By Krishna-dharma das
Some years ago a paper by Ravindra Svarupa prabhu entitled ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON’, which originally appeared in two parts in the ISKCON Communications Journals of January and July 1994, was widely circulated amongst ISKCON members. As a ‘second generation’ devotee who came to ISKCON in 1979, I read with interest this paper, which basically chronicled many of the difficulties ISKCON has undergone since its inception. Amongst the issues covered was that of the guru in ISKCON, an area which I can testify from personal experience has certainly been problematic. I have taken initiation from two now fallen gurus and seen our ISKCON guru policies undergo some serious reforms in my time.
At the end of his paper Ravindra stated that ‘our work of reform and renewal continues’ and that ‘only by (this work) can ISKCON have a viable and progressive future.’ In response to this I would therefore like to continue the discussion he began in his paper, looking particularly at the area of ‘Guru reform’.
I would like to argue here that in order to really progress with Guru Reform in ISKCON we need to change the paradigm under which we view the guru in ISKCON. I feel that we presently have an institutionalized post of ‘Initiating Spiritual Master’ in ISKCON which I feel, because of the many problems it creates, we need to remove from the institution. I suggest a non-institutional guru would be more compatible with our scriptural instructions. I also suggest we can maintain the integrity of ISKCON by other managerial methods than that of controlling gurus, disciples and initiations by legislation, which is our current system.
IS THE GURU INSTITUTIONALIZED IN ISKCON?
Even after the demise of the ‘zonal acharya’ in ISKCON, described by Ravindra prabhu, it seems the phenomenon of an institutional guru has continued. The ‘Guru Reform’ movement of 1987, which led to the present guru system in ISKCON, did not reject the very idea of an institutional guru, or one who carries the weight of an institutional appointment to the position of ‘guru’. In fact anyone wishing to be a guru still requires approval by the GBC body. The GBC need to give what is called a ‘no objection’ to an individual before he (or, in theory at least, she) may assume the role of initiating guru. There is a local process where a person’s name will be put forward to the GBC body and they will consider for six months whether or not the person is fit to be a guru. If there are no objections then the ‘no objection’ certification is given and the person is then authorized to give initiation.
Although the ‘no objection’ system is not meant as an appointment to the position of guru (I assume), it still effectively amounts to as much. Unless one receives the ‘no-objection’ validation then they cannot give initiation according to ISKCON laws. Nor indeed can one even be a siksha guru, or instructor. Once one does have the ‘no-objection’ he is then viewed as a bona-fide guru, his name is added to the list of already authorized gurus and he can give initiation to any new devotees anywhere in ISKCON. There is no doubt that in ISKCON today such authorized gurus are set quite apart from the other devotees. When the question of initiation arises, then new devotees will inevitably begin considering the possibilities from amongst the list of authorized gurus, and this in fact is the procedure required by ISKCON Law. The general conception in ISKCON is that there are a certain number of gurus. Reinforcing this conception, the GBC Journal, Fall 1995 issue, stated the ‘ISKCON Fact’ that there are now ’69 Initiating Spiritual Masters’ in ISKCON.
THE ISKCON ‘GURU LAWS’
There is much legislation in ISKCON covering the area of gurus and their disciples. In fact there is a manual available entitled ‘Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON: Laws of ISKCON’. This manual contains all the GBC resolutions on how a devotee becomes authorized to give initiation as well as the ‘responsibility of the initiation candidate’, ‘procedure of recommendation’ etc. Basically, it is not possible to be initiated by a guru and be accepted by ISKCON unless one undergoes the process described in this manual, and unless one’s guru has been approved by the GBC body. There is no place in ISKCON for one who does not follow these laws, as, for example, the following laws make quite clear:
“2.5. INITIATION ONLY FROM APPROVED GURUS
Devotees who live or serve in ISKCON may take initiation only from ISKCON-approved gurus [see Section 1.3. for approval process.]
