behaviour and their mispresentation of Krishna and his history and his yoga-dharma. We have only contempt for their attachment and infatuation for the cunning-trickster-frolicking-pretty-boy-lover caricature of the true Krishna of India, and their exclusion and wilful suppression of the Krishna of the Mahabharata -- the Krishna of history -- the example and inspiration of India and humankind.

So you may get peeved at my "hurting" of Vaishnava sentiments, and with other "hurt" Gaudiyas may certainly wish that Lord Nrsimha would come out of some pillar and tear me apart, while you all may stand at Nrsimha's side like Kali-yuga Prahlada's and derive great satisfaction by witnessing the gory (bloody) lila. But, - proving me wrong is quite another thing. Because I live in reality. And try to let The Charioteer of my atma guide me throught the Kurukshetra of life. I do not enjoy cross gender Radharani role-playing in a fantasy Vrindavan carnival and dance in long hair with effiminate mannerisms.

At the confluence of every age, Shri Purushottama Krishna -- the supreme teacher, philosopher, warrior, statesmen, yogi, lover, friend and leader of men -- comes and meets the one who decks up gaudily, smiles mischiviously, blows on the flute, dances with the girls, wears peacock feathers and anklets, plays the cunning trickster, and has some people think that is all he was born to do. The two walk some length and talk to each other, and at last part ways, saying "we and our paths will never merge." But why take it out on Vaishnava Dharma for what ISKCON does? I don't like ISKCON or even Gaudiya faith that much and if the author had restricted his attacks to them, I wouldn't have bothered replying. My statements were about ISKCON in particular, and I of course will wholeheartely agree that all the Vaishnava Sampradayas do not share the same outlook and approach. Far from that, I did single out the "Gaudiya variety" of Vaishnavism in my posts.

In fact, not only are the philosophies of Nimbarka, Ramanuja etc. are starkly different, and can by no means be honestly and objectively labelled as "christianized" even Chaitanya deva was not really dvaita-vadi (dualist) or for that matter monotheistic. He was in fact an achintya-bhedabheda-vadi, an approach that treads a fine line between Nimbarka's qualified monism (known as Bhedābheda) and Madhvacharya's pure dualism.

But just like it is often seen that neo-converts are more zealous than born Christians, or that the slave loves the master more than the master loves himself, the followers of the Chaitanya tradition are eager to outdo their temporal lord in "bhakti". But nevertheless, it is really my finding that the Gaudiya tradition from the beginning is basically monotheistic. We must remember that though Chaitanya or Nityananda did not leave behind any written stuff, the six Goswamis who codified Gaudiya tenets after the passing of Mahaprabhu did so. That should give us a clue. It will not be helpful if we just assume that Vaishnavism is okay, only the ISKCON fellows and the ISKCON cult has these idiosycracies and deviations.

So my question goes deeper -- are not the deviations and contamination of the ISKCON cult, which is a modern, foreign bred manifestation of the Gaudiya tradition, the results of the seeds of such deviation and corruption already inherent in Gaudiya tenets from the beginning, and are not the fundamentalism, henotheism and intolerance of Srila Prabhupada and other Gaudiya preceptors simply because of the tradition they were a part?

Though the term mayavadi is definately used in the tenets of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, no one can say that has ever lead to persecution and violence against alleged 'mayavadis.' Such violence is the key problem with monotheism. Physical persecution and violence may not have been an issue in India. But just avoiding physical persecution and violence to impose ones creed upon others does not necessarily amount to not being intolerant. The Chaitanya-panthi Vaishnavas may not have the habit of jehad and crusade, but they display their total intolerance in words and action. When you publicly and piously proclaim that only bhakti marga is the legitimate way to the Supreme Godhead, when you write in your books that only Krishna is the Supreme Godhead, and other Deities are "demi-gods" (sanskrit: devatas), when you call scientists "rascal", "stupid" and "nāstika", when you call all other ways of worship other than your own "tamasic", when you always are eager to put down Shaivas and Shaktas as followers of inferior paths, when you call all other sublime scriptures other than your Bhagavatam and the Gaudiya texts as "useless" things, then you are not any better than them.

The thought may not have been implemented by the sword, but it is the same world-view. The person who verbally calls me "unbeliever" today, the person who calls my scriptures "useless" today, the person who calls all other deities other than his own "demi-gods" today, is the person whom we should all be careful, whether he is physically violent or not, because such a person is most likely to do tomorrow with the sword what he is doing verbally today, if the conditions and circumstances favour him better tomorrow.

So the argument that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas have not resorted to physical violence does not stand. the world is made up of thought, feeling and action --in that order. If one is capable of intolerant thought and feeling today, he is potentially capable of implementing that in action tomorrow.

<< So comparing ISKCON or Gaudiya thought and philosophical critiques of other Vedic schools with the nature of Judeo-Christian-Islamic enforced monotheism' is historically and philosophically unjust and incorrect. >>

Their record confirms that they are (corect). And that is what is disturbing, because that makes them an aberrant product of Hindu culture and civilization. Because though born and evolved in Hindu society, the strains of their thought go against the grain of Sanatana Dharma. They are not pluralistic. They are anti-pluralistic. They are henotheists. They have eccelestial hierarchy. They have many small things that are the sine-qua-non of Abrahamic monotheism, and not Sanatana yogic spirituality.

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas may be Hindu in the cultural sense of the word, but in essence they are prophetic-monotheists, wearing a superficial garb of Hinduness. It has the same slave morality that we see in Christian theology. This slavish, servant dasa-dasi disposition, this tamasic inclination towards playing the lowly grovelling servant, is anathema to the true Hindu mind

We are not servants and slaves! We are the children of immortality (in Hindu view)! We are the temple of the Kundalini! All the gods and goddesses reside within us. Our Self is the Supreme Reality. We are not the straw on the street. We have built great and sublime works of religion, art, science and literature. We have given yoga, mantra, tantra, meditation, dance, drama, music, dharma, darshana, neeti, and nyaya. We are not the culture and civilization where this kind of slave morality and slave values belong. Doomed are the civilization and the people who follows such precepts.

These words, this language, the thought and disposition that is reflected in such "teachings" belong to the medieval dark gloomy monasteries of Europe. They do not belong to the land of the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita and Tantra. They do not belong to the land that gave the world Yoga. They do not belong to the land of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and the Mahakavis (ancient great poets). They do not belong to a land of heroes. They do not belong to the land of Bhishma and Arjuna, Bhima and Balarama. They do not belong to the land of Vishwamitra, Vashistha and Agastya (Muni). They do not belong to the land of Sushruta, Aryabhata and Varahamihira. They do not belong to the land of Nalanda, Varanasi and Takshashila. They do not belong to the land of Chandragupta and Chanakya, Harsha and Vikramaditya. They do not belong to the land of Rama and Krishna, and Vivekananda. This lowly kritadas (slave) disposition does not belong to the land of Shivaji and Guru Govind. This is the religion of the slaves. Like the creed of Christianity is.

<< Not once did I see him insulting, blasting or humiliating followers of Shankara or Advaitic thought. In fact he treated them according to the standards of Hindu civilization. ..ie courtesy, warmth, joviality and kindness. >>

You and many others who have been directly associated with ISKCON may have your personal experiences that are positive. But no use giving these anecdotes about the isolated incident or the few individually experienced examples here. The world, the public, will judge a religious figure by what he has written, taught, and done publicly. You may personally have known Srila Prabhupada as gentle, warm, kind and jovial. I too, have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that or suspect Prabhupada's personal nobility of character.

But myself and others are not concerned with how Prabhupada's direct disciples or associates have seen him as. We are not concerned with Prabhupada the person. We are talking about Prabhupada the representative and the embodiment of an aberrant, deviant, "un-hindu" hindu tradition, and his commentaries and writings and speeches, where the intolerance, bigotry, henotheism, eccelestial hierarchy and the "dasa-dasi" value system of his tradition are reflected.

<< Not only did we blossom academically under his care, he protected us from the merciless Iskcon teachers. >>

That is our point too. The nobility of Prabhupada the person has no bearing on his cult, his organization, and his followers in that organization. You yourself have to admit, like you are doing, that the ISKCON teachers are "merciless" among others. The "sisters" at missionaries of charity, too, are known to be "merciless".

<< So, my point is that Prabhupada was not the fanatic 'monotheist' he is being portrayed as. From my experiences with him, I think he would agree that one of the key points about Hindu civilization is that there can be differences without nurturing a sense of hostility.>>

Prabhupada the Gaudiya ambassador and preceptor was indeed a fanatic, just like anyone shaped by that tradition would be, exceptions not being the rule. And I, who own a lot of ISKCON literature by Prabhupada and others (my father being a life member), can copiously quote from Prabhupada's interviews, commentaries and speeches, to prove that he indeed was exactly what you are saying he was not -- a fanatic. I am not talking about Prabhupada the person.

<< He meant that we all need to unify behind a common effort to publicize the glory of Hindu civilization.>>

You know what it means to "unify" behind a "common effort", to publicize the glory of Hindu civilization? Do you know how the followers of Prabhupada's tradition have fared in this regard? It means not to call the followers of the path of science "nastikas", "rascals" and "fools", like church fanatics. It means not to call only your deity the "Supreme Personality of Godhead" and all the other deities "demigods".

Having a good understanding of human nature, I know as a psychological truth that the person who calls his own god the "supreme personality" and other divinities "demigods" today will invariably call his own god "the only true god" and other deities "false idols" tomorrow. And day after tomorrow he will issue a fatwa or an edict. And the day after that he will take up arms. It means not to proclaim that only Chaitanya and his Hare Krishna path is the guaranteer for moksha in Kali-yuga, and all others branches of Hinduism are "dried up branches". It means not to proclaim that only the Bhagavatam is the true spiritual guide and fulfills our spiritual needs and all other scriptures, shruti and smriti are "useless" and "unnecessary". This is what it means to "unify behind a common effort". And you should have tried telling that to Srila Prabhupada while he was alive.

<< Another reason Vaishnava Siddhanta emphasizes humility is because the embodied atma is covered over with layers of the experiences from many lives. Therefore there must be a shedding of the various subtle influences that are wrapped into our mind, body-both gross and ethereal, intellect. >>

"Vaishnava siddhanta emphasizes humility" -- these words make it look like humility is the patented right of the Vaishnavas. But it is not. All systems of belief in India understand and appreciate humility. The Shaivas, Shaktas, Ganapatyas, Nirankaris, Shikhs, Jains, Bauddhas - all of them know about humility. Vaishnavism is a relatively late development in our religious history.

Hinduism has been understanding the importance of humility since the beginning. There is no reason to present it as if Vaishnavas are the first ones to teach the world about it. It depends on how one defines "humility". From your words in this post and an earlier post, it seems that in your dictionary, "humility" means the same as self-degradation, self-effacement. You may be under this notion that just if someone thinks himself to be the straw on the street, he will set an example of humility and ascend to sublime heights of realisation. But if you had been familiar with some human psychological truths, and not just some outdated Siddhantas of medieval Vaishnava Goswamis, you would have known that such exaggerated perversion of "humility" does not at all help in spiritual growth, but far from that, binds one stronger to ahankara (individual ego).

<< Regarding the concept of das/dasi it is promoted in order to create the proper mood of reverance that protects from ahankara. >>

It is not a must to be a lowly lower in order to show reverence and respect. In fact, that is one of the worst disservice to the ideals of reverence and humility. I revere my parents. For that, I do not have to think of myself as the "dust of their feet". I do not have to think of myself as the straw on the roadside and the worm in the soil. My reverence for them has validity precisely because I am not the straw or the worm but their son – their legacy, their image – which makes me as important to them as they are important to me.

The low "bhakti" that those ISKCON-ites inject into their novitiates and students, do not help them in appreciating the jewel of bhakti. It only makes them exactly that – dasa and dasi (Sanskrit: servant or ...). Slaves (of God). It is not only that the bhakta belongs to Bhagavan. Bhagavan is also for the bhakta. The Bhagavan's glory is not independent of the bhakta's glorification. It is precisely because of that glorification. The bhagavan is worshipped because the bhakta worships. The Bhagavan is prayed to because the bhakta composes and sings those prayers.

True bhakti – the bhakti that does not reside within the walls of ISKCON gurukuls – is founded on an EQUAL relationship between bhakta and bhagavan, the lover and the beloved. The true sign of bhakti, and its ultimate summit, is the knowledge that oneself too, is an inseparable part and parcel of the object of his reverence and love.

"In Vedic literature, it is always after the devas become too proud that they are then susceptible to the onslaughts of the asuras." You mean in puranic literature. And no, the devas don't get beaten up and driven out because they were proud. You have a big confusion between "pride" and "egoistic", between "ahamkara" and "matsarya". The devas lost because they were complacent, over-confident, hedonistic, undisciplined, sanctimonious and they took everything for granted. Just the exact things present day Hindus are know for. And the asuras trashed them because they were focused, ambitious, disciplined, single-minded, diligent, and adventurous, and no-nonsense go-getters.

