Srila Prabhupadas advise about Guru tattva

[Guest guest]

On 06 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote:

 

> On 28 Jun 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> > It seems that if we can claim our guru is the beshtest of them all, then

we must be the besht, too. Life appears much simpler when we feel we can

avoid dealing with our painful personal difficulties.

> > Ultimately, the guru is not meant to become an excuse for us to avoid

> > resolving our personal issues with Krsna.

>

> In his Cure of Souls series, HG Ravindra svarupa says this same thing

nicely: One is supposed to accept a spiritual master as a *means* for

spiritual advancement, not as a *substitute* for spiritual advancement.

 

There are several important points at issue here, so let us not confuse them.

For successful spiritual life, there must be BOTH bona fide guru AND bona fide

disciple. A so-called disciple can be guru-bhogi, guru-tyagi or whatever

neurotic, codependent, etc, as you suggest. What we cannot gloss over in this

discussion, however, is the absolute need for seeking a bona fide GURU.

 

In his Gurvastakam prayers, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura explains that

without the mercy of the spiritual master -- who is a PURE DEVOTEE -- no one

can make any advancement in Krsna consciousness. A spiritual master is a PURE

DEVOTEE not automatically by some rote definition but by dint of genuine

spiritual attainment.

 

Srila Prabhupada explains throughout his books that the guidance of a such a

bona fide spiritual master, who is a PURE DEVOTEE, can be of absolute help for

a making progressive development in spiritual life. Does any of us doubt this?

 

"PURE DEVOTEE" is technically defined by Srila Prabhupada in accordance with

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's analysis as a *qualified* madhyama adhikari,

or one who has reached *nistha* and when *anartha-nivrtti* is complete. Thus,

such a truly *purified* soul is literally a "PURE DEVOTEE," because all

the *anarthas* in his/her heart have been substantially vanquished by genuine

advancement in Krsna consciousness. These *anarthas* include the subtle

contaminations of *labha, puja, pratistha, etc* or the desire for profit,

adoration and distinction, etc.

 

Until one has factually reached such a steady state of pure devotion, no one

can be called a "PURE DEVOTEE" in the literal sense of the term. Devotion is

not measured only by judging from outward appearances, mechanical

performances, institutional position, popular opinion, etc. One's level of

advancement is ultimately tested by internal absorption not by external

activity (krsna-bhakti-rasa-bhavita-matih). A so-called spiritual master is

not a "pure devotee" merely by dint of taking a big position, accepting

disciples or because his followers like to see him in that way.

 

> He also characterizes both the ritvik and "my guru is an uttama adhikari"

mentalities as one of overdependence upon another personality. In both cases

one is trying to shift all personal responsibilities and duties to Krishna

upon another, in the same way a vine grows to depend entirely upon a tree

without ever being able to support itself.

 

> Any thoughts?

> Gerald Surya

 

It is not a only question of "personality," sentimentality, etc, which is the

disciple's defect. The guru must indeed be BONAFIDE -- genuine and

trustworthy. The crucial matter for a *disciple* is to seek out a highly

advanced Vaisnava and take guidance and direction. From then on, as you note,

"the ball is in our court" (to use another analogy). But without the

association of highly elevated souls, we are not even sure what the "game" is

we are playing or what we are supposed to do with the "ball".

Or to return to the vine (creeper) analogy, Prabhupada explains that an

unguided neophyte cannot discriminate between the real *bhakti-lata*

(devotional creeper) and thus in the course of his *seva* ends us watering the

weeds of material desires and offenses instead.

 

My point is that we have to be careful about dismissing the absolute value of

seeking out and taking guidance from such a "pure devotee" spiritual master

simply because of our previous bad experiences (both individually and

collectively) where we don't believe there are really any of them around

anymore since Prabhupada's disappearance.

 

Consequently, in ISKCON we have created what has been termed a COVERED RTVIK

philosophy, where we cannot properly honor or even recognize exalted souls

because of a crippled mentality. By definition, the guru has

become *daridra-guru* (as in *daridra-narayana*), or a poverty-stricken

conception. A guru in ISKCON is not a guru unless he conforms to the dictates

of its institutional management, regardless of *adhikara*, or spiritual

acumen. ISKCON has thus established a policy where bonafide sadhus and gurus

outside of ISKCON can not recognized or accepted. Various GBC resolutions

state this both explicitly and implicitly.