2.5.1. VIOLATORS
2.5.1.1. First initiation by outside ISKCON gurus.
ISKCON members who, in violation of ISKCON law, take initiation from gurus who have not been approved to initiate in ISKCON shall not be permitted to serve within ISKCON. If the non-approved guru has an institution or ashram outside ISKCON, then according to standard etiquette, his disciples should serve within the institution of their guru and should not serve within ISKCON. ” (2)
The choice and selection of one’s initiating spiritual master is therefore constrained to the list of authorized ISKCON gurus if one wants to retain the opportunity to ‘serve within ISKCON’.
Other laws require disciples to seek a recommendation from an ISKCON temple president before being initiated. And there are numerous other laws covering all kinds of eventualities in regard to guru disciple relationships.
It should therefore be clear that we have a post of ‘Initiating Spiritual Master’ in our Society, referred to in ISKCON Laws usually as ‘Approved or Authorized ISKCON Guru’.
WHY IS THE GURU INSTITUTIONALIZED?
On the face of it, it does seem we need to have some institutional control over gurus. The position of the guru in spiritual life cannot be over-estimated. It is of paramount importance. So how do we deal with it in a spiritual institution? Ravindra puts it very nicely:
“How do gurus, who are God’s direct representatives and according to fundamental vaisnava theology to be worshiped by their disciples ‘on an equal level with God’, fit within an organization functioning through modern rational and legal modes under the direction of committee?” (3)
However, I feel there are certain unwarranted fears and mistaken assumptions underlying our attitude towards the guru in ISKCON. Firstly, as Ravindra indicates in his above statement, the guru is viewed as a powerful figure ‘on an equal level with God’. Thus it is assumed that if this power of the guru is not institutionally controlled then gurus may undermine the authority of the institution.
Secondly, there is an underlying assumption that prospective disciples will not have sufficient discrimination to properly select a bona fide guru. This should be apparent from the following ISKCON Law:
ISKCON LAW, 2.2 states:
“Receiving official ISKCON guru approval signifies that the devotee has successfully completed the authorization process set forth in ISKCON law, and that in the judgment of certain senior devotees the candidate measures up to the standards and guidelines given in ISKCON law. (4)
Although this law goes on to say that it is not meant to be taken “as a statement about the degree of God-realization of the approved guru, and it is not intended to replace the intelligent discrimination of the candidate”, it is clear that the intelligent discrimination of the disciple is not felt to be sufficient. From looking at other guru legislation it is also clear that the GBC are indeed making a statement about the guru’s spiritual position.
ISKCON LAW:
1.1. QUALIFICATIONS OF GURUS IN ISKCON
1.1.1. MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS
The following are the minimum qualifications necessary to be
approved as a diksa or siksa guru in ISKCON.
1.1.1.5. Free from six undesirable qualities
Must be free from the following undesirable qualities:
a) attachment to kamini-kancana, “the devil” in the form of sex
objects and wealth;
b) pratistha, false prestige and personal ambition;
c) nisiddhacara, behavior contrary to vaisnava principles;
d) kuti-nati, diplomatic or duplicitous behavior;
e) puja, the desire for personal worship;
f) labha, mundane profiteering.
1.1.1.6. Excels in preaching
Must have excelled in preaching activities
1.1.1.7. Proficient in scripture
Must exhibit proficiency in knowledge and understanding of sastra. (4)
The above are a few of the statements that the GBC are effectively making about those individuals who receive the ‘no objection’ certification.
A third assumption is that the guru will not be able to properly ascertain whether or not the prospective disciple is properly qualified. He must accept the opinion of an ISKCON authority, as we see from the following:
ISKCON LAW:
2.3.3.1. Guru receives recommendation in writing. Before a candidate can receive first initiation, his prospective guru must receive a formal written recommendation from the appropriate ISKCON spiritual authority, as determined by the candidate’s situation
2.3.3.2. Contents of recommendation
The recommendation of the recommending ISKCON authority must certify that the candidate has fulfilled the qualifications for initiation to the best of his understanding. (5)
I would like to address these assumptions, comparing them to instructions found in our scriptures, but before I do so, I would first like to present what I perceive as being some problems caused by the institutionalization of the guru in ISKCON.
AN INSTITUTIONAL ANOMALY?
My feeling is that ISKCON creates an institutional anomaly by conferring upon an individual any institutional power simply due to the fact that the individual is someone’s guru. In other words, if the guru disciple relationship was to be viewed only as just that, i.e. a relationship between one person and another, then the scriptural authority of guru is simply limited to a few people who choose to enter into that relationship. For example, husband and wife is a relationship between two people and the authority given to a husband by scripture is meant only for his family. But if we made a post of ‘ISKCON Husband’ then we could expect problems. Similarly, by effectively making a post of ‘ISKCON Guru’ I believe we are creating problems. Bearing in mind the fact that the guru is so highly glorified in our scriptures, ‘on an equal level with God’, then by putting any institutional weight behind a guru we have made him a very powerful figure indeed. The need to enact so much legislation in an effort to control the gurus is itself evidence of the institutional power they hold.
A second problem is that the faith of prospective initiates is institutionally directed towards certain devotees who they feel must be qualified, as those devotees have received institutional approval. The very fact that the GBC body, our highest authority, have ‘no objection’ to someone acting as guru clearly indicates that this guru must have the necessary qualifications, which I show above from ISKCON Law. If not then surely the GBC would have objected. And in any event, the term ‘approved ISKCON guru’ is found numerously in ISKCON laws, as I also show above. The effect is thus to take from the prospective disciple the very important duty of carefully examining his prospective guru for the many qualifications mentioned in scripture. After all, the would-be guru is already ‘approved’. Therefore the criteria for a disciple selecting a guru can become quite subjective and we become somewhat prone in our Society to ‘personality cults’. Especially as we have only a small number of approved ISKCON gurus all around the world and it is made quite clear to new devotees that these are the only persons who they can approach for initiation. Admittedly, in ISKCON law it does state that the fact a particular person has been given the no objection is not meant to ‘replace the intelligent discrimination’ of the disciple; but how could it do anything but? One can only look towards the approved gurus for initiation as the law makes clear:
ISKCON LAW:
“Any uninitiated devotee in ISKCON has the right to read the publications, hear the recorded talks and bhajanas, take darsana of, correspond with, or associate in other various feasible ways with any authorized ISKCON guru.” (6)
INSTITUTIONAL EMBARRASSMENT
A third problem is that we set ourselves up for institutional embarrassment. There can of course never be any guarantee that a particular devotee will not fall down or experience difficulties, as we have sadly seen many times. And again, in all fairness it has to be pointed out that ISKCON Law states that the ‘no objection’ should not be taken as ‘a statement about the degree of God realization of the guru’. But by giving an institutional approval to a guru we offer an assurance, at least partially, that the institution finds this person qualified. There is a six month period of deliberation undergone by the entire GBC body. They have published in their resolutions a list of qualifications to be expected from gurus. The law itself, quoted above, states that the guru “measures up to the standards and guidelines given in ISKCON law”. It is difficult for them to therefore ‘approve’ a guru and then also say ‘we are not saying he is qualified’. If not then why say anything at all? If a guru who is approved by the GBC later proves to be unqualified, it will certainly reflect adversely upon the institution, at least to some degree.
The above problem is made particularly acute by the fact that problems with individuals may take some time to register on an institutional level. In other words, if a guru experiences spiritual difficulties it may be some time before he loses his institutional backing or ‘post’ (which is another embarrassing problem in itself, i.e. how to announce to the Society that this person is now not qualified?). We have seen many times in ISKCON that it was not until a guru became flagrantly unqualified that the institution finally had to denounce him. Meanwhile, however, individual disciples, who may have their doubts about the guru, are faced with the dilemma of wondering if something is wrong with their guru, while at the same time the institution continues with its support. By questioning his guru the disciple effectively questions GBC authority. But it is hardly possible for the institution to intervene in such a private matter of faith. A disciple may feel that the specific instructions given him by his guru are just not proper, given the particular situation. Bali Maharaja rejecting his guru, Shukracarya, is a good example. Bali quite rightly rejected Shukracarya on the basis of one particular instruction he gave to Bali. In fact Shukracarya was not grossly fallen and was not rejected by his other disciples. The disciple has a God given individual right to accept or reject a guru; after all it is that disciple who will accept the consequences of either decision, good or bad.