The devas were too full of themselves, always getting into trouble and deepening upon Vishnu and Shiva for delivering them. The asuras had a tremendous capacity for tapasya, which won them the favours of the trinity many a time. The asuras were fools, and that's why they always got out of hand. But the devas were knaves. You can forgive a fool, because he does not understand he is a fool. But what do you do with a knave? The devas lived in constant fear of the asuras. But the asuras did not fear the devas. So these were the reasons why devas were "susceptible to the onslaughts of the asuras. Not because they were "proud", what ever that means to you. And this deva-asura story has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

"Pride", in it true sense, is not wrong. Pride makes many things possible. Pride makes us achieve what we want to achieve. Do not always live in the pages of the Gaudiya texts. Come down to the real world. "Pride" and "arrogance" are not the same things. "Self respect" and "ego" are not the same things. So you should not confuse between these, in order to defend that straw-on-the- street posturing.

Pride is necessary in the empirical world of the three gunas, just like oxygen is necessary for life. Because I am a "proud" Hindu, I will take the trouble to educate myself about my culture and traditions. Because I am a proud Hindu, I will take the trouble of making myself capable of intellectually taking on my enemies. Because I am a proud Indian, I will think of serving, doing good for my country. I would not have done so if I had not been proud. I would have gone with Romila Thapar to put my signature on Witzel's petition. Because I am proud of my civilization, I will burn midnight oil to learn about its riches, and to make myself a worthy inheritor of it.

Because I am "proud" of our leaders, thinkers, visionaries and pioneers, I will do my best to learn what they said, wrote, done, taught and advised. Because we are proud Indians, we are concerning ourselves with what mischief (Prof.) Witzel is doing at the other side of the globe. Because I am proud of my parents, I will make the effort to be their worthy heir. Because I am proud of Krishna or Vivekananda, I will take the trouble of emulating their ways or implementing what they taught the Hindus.

This is the meaning of pride. Pride is good, if it has a logic behind it. Pride in one's identity makes one strive to enrich that identity. The collective pride of a race, a civilization, makes that civilization grow, prosper, enrich itself. It is pride that makes man or a race, or a nation, create great works of art, religion, philosophy, architecture, politics, law, science, etc. One who is proud will rule the world. One who is a straw on the street will be trod upon.

The Hindu was respected, famed, looked upon as inspiration, achieved great feats, created great works in all branches of knowledge, spread his thought and culture around the world, and lived in dignified freedom and prosperity, as long as he was proud. The Hindu was trod upon, vilified, persecuted from the moment he lost his pride. Swami Vivekananda used to say that in order for any religion or philosophy to work, to do good, it must above all be practical.

This might give you an idea of how superficial and impractical the creed that you espouse really is. These ground realities, these obvious psychological truths are not taken into account by these impractical, life-denying thoughts, but it is instead replaced with constant harping about vague sattva guna, ahamkara, atma, realm-of-the-absolute and what not. Little knowledge and half-baked ideas are indeed dangerous for a culture and its people. It is laughable when practical truths of the real world of which one is a part of are forgotten, and lotus eaters in their Gokula fantasy land think that just by refusing to deal with the empirical realities they automatically are promoted beyond the "realm of Buddhi, Jnana, Pratishta, Ahankar and worship..." If learning and reciting shastras], shlokas and mugging concepts remove us from the plane on which we dwell, the plane of subjective reality, the history of our civilization shows how dear it can cost a people.

<< In the Gaudiya tradition, the highest concept is that which instills a love connection with God. Any tinge of fear of God, awe and reverence etc is seen as an impediment to complete union with Krsna. >>

So it does in all the much older traditions, so it does in the Shaiva, Shakta and other traditions. What's so special when you do that? And as for the second sentence, then it must be said that you yourself confirm what I want to say – that the Gaudiya tradition is the one which really does not know about true bhakti.

You say awe and reverence are impediments. Well awe and reverence are all those Gaudiya dasas and dasis offer their lord. The relation between a slave/servant and a master can only keep the two distant and formal. And there can only be awe. Nothing else.

There is no madhura-bhava or sakhya-bhava in your dasa-dasi way of life.

<< So Krsna loves the Vrajavasis because they love Him for who He is as a person. The Vrajavasis have absolutely no interest in Krsna as God.>>

Yes and what's unique? The Shaktas love their Mother for who she is. Even if she is terrible, or benevolent. She is the Mother anyway. The Shaivas love their Father and seek union with him. We see ourselves as the very temple of the Father and the Mother. The devotees of Kali think of themselves as Her children.

We see ourselves as the sacred house of Shakti and Shiva. Not the damn straw on the damn street. We are the store house infinite power and the Divine Mother works through us. So some people and sects should really stop acting as if they are the ones who hold the patent to devotion.

<<....the Vaishnava's fear of being hurled down to Vaikuntha... ..to be stuck in the realm of buddhi, jnana, pratishta, ahankar and worship....>>

That is not the Vaishnavas' "fear". That is the Vaishnavas' perversion. Look at the words you have used. "hurled down". "be stuck". Everything must be "down" below, compared to your own Gokula. That shows the mindset. The realm of buddhi, jnana etc. is a realm to be "stuck" in. As if it is a mire. As if buddhi, jnana and pratishta are not worthy and creations of a lesser god. It is implied that is a lower state if being. This is the kind of spiritual tradition that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is. The world is evil, the Gokula is the only truly happy realm. Buddhi, jnana are something you are "stuck" in. If something is not Goloka, it must be down below Goloka, where one can only be "hurled down". But when, even before this post, I had said that I found Gaudiya Vaishnavism to have the same genetic strains as Christianity, I was "hurting" Vaishnava "sentiments" and "peeving" people.

<< Caitanya is all about connecting with the Divine in the realm of absolute selfless love. >>
As Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Ramaprasad, Gorakhnath, Meerabai, Gyaneswar, Namdev, etc.

<< The willingness to suffer on behalf of the beloved. Thus all the statements about willingness to be trampled, lower than the straw in the street etc. >>

The willingness to spiritual masochism. As if to love, one has to be wounded oneself. As if love cannot be without pain and suffering oneself. Taking the pain and the sins of the world, and hanging on the cross, eh? Washing the sins with blood ransom, eh, willingness to be trampled.

<< But Caitanya Bhagavat, Caitanya Caritamrta details many episodes such as Sarvabhauma's change from a Jnani to a Bhakta after days of discussion with Sri Caitanya, Prakashananda Saraswati and his 60,000 disciples, was another leading Advaitin who met Lord Caitanya and became a devout Gaudiya Vaishnava as well.>>

Chaitanya converted 60,000 disciples. As if those 60,00 disciples and their gurus had no brains, nothing inside them, as if a Vidyalaya has 60,000 disciples in those days simply waiting for a Vaishnava sannyasi to come and convert them, and just gave up all what they have learnt so far in their lives, just like that. "Change from a jnani to a bhakta". "Change". You must "change from". You cannot have jnana and bhakti together. You must "change from". But still, I am not supposed to "hurt sentiments" by saying a truth. Caitanya Bhagavat, Caritamrita, gives us "details of many episodes", like "changing" 60,000 well–versed people and all. Similarly, Mathew, Luke, Mark and John also gives us "details of many episodes". Like changing seven loaves of bread and few fishes into food for a couple of thousand. Like the "change" of a dead Lazarus into a living one.

