Srila Prabhupadas advise about Guru tattva

[Guest guest]

On 11 Jul 1999, Vidvan Gauranga wrote:

> > > Furthermore, we know that many senior disciples of gurus WHO ARE NOT

(yet) considered "FALLEN" are losing faith that their gurus are

> > > competent enough to lead them across the ocean of material existence.

 

> This is a silly argument.

> Ananta Vasudeva, who was the right hand man of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

> Sarasvati Thakura, lost faith in BSST that he was bona fide. But that had

nothing to do with the guru, but everything with himself.

 

Respectfully, if my argument is "silly," then your counter-example and the

logic behind it is *irrevelant.* Is anyone of ISKCON's gurus even close to

the same level as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, a nitya-siddha from even

before his birth (ie, his father being Bhaktivinode Thakura)?

 

Furthermore, I am not sure if you are privy to the Ananta Vasudeva's inner

psychology, so you would be well-advised not to speculate about that either.

He is also your paramguru's godbrother. Therefore don't even dare to offer

such a comparison. It is far from being applicable here anyway.

 

But in direct answer to your challenge: Yes, when a disciple loses faith in

his guru, there are two basic alternatives -- the disciple is defective or the

guru is defective. Note here that I don't say "the guru is 'bogus,'" because

there are all sorts of possibilties in between.

However, when we speak of determining the *primary* cause of something (ie, a

guru's defect or a disciple's defect), for our purposes it is simply a

question of preponderance of one side's defect over the other. Very rarely do

we find 'perfect' gurus or disciples, but we can examine the *degree* to which

someone is qualified or not. Remember, the topic under discussion is

the *guru*, so for now, let us focus on that.

 

In the case when the disciple is basicly sincere and bona fide, then it is the

guru who is not very realized (eg. kanistha or low madhyama) and incapable of

offering "sufficient guidance" (NOI.5). In the "Essence of All Advice,"

(Upadesamrta) the condensed instruction on guru-asraya, Srila Prabhupada

states this very clearly. From that we can infer that a guru who is incapable

of giving sufficient guidance will at one point in the disciple's progress

become superfluous or disappointing. That is simply axiomatic. How so?

 

If you can't guide me to my desired destination, I cannot keep trusting you to

help me, can I?

 

If a teacher doesn't understand the inner purport to the material he is

supposed to be presenting, how can he teach a proper understanding of it to

his students? His students will become confused.

 

If the guru himself is not free from all anarthas, how can he set an inspiring

example of purity? The disciples will lose their inclination to follow, chant

or perform devotional service.

 

If the guru is not himself free from doubt and illusion, how can he clear the

doubts and illusions of his disciples? It is not possible. They will lose

faith.

 

This is a practical point. But you call it "silly." Tell me more then, O

learned pandita.

 

Unless a guru is himself realized (which means he is directly acting as an

instrument of Krsna) or acting in accordance with other more qualified

Vaisnavas, he must be defective and subject to all the frailties of a

conditioned soul.

 

I would simply call this "common sense."

 

Your 'silly' servant,

 

Srila dasa