A graphic example of this problem is seen here in the UK, and indeed in many other parts of the world. We are experiencing quite some difficulties in ISKCON with detractors who point to the now fallen ‘ISKCON gurus’ and thereby find much fault with our Society. ‘How could ISKCON have authorized such fallen persons?’ they ask, comparing these persons to the many highly exalted descriptions of gurus given in our scriptures. It is undoubtedly embarrassing.
A fourth and, in my view, far more serious institutional problem, is the disparity we create amongst devotees. If some devotees are given the ‘no objection’ certification to be gurus in ISKCON (and again it should be noted that according to ISKCON Law this no objection is required if one wishes to be a siksha or instructing spiritual master even without giving initiation), then the clear inference is that there must actually be some objection to others without the certification. In fact there is presently no objective measurement made of any approved gurus; no training or examinations are required, it depends entirely upon the subjective analysis of a number of devotees. There are over 5000 direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada who could all potentially be spiritual masters. However, as at the time of writing there are only 69 who have been approved by ISKCON. The other 5000 or so are just not validated as preachers by the institution for no apparent reason. This effectively dis-empowers a very large part of our potential senior manpower in ISKCON.
In fact we effectively dis-empower any devotee who is trying to preach but is not an approved guru. As this approval is required before one can even be seen as a siksha guru, then the institutional position is that even though new devotees may be forming a relationship with a preacher in their locality, if that preacher is not approved then the new devotee will at some point think, ‘Now I need to find a bona-fide guru.’ He or she will then begin contemplating the possibilities from the list of authorized gurus given by the institution. The existing relationship with the devotee who actually is acting as a guru, being not ‘authorized’ by ISKCON, will not be seen as being sufficient. It is hardly encouraging for ‘non-authorized gurus’ to preach. to say the least. Not being empowered by ISKCON to even give instructions to others, it seems to be a waste of time trying to preach as ISKCON’s representative, as by doing so one immediately falls foul of ISKCON law.
WHAT DO OUR SCRIPTURES SAY?
I believe that our assumptions and practices regarding the guru in ISKCON are not compatible with our scriptural teachings, and are therefore giving rise to the above problems. Returning to my three assumptions stated above. The first assumption made about the power of the guru need not be a consideration at all. Looking again at Ravindra’s statement
“How do gurus, who are God’s direct representatives and according to fundamental vaisnava theology to be worshiped by their disciples ‘on an equal level with God’, fit within an organization functioning through modern rational and legal modes under the direction of committee?” (7)
I would suggest that, even within his statement here, Ravindra provides us with a critical clue as to how we can deal with the problem. He states that gurus are worshiped on an equal level with God ‘by their disciples’. They are not so worshiped by others who are not their disciples; at least there is no scriptural injunction that they should be. As I have discussed above, ‘Initiating Spiritual Master’ is not a post which carries with it any universal power. The only legitimate power of a guru, conferred on him by virtue of his guru-ship, is that over his own disciples, or in other words, it is over those who choose to accept him as guru. In that sense then, it was quite natural that Prabhupada should have had all institutional power; after all, during his time all the members of ISKCON were his disciples. (Although we also find that even Prabhupada himself humbly submitted to GBC authority in the latter part of his time with us). Thus Srila Prabhupada was and is the only genuine ‘ISKCON Guru’.
With a plurality of gurus the situation is quite different. The mere fact of being a guru now cannot give one pervasive institutional power; any power applies only to the guru’s own disciples. In fact we create the problem of institutional power by giving institutional approval. Thus we need to write disclaimers in our laws which state that ISKCON gurus have no managerial power simply by virtue of their being gurus.
