Gurukula

[Guest guest]

Sraddha dd wrote:

 

>> Yes, Mataji. The experiment was whether or not the superior gurukula model

>> could *in the 70s* be successfully established within ISKCON. (Kind of

>> like whether or not a heart transplant will be successful

 

>I wouldn't call something superior model if didn't bring the superior result.

 

One may have the best model car, but if the driver is insane, intoxicated,

incompetent, etc., then the result is bound to be inferior. The fault lies

with the driver, not the vehicle. Srila Prabhupada has given us the superior

model for educating our children. Now it is still our duty as his followers

to implement that system according to his instructions.

 

>This kind of gurukula model didn't exist in any culture of any time. In the

vedic >culture gurus were grihasthas, only brahminical boys would go to the

gurus place >for education. Atmosphere was more like a home atmosphere. They

didn't stay there >rest of their life, but just some shorter time. They got

the knowledge and training >and then they went home. You can read about it

in the story about Krishna and >Balaram in the gurukula. Guru was usually

in the same village, and not on another >continent.

 

Srila Prabhupada made the necessary adjustments for the time, place, and

circumstances. It's impossible to have a village gurukula if/when there's no

Vedic village in which to have it.

 

>This training of so-called brahmacaris didn't bring them any good. Because

they >anyway get married and when they get married they have no idea how to

resupricate >with a women. They have hardly seen their mother and father

relating to each other, >so they don't have a role model how to behave.

 

I humbly submit that this is a speculative idea. Brahamcary training is

essential for creating good grhastas. And that training is best given at the

gurukula. Certainly, the boys would have some very limited degree of

exposure to the husband-wife dealings of the guru and guru-patni, but how

little? SP told us that "Even 50 years ago in India a wife was forbidden to

see her husband during the day." So what kind of so-called normal

husband-wife relationship do we think gurukula brahmacaries actually could

have observed?

 

>Only role model they have is some >kind of sannyasi, who taught them God

knows >what. If they are happy they didn't get >raped in the gurukula. They

anyway end up >having sex, but instead of at least >having a normal

relationship they think that >sex is animalistic.

 

That is the fault of the unqualified or downright demonic so-called gurukula

teachers/sannyasis--*not* of the gurukula system as Srila Prabhupada

intended it to be.

 

>The wife is also screwed-up. She feels guilty for everything, she gets

complitely >upside-down, ends up having anerexea (I don't know if that is

the right name, but >disease when a girl thraws up whatever she eats.) She

attempts to commit suicide, >but fails. She thinks maybe she should get a

child. Maybe that would help. But they >don't know were to live and how to

support the family. You can imagine what kind of >*happy* child is going to

take birth in this kind of a family.

 

In the pioneer days of America, many individuals perished due to the severe

austere conditions under which they were attempting to survive. In a

somewhat similar way, many of the first generation ISKCON devotees failed to

achieve balanced lives in Krsna consciousness due to their being pioneers in

the spiritual wasteland of this Kali-yuga time, place, and circumstance.

 

>This is the true story. Every time when I think of them my heart is

breaking and I >start crying.

 

As a Vaisnavi, you are naturally very compassionate and soft-hearted.

 

>If that is the result of our *superior* gurukula training, then I say DAMN

THE >GURUKULA!!!

 

But it was not the result of a superior gurukula training--rather, the

inauspicious, tragic result of gross neglect and abuse. Abuse of a good

thing does not turn the good thing into bad. As in the example above, if I

take a superexcellent motor vehicle and drive it into the wall of your

apartment building or home, that doesn't mean that the superior vehicle has

become inferior. It simple means that I, the driver, am a flaming idiot! Not

the designer of the car, not the car itself, but the *driver* was the

inferior component.

 

--gkd