Diksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2330259 from COM]

>

> On 19 May 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

> > It is

> > important that as disciples and grand disciples we continue to make

> > Srila Prabhupada's books available so he CAN act as as siksa to anyone

> > with sincere desire.

> >

> > Diksa has more to do with institutional matters. Also very important

> > and useful, but as a means, not an end.

>

> While I agree, this idea is in conflict with much of the present leadership

> mandates of ISKCON.

>

> Is it more important to render submissive service and worship of the siksa

> guru from whom we receive daily direct instruction(from Srila Prabhupada's

> books/tapes)or the diksa guru from whom we receive the formal "institutional"

> initiation but do not have much contact with later?

 

Why do we assume that the system of a disciple not having much contact with the

diksa guru should be our standard from here to eternity?

 

It seems to me that this is precisely the root of many of our problems -- that

the

diksa guru is not able to give sufficient personal guidance to his disciple,

and

that he does not feel great enough personal stake in the welfare and spiritual

success of that disciple. It is a weakness of our current system that it is so

impersonal.

 

It seems to me that we should take a broader view and see how the guru system

should gradually change in ISKCON over time. Let's bear in mind a couple

factors:

 

 

 

*In his instructions on varnasrama, Srila Prabhupada notes in several places

(including SB 5.19.19) that it is the duty of the spiritual master to guide his

disciple to the appropriate varna -- nevertheless he himself rarely indicated

to

his disciples what varna they should occupy to do their devotional service to

Krsna

 

*Somewhere in his instructions I remember reading, Prabhupada states that the

disciple should live with the spiritual master for at least 6 months before

taking

initiation. This implies that the guru and disciple have a firm personal

relationship and understanding of one another. It implies that there is ample

opportunity for personal spiritual guidance. Nevertheless, he himself could

rarely provide his own prospective disciples the opportunity to personally

associate with him so closely.

 

*And, of course we all know that a spiritual master is cautioned against taking

too many disciples -- nevertheless Prabhupada took several thousand disciples.

 

* Srila Prabhupada had very little personal contact with his spiritual master

--

nevertheless he became a great devotee.

 

* Most devotees in ISKCON have very little personal contact with their diksa

guru

-- and a great many of them eventually fall down. This includes the direct

diksa

disciples of Srila Prabhupada himself.

 

* Our current system right now is highly geared to the idea that the disciple

will

have very little personal contact with his diksa guru. On the contrary, the

presumption is that the guru does *not* know the disciple. The official

procedure

is that the temple president must write some recommendation of the disciple

before

the guru will initiate him.

 

----------

 

What do I make of all this?

 

First of all, I do not have any great conspiracy theory. I personally think

that

our institution of guru was meant to evolve and change over time. In his

compassion, Srila Prabhupada was certainly right to take several thousand

disciples -- even if most of them eventually did fall down. It was their only

chance for Krsna consciousness (and most will still continue to progress in

this

life or the next), and it was his only chance to make a movement big enough to

have some potency in changing the world.

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada had little personal association with his guru, yet he

became

a great devotee. Nevertheless, perhaps we need to admit that Srila Prabhupada

was

already an exceptional personality before he met Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati.

Therefore, he did not require a lot of personal association to become a great

devotee. It was already within him. Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja simply lit a

match

to dry tinder.

 

For many of the rest of us, we are not so advanced -- we actually do require

more

personal association and guidance from our spiritual master to make

advancement.

For many of us, the system that worked for Srila Prabhupada is not adequate.

 

I personally believe that when Srila Prabhupada appointed his 11 disciples to

act

as rtvik priests and initiate for him, that he fully intended that they should

continue to initiate -- on their own behalf -- after his disappearance.

 

I also believe that he intended them to initiate in certain geographic zones.

 

BUT, I do not believe that this was his plan for the rest of eternity.

 

Based on the things I have read by Srila Prabhupada, I believe that he intended

that many, many of his disciples should initiate their own disciples -- not

just

dozens, but hundreds.

 

I believe that he intended that in the future, that spiritual masters would

have

much more personal contact with his disciples and would give them much more

personal instruction. How will it ever be possible for a spiritual master to

guide his disciple to the appropriate varna training if we continue with the

present system in which the guru does not even know most of his disciples, but

must instead rely on a letter of recommendation from a third party before

initiation can take place?

 

AND, in light of all this, it seems clear to me that our guru system must

evolve

to a point where the guru/disciple ratio is much, much smaller than it is right

now.

 

We have to change our thinking in our regard to guru. We should not say so

much

"He (or she) is a guru," but rather "He (or she) is a devotee." Certainly, it

should never be used as a point of publicity -- "So-and-so is an initiating

guru." That is most inappropriate.

 

That individual may be a guru, but it is none of my affair unless they are my

personal guru.

 

To put this idea in perspective. Normally we do not say, "Please meet

So-and-So

dasa. You will be interested to know that So-and-So is a father." To

So-and-So's

son, his position of father is very important, but to others it normally is not

considered the primary *identity* of that person.

 

I think we have made a bad mistake to regard the *guru* as a *position.* In

that

sense I disagree that a person who is an administrator cannot be a *guru.* My

understanding is that Lord Caitanya deliberately took spiritual instruction

from

Ramananda Raya to underscore the point that a guru does not need to be a

brahmana. Whoever knows Krsna can be guru.

 

I accept the GBC's current feelings that a guru should not be an administrator

due

to potential conflict of interest, but as we see guru's who have only a few

disciples, I believe they will eventually see that the conflict comes not so

much

from the fact that the person has a disciple, but from the fact that a person

has

hundreds of disciples. In that case, the issue must be decided on a

case-by-case

basis

 

************************

 

So, I feel that this is a central point that ISKCON needs to come to grips

with.

We must evolve in such a direction that the guru becomes again the *personal*

spiritual guide for a devotee.

 

Once we do that, I think many of our current problems will begin to resolve

themselves.

 

BUT, once again, it will not be possible to create a better guru system in

ISKCON

until we establish some type of systematic training for bhaktas in how to

select a

guru -- a personal spiritual guide.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi