Spiritual master should not...

Expressions researched:
"spiritual master should not"

SB Canto 7

The Lord's representative spiritual master should not be considered an ordinary human being.

SB 7.15.76, Purport: Kṛṣṇa does not become the direct spiritual master unless one is fully trained by His representative spiritual master. Therefore, as we have already discussed, the Lord's representative spiritual master should not be considered an ordinary human being. The representative spiritual master never gives any false knowledge to his disciple, but only perfect knowledge. Thus he is the representative of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa helps as the guru, or spiritual master, from within and from without. From without He helps the devotee as His representative, and from within He talks personally with the pure devotee and gives him instructions by which he may return home, back to Godhead.

CC Madhya-lila

A spiritual master should not be very anxious to accept a disciple because of his material opulences.

CC Madhya 24.330, Purport: A serious disciple must be alert when selecting a bona fide spiritual master. He must be sure that the spiritual master can deliver all the transcendental necessities. The spiritual master must observe how inquisitive the disciple is and how eager he is to understand the transcendental subject matter. The spiritual master should study the disciple’s inquisitiveness for no less than six months or a year. A spiritual master should not be very anxious to accept a disciple because of his material opulences.

Nectar of Devotion

A bona fide spiritual master should not personally take any responsibility for constructing temples.

Nectar of Devotion 7: So a bona fide spiritual master should not personally take any responsibility for constructing temples, but if someone has money and wants to spend it in the service of Kṛṣṇa, an ācārya like Rūpa Gosvāmī may utilize the devotee's money to construct a nice, costly temple for the service of the Lord. Unfortunately, it happens that someone who is not fit to become a spiritual master may approach wealthy persons to contribute for temple constructions. If such money is utilized by unqualified spiritual masters for living comfortably in costly temples without actually doing any preaching work, this is not acceptable.

The spiritual master should not be, I mean to say, taken as ordinary human being.

Lecture on SB 1.8.43 -- Los Angeles, May 5, 1973: Just like spiritual master. A spiritual master is honored. Not only honored—in the śāstra it is said, nāvamanyeta karhicit. Ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyān nāvamanyeta karhicit [SB 11.17.27]. The spiritual master should not be, I mean to say, taken as ordinary human being. And the king also, practically we see, that we do not treat a king or a president like ordinary human being. What is the reason? What is the reason? The reason is that the king... King's another name is naradeva, "God in human form." Naradeva.

Therefore the so-called spiritual master should not be puffed up, that "Now I have become God." This is Māyāvāda.

Lecture on SB 2.9.7 -- Tokyo, April 24, 1972: Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja [Bg. 18.66], and the spiritual master says the same thing, sarva-dharmān parityajya: "Just surrender to Kṛṣṇa." Therefore, message being the same, they are identical. The persons are identical. But not identical in the Māyāvādī sense, that he has become now God. No. He is not God, but he is the most confidential servant of God. This is Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Because spiritual master has to be accepted, sākṣād-dhari, directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore the so-called spiritual master should not be puffed up, that "Now I have become God." This is Māyāvāda. This is rascaldom. He is most confidential servant of God, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the disciple accepts him as good as God. Therefore the conclusion is simultaneously one and different. Acintya-bhedābheda. Bheda, different, means the spiritual master is a confidential servant, or the servant God. To the disciple he is servant God.

A spiritual master should not be accepted as a matter of phobia.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- San Francisco, March 3, 1967: One must be very inquisitive. But inquisitive about what? For the supreme benefit. He should be inquisitive to learn the supreme. Then he has the necessity of searching out or approaching a spiritual master. If there is no such demand, then there is no necessity of going to a spiritual master or accepting a spiritual master. A spiritual master should not be accepted as a matter of phobia(?). Just like you keep some pet dog or cat, similarly if you want to keep one spiritual master, there is no profit. You see? You must be qualified to in..., inquisitive to understand the spiritual science, and the spiritual master should be also qualified to answer your inquisitiveness. Then the relationship is nice, not one-sided.

A spiritual master should not be sought after to fulfill one's sense gratification.

Lecture on SB 11.3.21 -- New York, April 13, 1969: That is the way. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Why one should approach a spiritual master unless one is inquisitive to understand if there is anything beyond this material world? Otherwise there is no need of seeking a spiritual master. A spiritual master should not be sought after to fulfill one's sense gratification. No. One should be very much eager to understand, to know the science of Brahman, which is beyond this material existence, and then he should very seriously seek after a spiritual master.

General Lectures

A spiritual master should not be accepted as a matter of fashion.

Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968: Yes, this is very important point, that a spiritual master should not be accepted as a matter of fashion. Somebody thinks that "Everyone gets a spiritual master, so I may also have some spiritual master." Or "I may keep some spiritual master as my pet." Just like somebody keeps some pet dog or pet cat. So they want also, "Somebody must be my spiritual master, and whatever I order him, he'll carry." So such kind of fashionable spiritual master is useless.

1970 Correspondence

It is the injunction of the Vedas that the Spiritual Master should not be treated as ordinary man even if sometimes the Spiritual Master behaves like ordinary man.

Letter to Brahmananda , Gargamuni -- Los Angeles 31 July, 1970: It is the injunction of the Vedas that the Spiritual Master should not be treated as ordinary man even if sometimes the Spiritual Master behaves like ordinary man. It is the duty of the disciple to accept Him as Superhuman Man. In the beginning of your letter your comparison of the soldier and commander is very appropriate. We are on the battlefield of Kuruksetra—one side Maya, the other side Krsna. So the regulative principles of a battlefield, namely to abide by the order of the commander, must be followed. Otherwise it is impossible to direct the fighting capacity of the soldiers and thus defeat the opposing elements. Kindly therefore take courage. You are capable in so many ways. Let things be rightly done so that our mission may be correctly pushed forward to come out victorious.