<< On Caitanya's Tour of India, he visited every Shiva temple He came across, including Srisailam. >>

And Nityananda used to perform Durga puja. And Advaita prabhu was a Shiva devotee. So? As if these are supposed to be compensations. As if these are supposed to be damage control. Let's not talk about what these men did five centuries ago. Because we were not talking about these men in the first place. Let's not use these stories to sidestep the issue at hand.

Let's talk about what their Gaudiya Vaishnava followers and their present lineage of successors are doing. You tell me the story that many people know. That does not mean anything today. The followers of Caitanya's tradition will today frown even if they see a man wearing the Shaiva or the Shakta tilak enter their temples. They will not even take up a Shaiva or a Shakta text to look up and broaden their horizon. They will not even perform pan-Hindu ceremonies like Shivaratri or other things, if that is not of their tradition. And I can prove this from the Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu and Prabhupada's translation of it. So you address that.

<< Not that he says Bhagavat Purana and bhakti is the only way. He says it’s the easiest and highest and sublime path.>>

You know how this logic sounds? It like I actively and aggressively propagate the concept of the white man's burden and the manifest destiny. I say and I write that the manifest destiny ideal is the highest and the best ideal. I go around preaching that only the social, and economic systems and the religion of the white man is the easiest and the most sublime path towards progress and development for the heathen natives at this age. And then, I have my advocates say that I was not a white supremacist, because I had never said the words "I am a white supremacist". “Even that advice is given, not so much to denigrate, but because a majority of people in Kali yuga can not maintain the efforts involved in the other paths.”

I will always be cautious of a guru who "advices" that his way is the "easiest, best and most sublime" way, in a particular age. Because I know that tomorrow his followers will go a step ahead to turn the "easiest" and the "best" to the "only true" and "only good". Because, the very ex-pression "easiest" implies that others are not desirable because they are "not so easy". And the very ex-pression "the best" is a superlative adjective that implies that other ways are not "as good". And so from the "best way" to the "only good way", is only a logical progression.

Why don't these gurus leave it up to the people to decide for themselves according to their adhara and temperament – the sine quanon of Sanatana dharma – which way is the "easiest" and the "best" for them?

When choosing a path according to adhara, instead of deciding for others and telling them what single way is best for them, is the defining and distinguishing hallmark of Sanatana dharma, why do they wish to go against the flow? When we can do that, why cant you? And after that if I say that Gaudiya tenets contain genetic strains of prophetic monotheism, I am "hurting" "Vaishnava sentiments".

<< I am trying to highlight the difference between Prabhupada and the actions of those that gained control of ISKCON. >>
<< A travesty against his (Prabhupada's) legacy has been the attempt to divorce him from his Indian roots and from Hindu culture. >>

Like I said earlier very specifically – I have no reason or grounds to question Prabhupada's stand or approach or motives as a person. I am one of those who are as Hindus indebted to people like him who have been ambassadors of our culture and tradition. But Prabhupada the public figure, Prabhupada the embodiment and the representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Prabhupada the author, preacher and theologian, will remain under criticism and scrutiny, in keeping with the tradition of purva-paksha.

<< With respect not with a sense of adversity.>>

Exactly the same here. Soldiers cut down their enemies in real battle, but to hone their skills for that they practice and spar with each other. It is more desirable if we can locate, criticize, evaluate and discard harmful and wrong strains within our traditions, instead of setting our enemies find them out and put them to their advantage. Amongst ourselves, we are Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Suryas, Tantrikas, Nirankaris, Orthodox (āstika), Heterodox (atheist), Vedantics, Mimamsakas, Nyayakas, Advaitas, Dvaitas, and so on. But when facing our enemies, we are all together Hindus. And that is why it is to be hoped and expected of Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be able to think the same way.

If Prabhupada's goal was the spread of our civilization, if his goal was to show to people the foundation of Hindu nationalism, then our first preference should always be to rescue his institution and legacy from those followers who have allegedly betrayed him and his true message. Leaving his legacy to the dogs should never be the first option.
___

Related articles:

• Introduction to the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition: Gaudiya.com
• Answers.com: What are the basic beliefs of the Hindu religion? • WikiProject: Indian history • Ancient India

• Answers.com: Vedic religion
• Ancient Indian religion which was contemporary with the composition of the Veda/s and considered precursor of - Hinduism
• Cults, Psychological Manipulation and Society: International Perspectives — An Overview • Fundamental Questions on Hinduism
• The deep-rooted polytheism of Hindu society • Supreme monism of intellectual Hindu • Akilam, Ayyavazhi Hindu Renaissance

• Iskconmedia: Attack on ISKCON by Indradyumna Swami • Audio: Are we Hindus or not? (more)
• The Rival Positions in the IRM-GBC Controversy within ISKCON (more) • The Role of the Guru in a Multi-Guru Society (more)
• "Vedic" in Terminology of Prabhupada and His Followers • State and Society in Ancient India • For Whom Does Hinduism Speak?

I found recently a quote from a letter of Srila Prabhupada regarding this issue: "The aim of ISKCON is not to found a new religious sect, but to invoke the living entity's dormant love of God, and thus provide the human society of all faiths with a common platform of clear theistic knowledge and practice. Members of ISKCON may retain their own respective religious faiths, as ISKCON is meant to establish a clear, practical common formulation of the common ideal of all theists, and to defeat the unnecessary dogmatic wranglings that now divide and invalidate the theistic camp. This common ideal of theism is to develop love of God" (68-08-24ROL).

"The conflict is not between East and West; the conflict is between the atheists and the theists. We are preaching Krsna consciousness, not that we are trying to replace something by Indian method to Christian method or Jewish method'." (68-09-24)

- Copied from: What was Srila Prabhupada's Position: The Hare Krishna Movement and Hinduism • Iskcon and Hinduism (more)

kamalamala1 wrote:And most people are realy cheated by others in different fields in politics, in religions. The whole cheating is based on the point that you should trust, you should believe that you are foolish, you should understand that you are sinful, and e.t.c. You dont know they know. And in reality they also don't really know, and if they are wrongly motivated economically, politically, and even if they want very much to become Great Sage or Saint then you are cheated. You waisted your time, your life...

