Humanity of guru

[Guest guest]

The humanity of the guru is the _kintu_ in kintu

prabhor yaH priya eva.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

> The humanity of the guru is the _kintu_ in kintu

> prabhor yaH priya eva.

>

 

saakShaad-dharitvena samasa-shaastrair

uktas tathaa bhaavyata eva sadbhiH

kintu prabhor yaH priya eva tasya

vande guroH shrii-charaNaaravindam

 

saakShaat - directly; hari-tvena - with the quality of Hari; samasta -

all; shaastraiH - by scriptures; uktaH - acknowledged; tathaa -

thus; bhaavyate - is considered; eva - also; sadbhiH - by great

saintly persons; kintu - however; prabhoH - to the Lord; yaH - who;

priyaH - dear; eva - certainly; tasya - of him (the guru); vande - I

offer obeisances; guroH - of my spiritual master; shrii-

charaNaaravindam - unto the lotus feet

 

The spiritual master is to be honored as much as the Supreme Lord,

because he is the most confidential servitor of the Lord. This is

acknowledged in all revealed scriptures and followed by all

authorities. Therefore I offer my respectful obeisances unto the

lotus feet of such a spiritual master, who is a bona fide

representative of Shrii Hari [Krishna]. (shrii shrii gurvaShtaka - 7)

 

(translation from _Songs of the Vaishnava Acaryas_, published by the

BBT)

 

I'm not really clear as to how you derived any concept that the guru

is an ordinary human being from the above. The verse is clearly

stating that one should honor the guru just as one honors the Supreme

Lord. In fact, the entire song is nothing but glorification of the

guru, and it would be very odd indeed for it to speak of the guru's

eagerness for Krishna-katha, his desire to serve Krishna's devotees,

his ability to offer Krishna's mercy, etc etc and then suddenly

say, "oh and by the way, in spite of all that, he is just an ordinary

joe."

 

No, I don't see how you got that at all.

 

I am against blind acceptance of anything, but if after submissive

inquiries and proper service, one can only see one's preceptor as an

ordinary human being, then I think it goes without saying that either

that individual is unqualified to be a guru or your perceptions of

him are incorrect.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Srimad-Bhagavatam, 8.3.2 (purport):

 

"In this verse the words etac cid-atmakam are very important. The material

body certainly consists only of material elements, but when one awakens to

Krsna conscious understanding, the body is no longer material but spiritual.

The material body is meant for sense enjoyment, whereas the spiritual body

engages in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. Therefore, a

devotee who engages in the service of the Supreme Lord and who constantly

thinks of Him should never be considered to have a material body. It is

therefore enjoined, gurusu nara-mati: one should stop thinking of the

spiritual master as an ordinary human being with a material body. Arcye

visnau sila-dhih: everyone knows that the Deity in the temple is made of

stone, but to think that the Deity is merely stone is an offense. Similarly,

to think that the body of the spiritual master consists of material

ingredients is offensive. Atheists think that devotees foolishly worship a

stone statue as God and an ordinary man as the guru. The fact is, however,

that by the grace of Krsna's omnipotence, the so-called stone statue of

the Deity is directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the body of the

spiritual master is directly spiritual. A pure devotee who is engaged in

unalloyed devotional service should be understood to be situated on the

transcendental platform (sa gunan samatityaitan brahma-bhuyaya kalpate).

Let us therefore offer our obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, by whose mercy so-called material things also become spiritual

when they are engaged in spiritual activity."

 

©BBT

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

 

(re: Gurvastaka, 7: "kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya," etc.)

> I'm not really clear as to how you derived any concept that the guru

> is an ordinary human being from the above.

 

That's partly why I didn't even bother responding to it.

 

 

 

 

> The verse is clearly

> stating that one should honor the guru just as one honors the Supreme

> Lord. In fact, the entire song is nothing but glorification of the

> guru, and it would be very odd indeed for it to speak of the guru's

> eagerness for Krishna-katha, his desire to serve Krishna's devotees,

> his ability to offer Krishna's mercy, etc etc and then suddenly

> say, "oh and by the way, in spite of all that, he is just an ordinary

> joe."

 

Moreover, we need to address the "samasta-sastraih" part too;

let's look at the sruti first, since no one will deny its authority. I don't

think the concluding verses of the Svetasvatara Upanisad should be taken so

lightly; obviously, they are relevant especially for people who would like

to argue that the guru is merely a human being (6.22-3):

 

"This supreme secret in the Vedanta, spoken in a previous age,

should not be revealed to one who is not tranquil, nor to one who

is neither a dutiful son nor an obedient disciple."

 

"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord

and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically

revealed."

 

Srimad-bhagavatam is even stronger about this (11.17.27):

 

"One should know the acarya to be My self and never disrespect him

in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is

the representative of all the demigods."

 

Other smrtis follow in this same vein (eg., Caitanya-caritamrta,

Adi-lila, 1.44-48).

 

 

 

 

> I am against blind acceptance of anything, but if after submissive

> inquiries and proper service, one can only see one's preceptor as an

> ordinary human being, then I think it goes without saying that either

> that individual is unqualified to be a guru or your perceptions of

> him are incorrect.

 

Since it is clearly suggested by Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.23, I

think the correct way to approach one's guru is to do so just as Arjuna

did (cf. Gita 10.14). A disciple will accept *everything* the guru

teaches in toto (sarvam etad rtam manye)--and not just pick and choose

according to his own preferences or modified faith. One who practically

accepts the bonafide guru as the external manifestation of the Supersoul

will retain such fidelity even if an entire life spent in utter discipline

to his guru's lotus feet never produces any tangible result (though it

always does). That certainly seems to be the spirit Narottamadasa Thakura

sings of in his song, "Sri Rupa Manjari pada:"

 

"The feet of Sri Rupa Manjari are my real wealth. They are the

object of my bhajana and puja. They are the treasure of my heart, my

ornaments, and the very life of my life. They are the reservoir of rasa

for me and the fulfilment of all my desires. They are the conclusion of

Vedic dharma, my vows, austerities, mantras, and japa. Only they are my

religious activity. . . "

 

Such guru-nistha is certainly also the point in Visvanatha

Cakravarti Thakura's comments on Gita 2.41 (i.e., vyavasayatmika buddhih):

 

"In bhakti-yoga, one's intelligence becomes single-pointed, or

fixed in determination. One thinks, 'Theinstructions of my spiritual

master to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead by chanting,

remembering, serving His feet, etc., are my only sadhana (practice), my

only sadhya (goal), my only livelihood. I am unable to give up these

instructions either in the stage of practice or in the stage of

perfection. They alone are my object of desire and my only

responsibility. Besides them, I can desire no other responsibility, even

in my dreams. It is all the same to me whether I feel happy or unhappy,

or whether my material existence is eradicated or not."

 

After all, "all the sastras" as Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

himself put it, tell us to respect our gurus like God; I've already posted

so many similar sastric references, unlike those who challenge their

purport.

 

Even just looking at it logically, why would anybody faithfully

submit himself to strict discipline under the spiritual guidance of a mere

human being?

 

Finally, common sense also suggests that we call him "Gurudeva"

because his authority is essentially Divine (i.e., guru=deva); otherwise,

he would addressed as "guru-nara,guru-manusa," etc.

 

Whatever one's ideology--surrender to one's guru is its practice.

Aside from Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura (or any of the other great

Vaisnava acaryas), even the lion of mayavada, Sankaracarya, also concurs

on this fact:

 

sad-angadi-vedo mukhe sastra-vidya

kavitvam ca gadyam supadyam karoti |

guror anghri-padme manas cen na lagnam

tatah kim tatah kim tatah kim tatah kim ||

 

The six branches of Vedic knowledge and sastric learning may be

ready upon his tongue, and he may craft intelligent prose and choice poetry;

still, if his mind isn't fixed on the lotus feet of the bonafide guru, then

so what, so what, so what, so what!

 

MDd