Authorities: Deserved of respect?

[Guest guest]

> Thus, objectively speaking, the only way for a newcomer to

> escape being blamed for a poor judgment and committing

> a grave mistake of accepting a non-mahabhagavata for a guru,

> was to avoid joining ISCKON after the departure of Srila

> Prabhupada. To stay away from that collectively illusioned

> society, in other words.

>

> If I would really have now to search for my grave mistake, then

> it wouldn't be my bad choice of a guru. But my bad choice of a

> society. You don't even need to be any familiar with the ISCKON

> life to have the glimpse into what I am talking about. Namely,

> accepting the prominent sect leaders as your spiritual authorities is not

> really the wrong step once you have accepted the sect as your "home".

 

I had been thinking about the kinds of experiences Mahanidhi prabhu must

have had to lead him to this kind of stance (I am not being critical here of

him at all, but I am critical of the society that lead him to have this

unforunate outlook), not just him, but most of us. When I came home this

afternoon, it kind of became a little clearer to me why he should offer

these statements, and I thought to offer a possible reason for it. This is

in no way siding with any particular party, but just another way to look at

it. I have not been closely following this particular thread, but I have a

feeling that Mahanidhi prabu is probabaly using his trademark cynicism, and

maybe he does not feel this way at all, but nontheless, some people could

justifiably feel this way.

 

I think we have been short changed in the society as to what we have been

lead to beleive guru is. We see guru as 'authority', which is partialy

correct. But what *we* have experience of since Srila Prabhupada left, and

even many of his disciples, even while he was here, was often exclusively

the *authority* aspect. As in the controlling, 'do what I say, I am your

authority' type of dealing.

 

I will always remember how Yamuna Dasi once described that Srila Prabhupada

'spoiled' the devotees in the early days. He 'spoiled' them with his love

for them. He personaly cooked and fed them, he shared their worries. He was

concerned that they keep some personal money for emergencies, and made sure

they were reimbursed. he sent them remedies for illness. He *cared* about

them.

 

There were some recent texts, about the insensitivity devotees often treat

each other with. This did not come from Srila Prabhupada, but rather from

insensitive leaders who were more interested with control and obedience, so

that they could reach their self set goals, than with the devotees needs. I

personaly feel that it was the example set by leaders who insisted that

mothers send their kids to gurukula so that they could then go out and

'collect', and other insensitive actions of leaders who placed big

'collections' over the relationships between families, that has lead to the

impersonal actions of devotees toward one another.

 

Srila Prabhupada's society grew and grew, and eventualy it was very

difficult for him to give that kind of association to everyone. The most

important thing was to imbibe that loving reciprocal mood, of humility and

service to his most senior disciples, the ones he already had a personal

relationship with, so that they in turn could give that love to their

followers. Unfortunately, they often did not do that. Even gobrother to

godbrother, one can learn a lot from a selfless loving and caring

godbrother, especialy one who is senior (but not necesarily), one who maybe

had more of a personal relationship with Prabhupada, but above all, one who

is non envious, and a friend to all.

 

We know that if someone *wants* to be a guru (even if they pretend not to)

then they are disqualified. When Srila Prabhupada was here there was very

little time for him to convert, and work on his disiples to make them humble

and pure representatives of the Sampradaya. He tried, and later realised

that his early successes, were not as good as he had thought (I am not

assuming to know the mind of Srila Prabhupada), and that some of his

disiples were falling down and 'becoming ridiculous'. That is when he

started to really push for varnasrama. as he could see that we really needed

help to rise from passion to goodness. A person in goodness is naturaly kind

and caring, basic traits of sadhus. And once in goodness, they can rise to

transcendental goodness.

 

Personaly I feel that the relationship with guru has to be based on love.

Srila Prabhupada said to Satsvarupa Maharaja, one time "if you love me, I

will love you". That was a very personal and touching statement (especialy

seen in the particular context of the occaision), in which Srila Prabhupada

revealed a very intimate dealing with his disciple. (I am not promoting any

guru here, I am pointing out a dealing between Srila Prabhupada and a

disciple.)