I remember in this connection an occurrence from the time I was "bhakta" in Nava-Jiyada-Nrsimha-Kshetra, now renamed Simhachalam, where the deity of Prahlad Nrsimhadeva is worshiped. There was about the middle of the year 1986, 'Sri Vishnupada' was also there, together with some other leading Prabhupada disciples of the German yatra, among them Maharama dasa, a "strong preacher" and former "leading sankirtana devotee" as he was considered by many of us "impure and inexperienced bhaktas" at that time. It was so that all this "great man" had a meeting where they were discussing and debating, behind closed doors, about some very important topics, I guess it was also related to who should preach in what preaching zones in the german speaking countries. Maharama who in the meantime became a prominent "leader" and "preacher" in Austria and Germany, was asking or rather demanding from Vishnupada to allow him to become a guru and initiate his own disciples in "his Austrian yatra." Something which at that time would have had the potential to start a small revolution in the former ISKCON guru system of the eleven chosen ones "gurus" and "acaryas," that became established after Prabhupada's departure.

After a few hours of hot debate, the group of Prabhupada disciples ended their meeting and the whole story spreaded like a wildfire among "bhaktas" and "devotees" who lived there. The next morning we could all be witness in the Srimad Bhagavatam class how this "would be guru" was verbally or should I rather write "philosophically finished off" with great intellectual expertise by citing from various sources of the previous "gurus" and "shastras". If I remember well, there was also mentioned among other things, that a "guru" would have to be in some way also chosen and authorized by his own guru and so on, and does not become one just by his own will and endeavor. Of course somehow he also had to speak like that since it was also in some way expected by us, the eagerly waiting and "surrendered" audiance of 'devotees of Krishna'.

A few years later the so-called "gurus" nevertheless would have to be proposed by their "leading god brothers" to the GBC's in Mayapur where this "great man" or "woman?!" were than "authorized" or "made to function" as future "gurus" of their "International Society for K.C...", by some "democratic agreement" or so, of the "G. B. Commissionaires" in their yearly meetings in Mayapur. Further information regarding this unusual procedure as considered by some outsiders, one can get from the articles in: "The Rival Positions in the IRM-GBC Controversy within ISKCON" published online in 2006 by Prof. Rahul Peter Das of the Institut for Indology and South-Asian-Sciences at the Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg in Germany who wrote also some articles related to this topic as understood through the perspective of his studies on the issue. The article by Hridayananda Goswami "The Role of the Guru in a Multi-Guru Society"and the IRM response.

Kamalamalaji wrote: "You waisted your time your life..." I personally would say that in all circumstances of life we could further learn something if we are just open for it. When I think back, I can say, I learned a lot from the past experiences I made, especially what I should not do from now on in my life; "surrender" my common sence in or for the association of whatever "great man", or "great woman." However "pure", or "self realized", or "psychic", or mystic", or whatever they seem to be to me and those I associate with. At the end what really seems to count in life, is me and what I make out of it - in the "here" and "now" and not only in some future "realm" of my own or others imagination. For good or for worse, my point is that not all I went through and not all my experiences seems to be really in vain they rather seem to have for everyone of us a somehow deeper meaning we may have to discover. But I have to admit that it took me a lot of time to come to this conclusion and there are still some moments I think back and ask myself what was or is this all about, anyway. But life goes on...

• The Official IRM - GBC Debate by Prof. Dr. Rahul Peter Das • Publications

Harshiji
It such a busy time i cannot really find time to answer properly especially because of my bad English.
In the texts you wrote it was a lot very interesting points but my bad English didn’t allow me to fully understand the whole/
Anyway i would like to share some ideas.
Actually i don’t have real answers for myself even about sects.
Since everything needed to be examined in consideration of time in wiсh that happened and motives, i can say something about time factor .About real motives only God can say.
For example what was done by Prabhupad for us i mean soviet people in a way it was
i not sure that it was inproper although that methods and stiles and ways and wards doesn’t appropriate nowadays at all, but in that time i really don’t know but it works and helped.
Although i also don’t know that it was the only way to do things to present Lord Caitanyas teaching or movement or i dont know how it properly can be defined [since in reality Lord Chaitanya in my understanding doesnt made any movement He just was the person he was and lived in the way he wanted and he did wath liked to do.]
I mean people in soviet time was anyway living hopeless completely brainwashed life exactly like in concentration camp or even worst since the weight of atheistic ideology was very very high,
and for such situation ones need {maybe} strong fanatic ways of presentation full determination physical services and heavy crisisism on there philosophy and science.
People as individuals was neglected and sects although neglecting individuality for there goals but in comparing with camp that was less.

The scientists was so ignorant and were so much in power that one need s really harsh wards to put them in proper place.
The domination of atheistic culture was very heavy.

So the fanaticism and determination and service and even authorities {maybe}was needed.

As it is needed when one really want to be cured by doctor he should trust him although he can also know that the doctor is ordinary man as he is.

So for that time it was really medicine for sometime for many not for all ,but nowadays it completely strange in many ways because time totally changed, totally .But even for that time was done tons of mistakes all this struggle with impersonalism and demigod warship and many other things i think wasn’t at all needed,af course if i had to do something like that maybe i will do much more mistakes it is easy critisise,but i really didnt like many points

now times changed complitly ateism doesnt
dominating in the minds of people and scientists,also people doesnt need authorites anymore they need helpers and so on.Yes also ladyes cannot be anymore neglected as people and be less then anybody and so many other abvious things
People all became so much aware that they realy dont need to be preached and so on.
All this Guru buissnes becoming useless in most of cases
And by the way all that Guru things as it was presented in ISCON never was like that in real vedic time [this is my opinion] nor in Lord Chaytanyas time.
Real Guru will never exploit and use his desciple ecspesialy under the name of devotional service as many ISCON gurus doing it now for there interst ,he will just help him out of his kindness afcourse if he have real mistycal power if not then he is useless as Guru.

.In those days the idea of Guru was accepted by me as a very important and helpful and necessary since the idea was that you are guided and protected by really great mystic not just scolar.And athough our individuality disappeared in the shadow of Guru but considering the heaviness of time and our goals it was appropriate.
For me Guru meaned not the one who was appointed ,[how can be appointed a mystic if one is not mistic],but one who really had capacites.Not just chanter and speaker and follower.
From this point of view iwas lucky by the way since it really happened that Hari was real mystic as it became now obvious.
But nowadays what mean the guru ,how can one put himself in position of warship in position of God [as they said] if he have no any mystical capacities.
For example let examin the guru job.
They declared that one should not consider guru as ordinary man and so he suppose to be not ordinary it means that people should pray him should offer food and service, but if guru is not mystic and is ordinary person as many others then when people pray to him is nt it the most ugly cheating since he even will not know who are praying and what he is praying if he is nt real mystic how he can help , same about service and food offering.
I personally think that one who
cheat people in the street and get there money isn’t so worse then
the one
who make people believe that they can pray to him and he will help if he is not real capable person mean mystic.
P.S
Afcourse they are saying that Paramatma will hear and accept and help but then you can pray to any other living entity even to animals since Paramatma also exist in there hearth
Sorry for my bad English and tons of mistake.

