Reference to Acharyas: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur

Q. During one of our recent discussions in our study group there was a discussion on siddha svarup.

One of the devotees said that the spiritual master would reveal one's svarup at some point of time when such a disciple has reached such a stage. My humble opinion is that such a practice is not there in ISKCON and as and when a devotee reaches such a stage of advancement it will be known to him naturally.

Can I humbly request you to kindly clarify this?

Q. I was watching Good Morning America and they did a story on a man that claims to be Jesus. The question is that when such individuals claim to be God what kind of bad karma will he get for saying he is God, what kind of punishment will this man have to endure for committing this act? I don't know why but this has been bothering me because I can't understand why people follow and believe in such people. When they should know that there is only one God, Krishna, why is it that people will believe anything that they are told?

Q. In BG As It Is chapter 3, Srila Prabhupada clarifies that the performance of sacrifices for Krishna (Vishnu) are required for spiritual elevation and for comfortable living in the material world. He goes on in verses 3.10, 3.12, 3.13 (and perhaps others) to elaborate that sacrifices are very difficult to perform in this age, but that the merciful Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has made the sankirtan sacrifice more available for this purpose.

Q. How do we know that the love we show to Lord Krishna is not contaminated, and how do we differentiate love and lust in the material sense?

Below is an answer I had given to another person some time ago about "love" in the material world but it addresses your question as well:
A link for the answer below:

Q. Is donating "blood" correct according to the shastras? Nowadays there is a lot of encouragement for blood and organ donation. How should we look at these from a Vedic perspective?

There are no specific injunctions for/against blood donation. However, in principle such acts are generally understood to be within the category of material or bodily compassion, which is not only temporary but also superficial in that it does not address the real issue.

Q. In the Ekalavya pastime, it is mentioned that one should perform duties according to one's propensity and capability. However, Lord Krishna declares that it is not the prerogative of only the Brahmanas to indulge in sacred activities such as reading scriptures etc.; rather any one who can raise himself to the platform of bhakti is eligible for this. Are these not contradictory?

Q. 1. What is the proper mood in approaching our relationship with Krsna and serving Him?
Q. 2. Does Krishna give us something based on our desire or based on how much we deserve?

Q. In many places in the Srimad Bhagavatam and in other scriptures the word "brahmana" is mentioned but not Vaishnava. Lord Sri Krishna also addresses as brahmanas & even it is said Om Namo Brahmanya Devaya. So this is my question: why does Lord Krishna refer to Brahmanas but not Vaishnavas?

The Supreme Lord very much favors brahminical culture because it is the basis of progress in human society.

Progressive human civilization is based on brahminical culture, God consciousness and protection of cows. Simply by properly respecting and protecting genuine brahmanas and the cows, human society can become perfectly prosperous and progressive.

There are stories about Christian mystics who fell victims to demons while thinking that they communicate with God. For example, during deep prayers and austerities, some of them smelled heavenly fragrance and a divine being appeared to them, speaking seemingly about spiritual truths, but in fact that "angel" was misleading that ardent Christian mystic. Is something like that possible in Vaishnavism? How to recognize who is on the other side of the line?

Q. Do you think true love really exists in this world? I am talking about the love we see in relationships between husband-wife, friends, or brothers. As far as I have understood, the only form of true love is between a mother and her child. Even here, it is more from the mother's side. Do you think that a mother loves a child because it's her child, because a woman always desires to have and love children?