Guru

[Guest guest]

> I would very much like to take advantage of the wisdom of devotees like

> Mukunda Datta, Babhru, Madhumati in an informal forum like this one. One

> question I am very interested in is guru-tattva and the way it is

> practicallty applied nowadays in ISKCON (as per the latest GBC

> directives).

 

It would be a shame to lose the association of the abovementioned devotees,

definitely, and I too have been thinking the same thing, now that the

conference seems to have some control. If this is maintained strictly then

we could definitely see some good results and wonderful discussions.

>

> This quote is something I feel strongly about. While it is true that the

> Zonal Acarya system alienated 90 percent of the Prabhupada disciples from

> ISKCON and led to the falldown of more than half of the zonal gurus, still

> the principle that the guru should be worshiped is a valid and very

> important one and to minimize the gurus will also bring all kinds of

> unwanted results. It seems to me that, to a certain extent, the

> minimization of Srila Prabhupada which was seen on TD, was one such

> consequence of minimizing the gurus. If you send the message to the

> general public that our gurus do not deserve to be worshiped, this may

> lead to the minimizing and rejecting of the guru principle in general, and

> the same rejecting attitude may be directed towards Srila Prabhupada.

 

It also gave birth to certain levels of 'intimidation' of those who held

this principle as valid, and that exists to a certain extent today. In some

cases it may be warranted, yet in others it is not, as the attachment to and

worship of one's guru is as genuine as the guru. One's own responsibility to

the understanding of the philosophy cannot be ignored either - religion

without philosophy is fanaticism, but it seems there is as much concern

warranted for the opposite: the dryness of philosophical speculation; the

chaos caused by that path is as insidious and destructive as any other.

 

> Instead of saying that the gurus should not be worshiped (which is against

> the principles of KC) and that all worship should go only to Srila

> Prabhupada, is it not more correct to make sure that the gurus are highly

> qualified and then let the disciples worship them as per the direction of

> sastra (which doesn't exclude worshiping Srila Prabhupada with the utmost

> respect and reverance).

 

I'm not entirely sure that anyone was ever told that the gurus should 'not

be worshiped', and that only Srila Prabhupada was to be worshiped - is that

quite correct?

 

> This is really it, in a nutshell. The process of KC is personal, if you

> remove or minimize the living connection to Srila Prabhupada and the

> parampara, you take away the life of the process. It is no wonder that

> many devotees will go to Gaudiya Math gurus, despite all the legislation

> against this practice and the assurance that Srila Prabhupada can bless

> you with the highest love of Godhead.

 

That is a valid point. However, it unfortunately also encompasses the oft

repeated phrase "there are just no qualified gurus in ISKCON". I frankly

tire of hearing it, and object strenuously [naturally]. Even as recently as

a couple of weeks ago, a member of ISKCON for 9 years, uninitiated, said to

me "I haven't met anyone who's qualified yet". As much of a problem as the

purity of guru may be, is also the uneducated pseudo-disciple, who [in their

own sweet way] causes incredible disruption.

 

I cringe at discussions such as this becoming too 'general' - an all

encompassing sweeping gesture of 'unqualified' stamped on the present ISKCON

gurus. I would request absolute clarity in one's texts to avoid this if we

are to enter into this discussion. A little caution now may save a lot of

wasted discussion later.

 

Nice text, Mukhya. Thanks.

 

Ys

Braja Sevaki dd

>

> Mukhya dd