[Can you imagine Lord Budda only scolar and Same Jesus]
But i think that mistical people also can do many mistakes
By the way in all vedic litarature you will not find any great sade and muni who was not real mistic, not single one.For me if persom just speakes and realy dont have mistical experianse doesnt mean something, special.[i mean in the context of guru things as i wrote.]

In those days the idea of Guru was accepted by me as a very important and helpful and necessary since the idea was that you are guided and protected by really great mystic not just scholar.

I think in some way we all imposed our own ideas on the "guru" and how a "guru" should act or behave and the people we associated with just confirmed in some way our preconceived belief and expectations on such a person. When one reads about the guru of Krishna or Sri Caitanya one could read that their respective "guru" was also a scholarly teacher and was teaching them also what they needed to know in their life, and this were not only spiritual teachings.
I think what you mean with "mystic" is someone who is somehow favored by God and is able to reveal to us his will and spiritual existence. If this is what you mean, Kamalamala, I would fully agree.

They declared that one should not consider guru as ordinary man and so he suppose to be not ordinary it means that people should pray (to) him, should offer food and service, but if guru is not mystic and is ordinary person as many others then when people pray to him isn't it the most ugly cheating since he even will not know who are praying and what he is praying if he isn't real mystic how he can help, same about service and food offering.

Who advised you that you should "pray" to the guru and offer him "food and service?" As far as I know we were advised to pray to Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and offer him our food and service. And he being also the Paramatma expansion in our hearts is able to listen to our prayers and desires and help us in some way, if he so desires. "Whatever you do,whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform - do that, O son of Kunti, as an offering to me." (Bg. 9.27) You may know this advise Krishna gave to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Of course it was understood that one is doing this "through" the transparent medium of the "guru" what meant that one was following his teachings and his spiritual example in life. It was understood that he is the transparent medium to the Lord through his personal example and the spiritual teachings he is able to disseminate or reveal to us. Arjuna was somehow very lucky because Krishna was himself his adviser or guru, his transparent medium to the Supreme in life. "In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to me." (Bg. 9.28)

Now times changed, complitely ateism doesn't dominating in the minds of people and scientists, also people doesn't need authorites anymore they need helpers and so on. Yes also ladys cannot be anymore neglected as people and be less then anybody and so many other abvious things. People all became so much aware that they realy dont need to be preached and so on. All this Guru bussines (is) becoming useless in most of cases.

Indeed we need "helpers" or good examples to follow. And I agree also with you that our ladys are an equal part of society who should be respected and protected therein. What we need is indeed not so much "preaching" rather the disseminating of the right knowledge wherefrom one could take some advantage in life. That was I guess also the intention of the so called "gurus" of ancient times.

Guru in India means simply teacher in that menaing anybody who teach something to anyone is Guru in that field,and there arehundred categories of Guru ,in spirituality there are also many tipes of guru,but in my case i meant not just scolar, franckly saying i didnt want at all scolar Guru and will never be attracted with such one, i was expecting the highest category, one who are real mistyc not just scolar,real yogi with pratyksha realisation not with just gyana.I never like tons of wards i like sutras as Bhagavad Gita is writen.And speaking and
quoting tons of wards doesnt realy mean anything for me.This is not the quality that iam atracting in the idea of GURU.One should be real mistyc to be real Guru.Look at most Goswamis and Haridas thakur and many others .Some of them was scolars also but they was also deffenatly mistyces.And this is the most important parth of there being at least for me.

Yes it is so that we have our expectation and my expectation was to have real mistyc GuRu
and it happened believe or not it amaisingly happened.

My point was that if one is normal person not with twisted motives he should not exploit the believes of others,it is most horrible thing from my point of vew, he should not force people to serve him or to put him in the position of
mistycal person if he is realy not in the direct meaning of this ward, just scolars by no ways is mistycs [if they are not mistyces ].If one is realy Mistycal person he realy knows wath he is doing in most cases.
Even nowdayes tons of people praying to there gurus you didn know that?
And so called gurus using people as a slaves and this is horrible for both of them
they are just doing buissness and this is cheating.

kamalamala1 wrote:Guru in India means simply teacher - in that meaning anybody who (is) teaching something to anyone is Guru in that field, and there are hundred categories of Guru, in spirituality there are also many tipes of guru...

On the internet I found an interesting article related to what you wrote, which is revealing what somehow also my understanding of this topic is.

The Guru Within
by M. Peterson

As a young girl still growing into her awkward frame, with hormones racing and a newfound desire for the attention of boys, what I needed most was to know how to be ‘cool’. So I found the guidance of Sally Socialite, the most popular girl in school. Sally became my social Guru. I wanted to be just like her. I put her on a pedestal as the bringer of understanding on all matters related to boys. But, as always, there was an eventual breakdown of this paradigm when I realized I could find this understanding on my own.

Everyone seeks a Guru at one time or another in their live.

Whether it be as a young child seeking help accommodating their awkward integration as a social being, a student seeking a mentor, a woman healing the emotional wounds of a painfully detached father in the arms of the ‘knight in shining armor’.

We all seek inner understanding, a bringer of joy, a bringer of peace, a bringer of healing.

When I was a young girl Care Bears were my Guru, the bringers of great joy to my life. As I got older it became the company of horses and their strength and the solace they provided me during my awkward years. OK, so horses never left their lofty pedestal, but they had to make room for my first crush who clearly was my Guru for the first 10 months of our charade. Everything he liked became what I liked for I felt that if I did what he did, that he would love me as I felt I loved him. It did not work however, and the pedestal shortly made room for the next recipient.

We will call him Coach Knows All, my high school track coach. With his ‘un-cool’ spandex pants and his dislike for TV or anything that was about ‘following the herd’, this coach provided me with a basic foundation upon which I have crafted my identity, by simply giving me permission to just be myself.

He continually encouraged me not to follow what others liked, but what felt best to me. He would pull on my toes before a track meet to help my body’s circulation and would have me lay on the floor with my legs in the air to drain the lactic acids. I was one of the only ones who would actually listen to his strange ways because I liked not following the herd.

When I lost my first race I apologized to him and he looked at me with a crinkled brow exclaiming, “Michelle, everyone wins, everyone loses, it’s all the same”. It was all he had to say for me to get it. He very rightfully was my Guru during those years of feeling the pain of ‘fitting in’ but in truth just desiring to be my own eccentric self. Time drew on as time always does, and I moved on to College, then on to studying with energy healers, shamanic teachers, and diving deeply into the spiritual.

