Gurus

[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).

 

The current position of the guru-vrnda within ISKCON is something

interesting and maybe something to be concerned about. However, I do not

know what the 'current' situation is. Could someone please explain to me the

current GBC policies are on this.

 

As far as I understand it, we had Srila Prabhupada in the ultimate position,

sat-guru. Then after his passing there came the eleven, their positions

seemed to go up and down, with them first gravitating towards absolutism -

hence the situation with eleven vyasasanas, etc. - then the New Vrndavana

meetings whereupon guru-puja was reformed. Now the positions of these living

gurus seem to be minimised, with the society gravitating towards a somewhat

messianic fanaticistic interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's position. Of

course, I do not want to denegrate Srila Prabhupada's position - I'm sure

you all understand that. ...but what Mukhya said below is very valid. After

all, out of the eleven, how many do we have left? One? (I think this is

correct, being Jayapataka Maharaja.)

 

> 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.

[...]

> 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).

 

Another good point that I'd like to comment on:

> 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.

 

Without swinging my position...but you are all aware that I took shelter of

a guru outwith of ISKCON. From the start this was not a factor, because I

saw the fact that his diksa-guru was Srila Prabhupada (and hence I saw him

as spiritually being inside Srila Prabhupada's house, ISKCON), and at first

I did not realise that my Guru Maharaja was even formally outside of ISKCON.

It was his presentation, his style of preaching that attracted me. However,

what Mukhya says has some definite resonance there. I know many bhaktas who

have said "oh, the guru system is so complicated - I don't know where to

turn" - meaning ISKCON - complaining of over-bureaucratic

institutionalisation, and of lack of a heart-felt mentality. It is true,

guru-tattva seems as if it is being institutionalised...staid, unfeeling(?).

It is hard for me to sum up, but with such rigidity it seems a little

impersonal. Rather than finding Sri Guru from the heart, many bhaktas are

confronted by a system where reputation - institutional reputation - seems

to speak instead. It is definitely confusing...

 

Another point - that actually confuses people too (and I found myself in

this situation too)...is that after the reform of Guru-puja and the position

of diksa-gurus within ISKCON it is quite hard for new bhaktas to find

candidate gurus for them to see if they are Sri Guru. Maybe I'm picturing it

wrong, but I feel some devotees may be afraid (wrong word, I know) to

promote gurus - for falling foul of the mindset developing post '86. Maybe a

balance can be found, somehow, where adequate information is given to

bhaktas and bhaktins allowing them to make an informed choice of who to

approach. I think this is also particularly relevant where one is isolated

(physically). There is little information out there, after all, and in terms

of a list publicaly all we have is the PAMHO acronyms list.

 

> B.G. Narasingha Maharaja said something very interesting and true.

 

By the way, anyone know if the GBC is continuing its rapprochement with

Swami Narasingha that was started in motion last year?

 

Sorry if this text is a bit too general, and unclear. I am trying to get my

thoughts out, and hope someone gets what I am saying. I'd love comments,

though. Braja, I know I'm lacking clarity - dreadfully! - but this is quite

hard to articulate!

 

-Rama

[Guest guest]

At 09:35 AM 3/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:

> > After all, out of the eleven, how many do

> > we have left? One? (I think this is correct, being Jayapataka Maharaja.)

>

>No, prabhu, there are a few! Tamal Krishna Goswami, for one. I wasn't aware

>that he'd left Satsvarupa Maharaj is another.

>

> > I know many

> > bhaktas who have said "oh, the guru system is so complicated - I don't

> > know where to turn" - meaning ISKCON - complaining of over-bureaucratic

> > institutionalisation, and of lack of a heart-felt mentality. It is true,

> > guru-tattva seems as if it is being institutionalised...staid,

> > unfeeling(?). It is hard for me to sum up, but with such rigidity it seems

> > a little impersonal. Rather than finding Sri Guru from the heart, many

> > bhaktas are confronted by a system where reputation - institutional

> > reputation - seems to speak instead. It is definitely confusing...

>

>Could you then perhaps explain to me what one's qualification is to

>recognise guru 'from the heart'?

 

A prospective disciple's qualification is his or her sincerity, as we see

in this conversation with Srila Prabhupada:

 

Mr. O'Grady: The problem is to find this spiritual master.

Srila Prabhupada: That is not the problem. The problem is whether you are

sincere. You have problems, but God is within your heart. Isvarah

sarva-bhutanam [bg. 18.61]. God is not far away. If you are sincere, God

sends you a spiritual master. Therefore God is also called caitya-guru, the

spiritual master within the heart. God helps from within and from without.

 

The disciple also needs good association and guidance from sahdu and

shastra. However, no legislation or social pressure of any sort can

determine who one's spiritual master is.

 

Babhru das