By Kesava Krsna Dasa
Can the guru say no wrong and do no wrong in all circumstances? This perfection of purpose is tested daily as disciples of gurus hold management positions and have to occasionally disagree on decision-making and policy, sometimes against their own gurus. Many disciples would be terrified of doing this, but it happens. How does this affect the guru/disciple relationship?
Does it take strength to do this, or is it a matter of developing a mature understanding? Would these disagreements happen in the traditional nous of guru/disciple relationships? With our parallel system of management in place, which seeks to curb or equalise the influence of authority, does this make our gurus ineffectual and without due master-ship over disciples?
For instance, let us consider Sri Syamananda Pandit. None other than Srimati Radharani Herself gave him an ‘odd’ looking permanent tilak. Without knowing the facts of the matter, his Guru Maharaja became enraged, and physically punished his disciple. The disciple, Syamananda Pandit, took this punishment without protest – both guru and disciple are eternally liberated souls.
The master-ship of guru was in effect as expected, but then, what happened during those times might earn a stiff jail sentence now. Imagine something like that happening within our ranks… We may not expect a modern-day guru to do such a thing, but the fact that we have recourse to mediation, civil options and law, certainly curtails possibilities of abuse. Nevertheless, this example shows how guru influence has been tamed. Is this a good or bad thing?
Sometimes a disciple disowns a guru on the basis of relative differences of opinion, which though incorrect, also reveals how the savoir-faire ability of the guru has abated. The ‘say no wrong and do no wrong’ ethic has apparently been suppressed in the combined material professional expertise and general enlightenment of the well informed body of Iskcon devotees, and not least, those who manage our affairs.
Based on our ‘cooperate if you love me’ and ‘unity in diversity’ expansive aims, we have to acknowledge that our guru roles are partially traditional and modern, or adaptable. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wanted a GBC, and his loyal disciple Srila Prabhupada implemented it. Past difficulties of guru waywardness helped as well.
This waywardness has made it somewhat harder for those gurus and sannyasis who remain in good standing. Alternatively, many present gurus can breathe a sigh of relief because the consensus, as wrought by education and training, is that not all gurus are infallible. This none-infallibility has helped form the Iskcon we have today. What if a truly infallible soul were to exist among us? Difficult as it may be, but such a soul would also be expected to cooperate like the rest of us. Some apa-sampradayis await such a coming.
With limited guru roles in place mainly pertaining to relative or physical matters, this makes them liable for cooperation with management and authority. And when disciples are there, there is potential for opposition and difference, or, for gurus to oblige and abide by such authority, which traditionally, is not the norm.
For these sorts of interactions to occur trouble-free, there certainly has to be mutual and mature understanding. Whether internal resentment fails to rear its ugly features or feelings of unjust subordination interfere with the natural father/son relationship, there should be contentment that all is for the benefit of efficiency and trust.
Such understanding can acknowledge the professionalism and expertise of disciples when managing, while the disciples subjugate spiritually. Even with this balance there could be overlapping. For example, a guru might introduce pre-Janmastami or pre-Gaura-purnima festivals in order to gain maximum public attendance. Guru Vyasa-puja events might take place way beyond the specified date, or there may be multi versions of it. Disciple managers might have to curb these.
Does the guru have or should he have a sense of master-ship over disciples? If so, it doesn’t always work, because some gurus have difficulty telling their disciples what to do, even with reasonable persuasions. Would it be more correct to view one’s disciples as sincere participants on behalf of our param siksa guru? Such a mentality calls again for relinquishing absolute mastery over disciples.
The mastery rather falls into our combined pandit/pundit efforts. Theoretically this combination of service mood seems centralised or communistic, but it is akin to a state seeking cooperation with private pundit sector expertise. This ‘pu-andit’ accord somehow retains the sanctity of vital guru/disciple functionality.
Normally, the success of this relationship hinges on the disciple, because the guru has to be surrendered to. Today, we see how new terms such as ‘presently in good standing’ serve as a basis for trust and faith for a disciple in guru. To surrender just to ‘present’ assurances, and not to something forever, can precipitate and foster lurking doubt and uncertainty of the future.
These uncertainties have encouraged a more central role for our param guru Srila Prabhupada, or has it? We cannot blame our present generation of disciples who may quietly and fearfully withhold such doubts of the future. Their situation is different from those who took initiation from Srila Prabhupada into a forever bond. To bring ‘forever’ into a ‘present’ dynamic is not always easy.