 

MISKCONceptions arise not only because of individual sentimentality or

feelings of dependence but also because of ingroup social psychological

dynamics. "As far as I (we) are concerned, there aren't truly bona fide gurus

outside of ISKCON. Because in the Gaudiya math, they are not strictly

following Prabhupada..." So the arguments tend to go. To the misguided soul,

however, wishing to "follow Prabhupada's mood" may in fact mean "preserving

the ISKCON mood," which may mean, to a large degree, following a social

illusion.

 

Please don't read me wrong. I am NOT advocating everyone to leave ISKCON or

break up the institution. But I am hoping devotees will put down their

blinders and truly take "personal responsibility" for their own spiritual

lives. Because if enough devotees care to open their eyes, the managers of

ISKCON must respond. As the "International Society for Krsna Consciousness"

founded under the guidelines established by Srila Prabhupada in its original

Charter, ISKCON should facilitate the bonafide process of *sadhu-sanga*, not

outlaw or suppress it.

 

Only when we gain the opportunity to associate with genuinely qualified PURE

Vaisnavas can we fully understand the purport to *guru-asraya*, not before.

Otherwise, it is an *abhasa*, or a "semblance" of the process -- or worse, a

make-show, as we have too often seen. In the beginning stages, our chanting

of *nama* is also necessarily an *abhasa*, but at a certain point, it should

become real.

 

Seek out PURE DEVOTEES and accept nothing less than the "real thing."

Our spiritual life is "depending" upon it.

 

Aspiring to become the servant of a Vaisnava,

 

Vaisnavanudasa,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

>

> My point is that we have to be careful about dismissing the absolute value

> of seeking out and taking guidance from such a "pure devotee" spiritual

> master simply because of our previous bad experiences (both individually

> and collectively) where we don't believe there are really any of them

> around anymore since Prabhupada's disappearance.

 

Good point, Srila prabhu. It should be told to everybody who thinks

like that for ISCKON, that in order to find such a "pure devotee"

one got to turn to some other places (Gaudiya Math, for example).

 

Though, those who don't believe certainly may go anywhere they

belive to find such a "pure devotee".

 

 

>

> Consequently, in ISKCON we have created what has been termed a COVERED

> RTVIK philosophy, where we cannot properly honor or even recognize exalted

> souls because of a crippled mentality. By definition, the guru has become

> *daridra-guru* (as in *daridra-narayana*), or a poverty-stricken

> conception. A guru in ISKCON is not a guru unless he conforms to the

> dictates of its institutional management, regardless of *adhikara*, or

> spiritual acumen.

 

 

Though the system of guru approval in ISCKON may be seen possessing

the characteristics of an institutionalized guru-post (something

that has its both some positive and perhaps more negative sides,

and something that is under constant improvement), there is

something else in your writing that may be pointed out.

 

That is, though the system may be having its faults, you have

mirrored that faults into individual characteristics of gurus

in ISCKON. Your complain is that exalted souls can't be recognized

due to a "crippled mentality". But your own mentality shows no

trace of evaluating the personal adhikara of every and each

guru in ISCKON. You seam to be judging them all according to

the kind of system they are existing under.

 

Confirming to the "dictates of its institutional management"

is what you got everywhere. In Gaudiya Math, for example, the

guru (or rather, the acarya) **is** the institutional management.

You seam to be failing to recognize the set-up of ISCKON as

lead down by Srila Prabhupada, where there is the GBC as

the ultimate managing authority, and not a particular guru.

Thus you are actually criticizing the way how Srila Prabhupada

founded ISCKON.

 

 

 

> ISKCON has thus established a policy where bonafide

> sadhus and gurus outside of ISKCON can not recognized or accepted.

 

The policy of ISCKON members not going to other sadhus (to

Gaudiya Math, specifically) for accepting siksa/diksa from,

was established by Srila Prabhupada himself.

 

But none is prohibited to go to an another Math and accept

there anyone he/she finds to be his/her eternal spiritual

master. It is up to God to direct you to the right person of

your life. You can't reasonably blame anybody to be interfering

in between the Supersoul and the individual soul, can you?

Otherwise, you can start with blaming Srila Prabhupada

for his explicit instructions to not go to "outside sadhus"

for accepting them as our gurus.

 

 

> Various

> GBC resolutions state this both explicitly and implicitly.

 

If so, then they follow in Srila Prabhupada's footsteps.

Can't blame them for that, can you?

 

 

 

 

 

- mnd