Many became my Guru because I put them there, some were ‘light’ some were ‘dark’, both were teachers, and I’m grateful for all of them.

These days I live in Sedona, AZ, one of the largest “New Age” hubs in the world, where I am constantly presented with various belief systems all claiming to be truth. I affectionately call Sedona “The Land of Discernment,” because I have been hit with so many different and contradictory belief systems, that I must continually refine the subtle distinction between what I know to be true and what I merely wish to believe. People come to Sedona for a spiritual experience. To walk in what are called vortexes or spiritual energy centers, so that they may experience a depth of connection with their inner being. There are those claiming to be shamans, energy healers, and psychics as well as New Age book stores, crystal shops, and self-proclaimed Gurus every other week coming to Sedona to bring truth.

There are also ‘locals’ who know that some of these spiritual practitioners are charlatans, and warn those coming into town that they are ‘fake’. However, who are they to tell others which road to take to the Divine?

Who are we to deny someone else the experience of what we call a charlatan. In my experience some of my greatest teachers were those who turned on me, because it taught me to find the truth within myself. It is not another’s responsibility if you cast them in the role of spiritual Guru. In the end, most people end up picking a Guru that agrees with their own personal point of view.

Anyone can unknowingly become a spiritual teacher for us the moment we gift them such a title. This is not to say that everyone is indeed a bringer of Divine Wisdom, but rather being open to the process of learning from all, opens up the pathway for finding Divine Wisdom in all. We are indeed learning from our experiences with others regardless if they are what we call light or dark, we grow. If we open ourselves up to focusing on the teachings, and not the teacher.

There is a line that is often drawn around what a spiritual teacher or Guru really is. Many believe that to embody truth, the Guru must be pure and infallible. This standard of Christ-like perfection precludes the seeker from acknowledging the Divine “gift” that disillusionment with the Guru can be.

I have been challenged by the title Guru for most of my life, as I equated it to giving one’s power over to a man or woman rather than finding it on your own. I however continually made my spiritual teacher my Guru, the shamanic lineage my Guru, the current book I was reading my Guru, but would have nothing to do with someone who actually called themselves a Guru.

In 2005 I began reading Autobiography of a Yogi and was exposed for the first time to Babaij. I quickly went online and researched this man to find pictures of Herakhan Babaji on babaji.net. This being grabbed my attention immediately and claimed me as his own. He began coming to me in dreams and teaching me about Truth, Simplicity, Love, and Service. This aspect of Babaji, who was no longer in the physical body, at least in front of me, was the greatest teacher I had met, because I was ready for the teachings.

Perhaps the most profound of his teachings being this; do not attach (only) to the teacher, attach to the teachings.

It was then I realized that Babaji coming to me in dreams was far more powerful than a being coming to me in the physical, because I was not giving all the power to his being, but rather just receiving the teachings.

It was then I realized what to me a Guru truly is; A teacher who leads you to the teachings that lead you home to yourself.

The process of receiving such teachings however is a process of letting go of the attachment to a being, and being open to the possibility that you can be taught by everything.

As I said, everyone has a Guru at some point. But once you are fully awakened, life itself becomes the ultimate Guru, and the teacher you most need to meet most is the one standing right in front of you.

They are teaching you about your light and your shadow; your judgments; your fear. They are teaching you about your hurt, and how it feels to be ‘mislead’ to God, when in your core you so deeply desire to be lead back home.

The woman who broke your heart and who taught you not to lose yourself so much in a relationship is your Guru, the school teacher who never paid any attention to you and silently encouraged you to own your knowledge without accolades, the spiritual teacher who built you up to break you down.

We are all learning from someone, whether it be your collection of Carlos Castaneda novels from the 70’s, that you continually refer back to, or the music of Jerry Garcia, or the presence of an avatar; we are all being guided by the Grace that moves us into Joy and Peace.

This world is a school. There are different subjects, different teachers, and different levels of teachings. Every level has its requirements and tests for passing.

If you look in the dictionary and look up Guru, it says “A teacher and guide in spiritual and philosophical matters”. Everyone is our Guru, if we recognize it’s about the teachings and not the teacher. Let life be your Guru. Let both your attachments and your aversions instruct you. [/quote]

A true Guru leads you to God like one leads a thirsty horse to drink. The rest is up to you. You can find techniques and methods to achieve greater awareness, but it is up to you to follow them. In the end you will find that no method or religion can provide you with enlightenment until you are ready receive it.

This is why the true Guru does not offer to tap you on the forehead and give you instant enlightenment. A true Guru taps you on the forehead lovingly bringing to the surface all that is not you for you to release with a trusting sigh.

I have had many Gurus and teachers. Some never asked for such a title, while others begged for it, then let me down only to lift me up again.

The greatest Guru is the one who lead me home to myself. Who taught me that when you follow the teachings, you see the teacher in All. Let Grace be your Guru, the Grace of the Divine working through All, to remind you, that the Truth, well the Truth is Within.

(As far as I remember Prabhupada should have said ones that even from a dog you can learn something in your life...)
___

Author's Bio
- Michelle Peterson has been aware of the subtle realms of Spirit since she was a young girl and has incorporated their presence into her life, her work, and her embodiment on this planet. She believes that no one can give you the answers, but they can however guide you into the truth that it is already inside of you. She also believes that the work we do together is never about the teacher, but the teachings. (more)

Exactly
INDEED
Most of the things you wrote sounds great .

But i was writing about the sects where the Gurus just doing oposit they are forcing people
to be attached more to the guru then to the teaching.And in there teaching guru is the central point of teaching.
Do you remember the faimous saying in that sect that one who is serving God is not as good as one who is serving Gods servant and by this they mean GURU.
Anyway for me is evrything is clear.

Yes when we dont terorise ourselfs with artifitial authorityes and feel comfortable with ourselfs [wich is inpossible in sects ] then we will be opened for extraordinary teaching prosses throught the whole life and all beeings .

But also i want to add that there are some people who are very extraordinary they have
mistyc powers and they can help more then anybody in the evolutionary prosses like that Babaji.

kamalamala1 wrote:But also i want to add that there are some people who are very extraordinary they have
mistyc powers and they can help more then anybody in the evolutionary prosses like that Babaji.

Or Srila Prabhupada, what he made out of this ones LSD taking long haired Hippies during the time he was giving them his association could be also called a somehow mystic feat. What happened to his society thereafter is indeed disputable.

Prabhupada: God is situated in everyone's heart. (caitya guru) As soon as He sees that "Here is a qualified person," then He gives him instruction.

Following is an excerpt from an Interview with Newsday Newspaper
July 14, 1976, New York

Interviewer: A question: you are now the leader and the spiritual master. Who will take your place?

Prabhupada: That Krishna will dictate who will take my place.

