Letter: Being Rightly Situated
By Niscala devi dasi

Letters to CHAKRA do not necessarily reflect the view of the CHAKRA staff.

I hope Krsna-Kirti will forgive me for analyzing his article, "Reinitiation and Narayan Maharaja", for while I find the canvassing of anyone on behalf of their guru, distasteful and fanatical, I find the logic in his article fallacious.

If a person is lacking faith in his spiritual master, it is not necessarily due to offenses. It may be that the spiritual master is not giving his time to the disciple; or that the instruction he is giving, while Krishna conscious, is inappropriate for the level that the disciple is on, and thus, the disciple is stagnating.

It may even be that the guru, while institutionally approved as guru due to his service in ISKCON, is not capable of inspiring genuine faith, though he may through pleasant personal traits, attract a following. Or, he may be giving instructions that are not actually Krishna conscious, but are tailored to please or appease the local management, whilst dressed up in the language of bhakti.

Theses are just some of the possibilities, and in any of these cases, it is not wrong for a disciple to accept siksa elsewhere.

Another thing is, in regard to fall-down. Maybe we can discuss this here on CHAKRA. Krishna says that if a devotee is rightly situated, then even if he performs the most abominable action, he is to be considered saintly. Then in the purport, Srila Prabhupada defines this abominable action, as coming from past bad habits. Therefore, if a guru is performing his function of enlightening the disciple, and this is going on nicely, then why should he be rejected due to fall-down from his past bad habits? Srila Prabhupada says in the purport that if we do, we are disregarding Krishna's direct instruction.

Even if he re-enters the grihasta ashram, then that is that is defined as control of the senses, if it is regulated. Therefore, such a person, who knows how to impart the science of Krishna, is still qualified as guru.

Trouble is, we forget the function of a guru, to give vani, and insist on his personal perfection, vapuh. But it is the vani that is more important. Is the disciple advancing by the vani? That is the issue. If so, he should not reject his guru because of some personal imperfection, which should be considered to be like a pockmark on the moon, which in no way hinders its ability to give light.

Neither should the guru's fall-down be made a public affair, thus causing him embarrassment. Srila Prabhupada was so angry when a sannyasi's fall-down was made public, making it hard for him to stay in ISKCON. Yet we do it. We need to become softhearted at such times, not judgmental.

The fact we are placing so much stress on fall-down, means we place high priority on the personal perfection of the guru. However, Srila Prabhupada stressed "I am not perfect. None of us is perfect. But we are repeating the perfect instruction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore, that much we are perfect. " That is the qualification of guru. And yet still, so many disciples think that the guru should be infallible, and that is the criteria. Why this confusion?

We have the emphasis topsy-turvy. The disciple should be taught to analyze his guru's words, and take up those instructions, which push him forward, to not accept everything that comes out of his mouth blindly, as if to question were an offense. Then he should be taught that if the guru is a bona fide instructor, and he is able to learn from him, then he should not be rejected if he has fallen down from the ideal life of a sannyasi. He is not a superman. If he portrays himself as such- which Srila Prabhupada never did, in fact quite the opposite- then he is cheating the disciple. He is after faith in himself, rather than in Krishna.

So the real thing is not accidental fall-down, but -is he rightly situated, above personal ambition? That was Srila Prabhupada's definition of a pure devotee.

Another fallacy in the letter was equating spiritual authority with managerial authority. This is like saying that the ksatriya equals the brahmana. The GBC is our managerial authority; and the sadhus, gurus and sastra, our spiritual authority. They should not be merged into one, or only chaos will result in the social order.

Sadhus and gurus preach according to the sastra, and this inspires faith in Krishna in the heart of the disciple. They do not pass laws or resolutions, saying whom one may have faith in, and whom one is forbidden to have faith in. Therefore, the GBC passing resolutions regarding this, proves them to be what Srila Prabhupada intended them to be, and no more, i. e. managerial authorities.

The sadhus and gurus may quote sastra, as to what sort of people are detrimental to the bhakti creeper, but the sadhus and gurus never force. Faith comes from the heart, by hearing and living the instructions of the guru, not by resolutions passed. That should be obvious. However in ISKCON, we do not think very clearly, therefore we bypass the obvious. That is obvious too, but I'm sure it will be labeled as "offensive", like most other obvious statements are.

Srila Prabhupada taught that we should become "sastra caksusa" not "GBC caksusa". Not seeing through the eyes of the GBC, nor of Narayan Maharaja's followers, nor the followers of any other guru. However, in fanaticism, such disciples think that faith in their guru should be forced down the whole world's various throats, and that by so doing, they are proving themselves to be good disciples, and saving the non-converted. Anyone attracted to such fanaticism despite all good instruction, should be welcome to leave ISKCON, as they so desire. We need mentally balanced people, not fanatics.

Your servant, Niscala: niscala89@hotmail.com 

© CHAKRA 08-July-2001

Go to the “Letters Page”