If ‘diamonds are forever’ as they say, then guru must also be forever. Reality has shown otherwise. Yet we have numerous sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada who link to our sacred lineage by initiation to present gurus. Many of these disciples are used to corporate dealings and are immune to or less intimidated by the sense of importance attached to worldly hierarchy.
Translate this into Iskcon terms, and it means our professional devotees are less intimidated in dealing with gurus or GBC’s. For them to serve Iskcon managerially is also to expect professional-like outcomes. One cannot serve this way if terror of disagreeing with one’s guru predominates.
Although this appears to confront traditional norms of guru/disciple dealings, it should be welcome as a means to get things done, hopefully. Srila Prabhupada would sometimes consult his disciples as to what was best for particular situations. Trust and confidence ensured such exchanges. Today, some gurus consult with their disciples about facts and figures, and matters of expertise, but of course, they retains the majority share on spiritually life-changing matters and the path back to Godhead.
In all, it is about having either a confident or fearful relationship with one’s guru. Such confidence can also encourage the guru to relate more closely, where he sees fit. Still, the modern adaptability of our present gurus who have largely professional and expert disciples, does not please all. Failing to cooperate the Iskcon way could mean splitting up into individual mathas.
This uniqueness of serving together in cooperation is enhanced by one primary necessity. This necessity is our home, manager, guide, teacher, vijnana-revealer, guru, mother and father, and our everything – the holy name of the Lord.
The power of the holy name is such that one need not take formal initiation, yet we still manage to have our gurus in place among all other exalted vaisnavas who give so much siksa, in accord with our preeminent siksa, Srila Prabhupada. If the holy name is our shelter or home, and which is our shared all-powerful guru, then this home within our Iskcon home will surely ensure success for all.
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa
I think we have to explore our understanding of “traditional guru”. In ISKCON, for the first 12 years, Srila Prabhupada was both Founder-Acarya and the only diksa guru.
Srila Prabhupada is an extraordinary figure in the history of Vaisnavism, an amazingly powerful acarya, who was also the founder and ultimate authority — managerially, spiritually, and in every other respect — of a worldwide society and preaching institution. Yet, he was our only example of what a “diksa guru” is like, and this has perhaps influenced our thinking about what a “traditional guru” in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition should and must be.
During the first five or ten years after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, ISKCON arguably made the mistake of treating the 11 zonal acaryas too much like Srila Prabhupada. We thought they should function within their own zones in much the way Srila Prabhupada had functioned as the sole authority over all of ISKCON. That was our model of “diksa guru” and we thought anyone who acts as guru must also function as that kind of acarya or spiritual head of an institution.
As a result, we arguably created the kind of “rubber-stamped acaryas” Srila Prabhupada had warned us about. Everyone in the zone — even his own godbrothers — was supposed to revere the local acarya as Lord and Master, as if he were everone’s Gurudeva. This forced people to worship against their conscience, by virtue of ecclesiastical decree. It also interfered with the GBC system of management Srila Prabhupada had established. These problems were caused, in part, by our conflating the role of “traditional guru”, “regular guru”, with the role of world acarya displayed by Srila Prabhupada.
It is true that a disciple accepts his guru “as good as God”. That is our tradition. Being God’s representative or “viceroy”, a disciple worships and obeys his guru just as he would Krishna Himself. A disciple should understand his guru to be a direct manifestation of Krishna, but because he is a confidential devotee of Krishna. However — and this is important — he does not demand that everyone else accept his guru that way. Others may have different gurus, or may not yet have found a guru.
Another important point is that a traditional guru does not assert himself as Lord of everyone. He sees himself as a humble servant. With his own disciples he accepts the duty to accept their worship. He still sets an example of how to be a good, humble citizen.
A traditional guru teaches by example and is a humble devotee. Out of humility he accepts Lord Caitanya’s order to be guru and accept the worship and obedience of those who are his disciples. Yet he remains a well-behaved, saintly devotee. He never claims to have become an incarnation of God, and he does not demand that those who are not his disciples see him as God or obey his commands.
In ISKCON, a guru should teach by his example how to be a good, humble citizen of ISKCON. The disciple should not feel offended that his guru must obey the GBC out of deference to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions (and the needs of ISKCON).
Of course, all senior devotees should be respected by everyone. Srila Prabhupada taught us to pay dandavats to everyone who was initiated as a sannyasi. We should not be stingy with respect. As Vaisnavas we should respect everyone (manadena), and especially respect all the Vasinava devotees. But it is only those we have a special relationship with as our spiritual masters whose orders must become our life and soul. (Spiritual masters also must be very careful to train their disciples carefully, to teach them how to achieve perfection in devotional service, and not give whimsical orders with ulterior motives).
A society with multiple gurus is more “traditional” than a society in which only one guru has thousands of disciples. A multiple guru society requires a certain etiquette so that disciples of different gurus do not feel their guru is being offended or neglected by those who are not his disciples. However, the disciples should understand that their guru is not the guru of everyone, and in his relations with his godbrothers or the GBC he may have a duty to take a humble position.
Finally, the article raises a question about when a disciple disagrees with his own guru on a point of management. A guru may allow this. A “traditional guru” does not have to pretend to be omniscient. A guru can be a simple devotee. Gaurakisore Das Babaji, though an exalted lover of Krishna, was not literate. A guru does not have to be expert in anything but devotional service. He may defer to his disciples in matters of technical knowledge such as economics or engineering or chemistry, while remaining the authority on absolute knowledge about Krishna and Vedanta. However, a disciple should never oppose his guru’s will. That would be contrary to the devotional relationship between a guru and disciple.
We may be trying too hard to find a formula that fits every circumstance. Srila Prabhupad changed the manner in which his society would be run. By adopting a GBC to manage the society, it theoretically prevents someone from arbitrarily becoming a despotic egotistical leader. Many heads may be better than one. The common thread is that the concept and practice of “parampara” is that the truths of the teachings are to be transmitted without creating a blockage to their transmission, ie “transparent via medium”. Other missions in the vaishnava world have adopted different approaches. Srila Sridhar Maharaj saw the chaos that followed our Srila Prabhupad’s departure, and then placed a trusty servant, Srila Govinda Maharaj, as his successor. But, Srila Govinda Maharaj had mixed commitment to doing the same and so created an acharya board with something of a zonal type of management. It has had its serious challenges from within their math. It is not the place to criticize here, but suffice to say that Srila Prabhupad’s genius is that he had full faith in his Gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and followed the advice to use a GBC for management. This is a new and less traditional type of management, and may be quite suitable for the argumentative environment of the Kali Yuga.
People complain that today’s ISKCON is different that yester-year’s ISKCON. That is to be expected. Tompkins Square Park and the first center in NYC at Matchless Gifts was not the end of change in ISKCON. Some will emphasize one aspect of devotional service over another, but it is important that we not seek adoration by disciples or others for the sake of standing or wealth. That is counter to the teachings of Mahaprabhu and will lead to dilution and fall-down.
The mission is therefore more organic and less authoritarian with a GBC. I remember many times that I would come up to Srila Prabhupad and say to him that such and such told me to do this or that. Srila Prabhupad would look at me and say, “Is he your guru? No, I am your guru!” That was clear. Now the answer should be, based on Srila Prabhupad’s directives…”follow the management laid out by the GBC”, and I might add, for better or worse. Because, this is the will of Srila Prabhupad. I do not care for the websites that find fault after fault with GBC. It is for the GBC to internally rectify their management. And, they must, or it will be detrimental for the ISKCON faithful. Pusta Krishna das
I said, “A society with multiple gurus is more ‘traditional’ than a society in which only one guru has thousands of disciples.”
After reading Pusta Krishna Prabhu’s comment I want to modify or qualify that statement.
A society in which there are multiple gurus may be more traditional, but an organized preaching institution such as ISKCON run by a governing body like the GBC is not really traditional within Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
I remember reading an excellent article by Prof. O’Connell in which he said that such “hard institutions” as Gaudiya Math of the 1920s and 1930s or ISKCON of the last 45 years are rare in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
And yet, I am not sure I share the late Prof. O’Connell’s opinion that the Gaudiya Vaisnava emphasis on “madhurya rasa” and spontaneous natural emotions make what he called “hard institutions” somewhat incompatible with Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
I mean, Gaudiya Vaisnavas are intelligent people (“sumedhasa”), and if they see a need for broad cooperation or church-like organization in order to effectively spread the Sankirtan movement and transmit the message of Lord Caitanya on His order for the benefit of the conditioned jivas, I do not see why they should be incapable of doing so. Evidently, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur saw such a need and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada and Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada fulfilled that need with some success.
The emphasis on “madhurya rasa” that Prof. O’Connel was talking about may be treated more as a confidential realization of advanced devotees and need not influence the way we manage our day to day affairs or our preaching mission.
The whole idea that a spiritual master has to have his own separate institution or has to place himself above the man-made-law of an ecclesiastical body needs to be examined. If he obeys a policeman or judge, or customary rules of morality, why should he not also obey a GBC made up of faithful devotees?
It does not mean that the policeman or judge or customs or GBC is always a perfect conduit of Lord Krishna’s will, but it may be Krishna’s will that we obey nevertheless, so as not to cause a disturbance.
Besides, a spiritual master does not have to pretend to know Krishna’s will better than everyone else. He merely has to set a good example of trying to ascertain and obey Krishna’s will. A humble devotee who tries to serve in ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada’s order is praiseworthy.
In fact, I would expect to see that among those devotees who have controlled their senses, realized the conclusions of Vedic scriptures, become fixed in transcendental devotional service, become free from the propensity to criticize others — i.e., those who we should seek out and faithfully serve as our spiritual masters — we would find the quality of appreciation of other Vaisnavas and ability to cooperate with them in friendship.
It does not necessarily mean they will always see eye to eye with each other on every subject. Srila Prabhupada indicated that as long as there is personality and variety there will be differences of opinions.
But I expect to see that among the more advanced disciples of Srila Prabhupada their differences of opinions should not prevent them from appreciating each other’s good qualities and service to Srila Prabhupada’s mission on earth. Their disagreements should (hopefully) not be tainted so much with the influence of material modes as to prevent them from working within the kind of organized preaching institution Srila Prabhupada envisioned and established and entrusted to his disciples.
Even the less advanced, responsible devotees and leaders in ISKCON should recognize how much we need to listen to one another and take each other’s concerns seriously and try not to quarrel.
Prof. O’Connell was looking at the big picture of Gaudiya Vaisnava history — something he knew a lot more about than I will ever know. But our leading acaryas have taught us that there have been a lot of sahajiyas and apasampradayas in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, and they did establish what Prof. O’Connell called “hard institutions” (such as ISKCON and Gaudiya Math) in order to broadcast the right information far and wide, as well as to clear up many of the misconceptions.*
*Prof. O’Connnell’s article defined “institutions” as any instruments for transmitting culture across time and space. He further categorized poetry, drama, songs as “soft” institutions, guru parampara and revealed scriptures as “intermediate” institutions, and organized ecclesiastical bodies with powers to make and enforce rules and censure others as “hard” institutions. I found it thought provoking. I’ll see if I can find a link to the article somewhere.
Okay, I found a link to the article by Prof. Joseph O’Connell here: http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1446.html
There is a note at the beginning of the article that it is a copyrighted article and the book it was written for had not yet been published, and a request not to reproduce the article. The note was written in 2004. I have no idea if the book was yet published (but I imagine it has been by now). Besides, the author asks that the article not be reproduced on another website, but does not say anything about providing a link to that website (which is all I am doing).
Professor O’Connell is a great authority on the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and a friend of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON who recently passed away. I hope that discussing this article of his and encouraging devotees to read and consider it in the context of this discussion will be a fair way of honoring and respecting his memory.
The key questions are: How do multiple teachers (with disciples) apply their concerted service to an organization, ISKCON, rather than exclusively to themselves? If you consider this proposition, one can see that an ISKCON teacher who is accepting disciples could be protected from egotism and self-serving mentality by directing the service of their disciples to the organization, ISKCON. The conflict comes when so-called spiritual teachers want to gain personally from their association with ISKCON. That conflict is inevitable, for example, when a teacher needs funds to travel and the like. But, vigilant self-examination and re-examination is needed by such teachers lest they become victims of material egotism and gain. Na Dhanam Na Janam Na Sundarim…Mahaprabhu gave the warning, often ignored by many.
If some teacher from within ISKCON seeks to create their own kingdom, after having fished in ISKCON for disciples to exploit, it is a sorry, sorry state. The rectification will be heavy and sure, as this is Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s Movement. Never forget.
So, as complex a social organization as ISKCON has, the hierarchy must be focused on service, and not personal gain. When the spirit of saving the most fallen souls is elevated, then that is very good and protective. It is nice to hear that this dignitary or that dignitary gets a Bhagavad GIta As It Is, but the saving of a sincere soul who takes to the devotional service of Krishna is far more valuable, and far more recognizable to Lord Nityananda. May the spirit of devotional service that Srila Prabhupad demonstrated not be lost in the vain search for profit, adoration, and the like. Goal: Back to Home, Back to Godhead, Love Sri Krishna, Serve the Vaishnavas. Pusta Krishna das