 

Surely this is what accepting a spiritual authority is about. It is the most

intimate thing. To accept a guru, means to accept a person who will lead you

through death, and take you by the hand to Lord Krsna himself. Think about

how personal, how intimate that is. Generaly we tend to think of death kind

of abstractly, but when our own death comes, it can be a very emotional and

personal affair. So when we choose a guru, we are choosing the person who we

trust the most to help us die succesfully. Going through death must be

somewhat like a small child facing a very scary situation. Completely

helpless he cries for his trusted father or mother, and with their help he

has the confidence to go on. So death is where we are forced to let go, to

what future we do not know, and we need someone, who is in contact with the

other side, and can guarantee us that we are in good hands, and that all

will be well.

 

I would want to be very picky about who that is. I would want to KNOW that

person, very well, and I would want to be completely sure that I could trust

this person with my life, and ultimately with my death.

 

Many of us in ISKCON were told "you NEED a guru". We were kind of pressured,

"Oh god I need a guru". Then we hear, "he's a guru". So we kind of amble

along, and if he looks good, and speaks nicely we accept "OK he seems ok,

Ill accept him".

 

I would propose that we change this. I would propose that we teach devotees

that we should accept only a person who we have had a chance to get to know,

as a freind. We should encourage the devotees to choose someone who they can

spend time with, and really get to KNOW. Why should we accept a guru, under

pressure, who can only spend a few hours a year with us? At least initialy

we should be able to spend a lot of quality time with a prospective guru, so

that we can be convinced that he is really the kind of person we can trust

to bring us home.

 

I remember my own experience, and what lead me to 'choose' my first guru

(Jayatirtha). I joined when I was 16, and I was very much in the 'nonesense'

category. I kept runnning off to free festivals (hippy gatherings) etc. So I

got a bit of a stigma as being 'not very serious'. When I did try to get

serious there was tremendous pressure to 'prove' that seriousness, by

getting initiated. It was the yard stick. Being called 'Bhakta Greg', was a

stigma. It was not considered good if you did not get initation for a long

time. I wanted that name, and that thread. These were the 'symbols' of being

a part of the crew, being a 'real' devotee. And it was relatively easy. But

the emphasis was all on being 'accepted' by these infallible great souls.

There was no idea, that we should 'test' them, or in any way make up our own

minds about their validity. To suggest such an idea was in itself an

affront.

 

And now we find an ISKCON where the very idea of promoting an authority,

brings howls of derision, and criticism. We dont want to be told any more by

anyone, who we should choose, or what we should do. This is a terrible state

of affairs to be in when the very idea of making advancement in spiritual

life is based on surrender, and accepting authority, or at least offering

respect, not just to guru, but to all seniors. Yet this is what we find. Our

authorities have eroded their standing, by being too busy for *us*. And

simply by being too 'authoritative' as opposed to actualy teaching us what

love is.

 

There has been justification for all this personal neglect. Temples had to

be maintained, but more often we were forced to work for the glory of a

particular leaders vision, as if that leader were so much superior to us,

and his godbrothers. But what is more important, the buildings or the souls

that inhabit them? And then we find these 'glorious leaders' are not so much

superior after all, when they fall down. Suddenly we find that they are just

like us, but their problem was that they accepted posts far too lofty, and

acted as if they could handle them, until the facade got too heavy.

 

Many of us have been burned by these authorities, and many of us have been

agents of them. These are authorities, who often seized power, rather than

earning their positions through love and trust, and by 'being there' for

their disciples. I wonder how many of us accepted a guru with very little

idea of actualy where they were at, other than a very superficial

understanding, and the more 'important' consideration of what everyone else

thought?

 

To me the idea of encouraging 'quality time' between prospective guru

disciples, is an absolute must. Let them get to know each other, and let

them really ask piercing questions of each other. Actualy who can really get

the courage to ask piercing questions of someone unless they have got to

know each other somewhat. In this way, surely with the aid of a lot of

background information on the ways in which people can put on very

realisitic facades of spiritual perfection, a prospective disciple would

have a lot more chance of choosing a suitable person.

 

The unfortunate fact is that the credibility of leaders whether they be

gurus or senior people has been seriously eroded. Anyone that wades in with

'advice' is asking to be skewered and derided at every step, and I feel that

it is unavoidable at this present time.

 

Many of us have been burned, and badly so. If we do not change the system

that created this terrible situation, it will continue. How can varnasrama,

which is based on dharma, the respect for position and seniority, ever be

established, when people have no respect for authority? And the reason for

that being that the authorities themselves have brought this about, through

wanton negelect of the very people they are suposed to serve.

 

 

Ys