Divinity of Guru

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Jan Brzezinski wrote:

> "Kintu" means "but." In this case, but "not God." He

> is God but not God. What is the alternative but human?

 

The best alternative is recognize one's bonafide guru as a

manifest example of the inconceivable identity in difference we so

often hear of. This is supported by the fact that for no other apparent

reason, Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami suddenly inserts the catuhsloki

bhagavatam into his (Cc. Adi 1.49-56) discussion on guru-tattva, which

also deals with this suprarational relationship.

 

 

 

 

> By human, we mean not ominiscient, not omnipotent, and

> not infallible.

 

I'm not one of those people who argue for omniscience, but it is

nonetheless a fact that Baladeva understands the Brahma-sutra to say that

a liberated jiva can become omniscient (or "sarva-jna"). By Krsna's grace,

even His devotees can have His limitless potency for carrying out His

work--and many belive Srila Prabhupada did. Similarly, it is also a

principle of siddhanta that pure devotees of his stature are indeed beyond

the four defects we conditioned souls regularly display. However, this

needless to say if we are simply prepared to treat the bonafide guru on an

equal level as God--something therefore made explicit by our acaryas time

and time again, including the verses we're discussing.

 

 

 

 

> Nowhere did anyone say "kintu" meant "ordinary human

> being."

 

I beg to differ; I think that's clearly what you've implied

above, as well as before.

 

However, as I've pointed out, seeing one;'s guru as "human"

really isn't an option either, given the plenitude of prohibitions

condemning that viewpoint (e.g., Bhagavata, 11.17.27). Seeing him as

human is almost the default (if not also animalistic) perception, based

mostly on preyas; there's hardly a need to encourage what is already

natural (sahaja). On the other hand, it takes great spiritual acumen (and

grace) to be able to perceive the Divinity of the bonafide guru on the

sreyas level. Such is what distinguishes human beings from brutes, and

those who wish to utilize their human form of life should strive for

that instead.

 

 

 

 

> The guru is, as a friend

> once said, the symbiosis of God and man.

 

Okay, but human beings aren't; that's why we worship gurus.

 

 

 

 

> The greatest difficulty in overcoming sectarian and

> fundamentalist consciousness is this attribution of

> that which pertains only to the Supreme Deity to the

> guru.

 

There's truth in this too, so we should recognize how this

identity principle is practically restricted to the sense with which we

must perceive, receive, and worship our gurus in total faith and

surrender. In other words, "yatha deve, tatha gurau . . ."

 

MDd