Interviewer: Krishna will tell you that?
.
Interviewer: How do you choose, you are responsible for the organization. Are you the one who chooses who runs each center, who is responsible in each temple. you choose the leaders, or Krishna does and tells you, how does that work?

Prabhupada: No, I have been chosen by my spiritual master.

Interviewer: Yes. And you in turn choose others?

Prabhupada: Oh yes. That is our succession.

Interviewer: On what basis?

Prabhupada: Basis, on the order of Krishna. Originally the order is from Krishna.

Interviewer: How does that come?

Prabhupada: Comes by disciplic succession. Just like Krishna said this knowledge to Arjuna and Arjuna said to others and it is open. Everyone can take it, there is no secrecy. We have to accept only, that's all.

Interviewer: I missed that, I'm sorry.

Prabhupada: The order is already there, it is open, open secret. There is no secrecy. Anyone can take it.

Interviewer: All right. But in terms of specific, say, choosing, specific things, specific details.

Prabhupada: Yes, in all details, how to become Krishna conscious, there is all details in this book, Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Hari-Sauri: So he's asking what's a man's qualification to be chosen.

Ramesvara: In other words Prabhupada will decide who should be leader if he's qualified and there's a process for making him qualified and there's a process for testing to see if he is qualified. So in that way it all comes from Krishna.
.
Interviewer: On what basis, though, can you tell me some of the things that...

Prabhupada: Basis, just to see whether he's qualified, that's all. Just like ordinarily one manager is appointed by the superior authority on the merit, on his qualification. That's all.

Interviewer: Okay, is it a mediated choice or is it a direct communication from Krishna, that's my question.

Prabhupada: No.

Ramesvara: He's asking whether we claim that God speaks to us directly.

Prabhupada: Yes, God speaks to you when you are qualified. You cannot expect God as order supplier. When he sees that you are qualified, he will speak to you.

Bali-mardana: The spiritual master is the representative of God to the disciple because he is in direct contact with God.

Prabhupada: My spiritual master appointed me that "You do this." Similarly I shall appoint somebody else, this is the way.

Ramesvara: It's difficult for people to understand that God can speak to a man. They question, "How can God speak to some man?"

Prabhupada: That is, anything, that, the radio message is coming, a foolish man cannot understand how it is coming. He'll think "How it is that, speaking?" So any foolish man will be astonished how things are happening. That is foolishness. But God says, find out this verse...

Hari-sauri: Four three? Sa evayam maya te 'dya [Bg. 4.3]?

Prabhupada: Huh? No no. Buddhi-yogam dadami tam yena mam upayanti te.
Ramesvara: Tesam satata-yuktanam [Bg. 10.10].
Prabhupada: Ah, tesam satata-yuktanam bhajatam priti-purvakam [Bg. 10.10].
Hari-sauri: Dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te.
Prabhupada: Ah, yes.

Hari-sauri: "To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give them the understanding by which they can come to Me."

Prabhupada: God is situated in everyone's heart. As soon as He sees that "Here is a qualified person," then He gives him instruction.

Interviewer: But in the same way that Krishna says He'll provide for your needs you still must work to achieve whatever Krishna is giving you.

Prabhupada: Yes. You work for Krishna. You have to work to get your necessities.

Interviewer: In the same way I'm curious with respect to the way Krishna communicates with you, whether it's in a similar kind of way that He gives you your necessities.

Bali-mardana: In other words, when you decide that someone is to be in charge of a particular temple does Krishna tell you that this person should be in charge.

Interviewer: Or do you by judging him say this person is qualified.

Prabhupada: Yes, because a devotee always consults Krishna and He gives order.

Interviewer: It's a more direct communication.

Prabhupada: Yes. And He gives order.

Ramesvara: Because intelligence, our philosophy is that intelligence comes from Krishna. So if I have some...

Interviewer: And your philosophy is that your daily necessities come from Krishna as well.

Ramesvara: Yes, try to understand. Suppose my intelligence sees that this person is qualified, that means Krishna has told me.

Prabhupada: No, not necessarily, Krishna will tell directly. A devotee always consults Krishna and Krishna tells him, "Do like this." Not figuratively.

Interviewer: Does that apply then to other kinds of decisions and other kinds of activities as well?

Prabhupada: Everything. Because a devotee does not do anything without consulting Krishna.

Bali-mardana: But that applies to a very greatly elevated soul, that is not an ordinary person.

Prabhupada: That is, therefore the minor devotees, they consult the spiritual master. That is our process. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah.

Ramesvara: I see, I was trying to explain the minor devotees.

Interviewer: No, I was talking about...

Ramesvara: You're talking about the topmost level.

Interviewer: Yes. That will do it for me, I thank you, kindly.
___

siksa-guruke ta' jani krsnera svarupa
antaryami, bhakta-srestha,-ei dui rupa

[“One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.” (Adi-lila, 1.47)]

(more)

and also there are cheaters who are "selling "GOD and exploiting peoples most sacral feelings
and expectations and this kind of people for me the warst ones,
[see wath catolics was doing in the name of God in middle age.]
THis kind of people so much filled with pride and egoism that allow there followers to put them in the place of God or even warst forced them to accept him as God.
Mohamed would not tolarate that/

I realy cannot judge anybody since i dont know there real motives but the ones whom i knew
it is abvious for many of them
If one doesnt have mistyc powers if one attached to be served by others if one considering
people lower then hm ,and trying to get liflyhood, fame, glory and money by inposing himself as a guru then he is pure cheater.

the last sentense you wrote is the flag and hearth of sects at least the sects exploiting this idea very harshly without any shame and real understanding
first of all wath does it mean pure devotee
for me it means the devotee person without egoistic motives and if so he will never put him in the position of guru if he doesnt have mistycal expereance ,pratyaksa ,and doesnt get the direct order from Radha nad KRSNA [then he is doing service],direct means direct not imaginary throught imaginary parampara things.such person cannot exploit people, use them as slaves,it is not possible he wouldnot neglect them as people,ecspesialy ladyes and childrens.

I think that the great persons who are puted in parampara like Vyasadeva and Goswamis will amaised very much when know that they used as authrisatores for the present cheaters gurus
the intervue you wrote i doesnt like it smelled very very sectarian

I dont realy know why Prabhupada said and did many things i dont realy know i cannot judge him since i didnt know him and his motieves but many things he wrote and said doesnt at all resonate with my understanding [and many i like],the one you wrote is exactly the thing i dont at all like
But why not he is also human he also could make mistakes ?
Wath do you think?
and by the way some points in the scriptures also doesnt resonate with me at all so why should i accept that hurmful points they also can be mistakes why not?
iam sure that that person who wrote scriptures if he happened to be born in our time he will not write a lot of things like that