A PERSONAL AFFAIR
Regarding the second and third assumptions I mention; choosing a guru and accepting a disciple are, according to scripture, entirely the responsibility of the parties involved, i.e. guru and disciple. Here’s the famous and seminal statement given by Lord Krishna Himself in the Bhagavad Gita:
‘Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Enquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth’ (8)
This statement is asking us to find a self realized soul and approach that soul in the mood of a disciple. There is a method to that approach given here by Krishna. This means that in this instruction there is guidance to both guru and disciple in regards to both how the relationship should be formed as well as the qualification of guru and disciple. The guru should be self realized and the disciple submissive. However, it is clearly a two way relationship. In his purport Srila Prabhupada makes this very clear:
‘One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding” (9)
It is not indicated either in the verse or in the purport that any third parties need to be involved in this relationship.
This point is given further elucidation by Lord Chaitanya who says:
“guru lakshana sishya lakshana donhara parikshana”
“In your book there should be the characteristics of the bona-fide guru and a bona fide disciple. Then, before accepting a spiritual master one can be assured of his position. Similarly, the spiritual master can be assured of the disciple’s position” (10)
Again, it is clearly enjoined here that the testing should be done by guru and disciple, not by any third party. If we read the purport to this verse we find Srila Prabhupada giving us much guidance in the matter. If he was expecting that we would not be able to properly select a guru due to our poor discrimination, then this is where we might expect to find some instructions to that effect. But there is not any slight indication anywhere in this purport that the disciple should even seek advice, never mind that he must, institutionally, depend upon a third opinion.
Indeed, we are speaking about faith here. The faith of the disciple in his guru and the faith of the guru in the sincerity of his disciple. Faith is a personal affair. It cannot be institutionalized or legislated; i.e. we cannot say that you ‘must’ have faith in a given person, or list of persons. Conversely, we cannot say ‘now you must give up your faith in this person’, which is another thing covered by our present laws – i.e. when one ‘must’ reject his guru. It is our personal choice as the scripture clearly indicates. I may see in a particular person the qualities of a guru as they are described in the scripture, but someone else may think my vision is completely wrong. But it is my choice. I am the one who is going to accept that person as guru, so it is me and nobody else who needs to be satisfied of his qualifications. And for the guru it is his prerogative to accept or not accept the disciple, as he is the one undertaking the responsibility to act as guru.
The assumption that disciples may lack sufficient discrimination to properly select a bona fide guru is also challenged by the following:
Krishna helps a sincere person; as stated in the Caitanya Caritamrita: guru-krsna-prasade: by the mercy of the spiritual master and Krsna one attains the path of salvation, devotional service. If one sincerely searches for spiritual salvation, then Krishna, being situated in everyone’s heart, gives him the intelligence to find a suitable spiritual master. (11)
In this connection also the scripture indicates that, rather than an uninitiated devotee finding someone from amongst the list of ‘authorized ISKCON gurus’ and beginning a relationship – as is practiced in ISKCON – the procedure should be the other way round. In other words one will first develop a relationship as disciple with someone and then later receive initiation from that person:
“Generally, a spiritual master who constantly instructs the disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on” (12)
The instructing of new devotees by those older is a daily business which is critical to the life of ISKCON. Practically everyone is acting as a siksha guru to someone else. This is quite in accord with our scriptures:
There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciples spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. (13)
Even if we accept that siksha guru is something we cannot institutionalize, we are still left with the following problem:
There is no difference between the shelter giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service. (14)
I would question whether any institutional system can ultimately succeed if it is not aligned with scriptural instructions.
CAN WE DE-INSTITUTIONALIZE THE GURU IN ISKCON
I feel that the problems I describe above will largely disappear, along with the need for all the guru disciple legislation, if we de-institutionalize the guru, or cease having any system that effectively creates a separate class of devotee known as ‘ISKCON gurus’. For example, the question of bogus gurus giving initiation. Speaking from my personal experience I am now very much more discriminatory in my search for a spiritual master. I have studied the scripture carefully and I know what to look for; at least I have a much better idea than when I was initiated by either of my other two ‘gurus’. I now realize that the institutional approval of those gurus meant very little. Perhaps if I had thought more carefully and known more scripture I might not have accepted either of them. Certainly with number two I would not have taken initiation. I had no relationship at all with the guru, as it is described in scripture. But, after some argument with ISKCON authorities who practically pushed me into it, I finally accepted the institutional stamp of approval. If we stop the institutional approval of gurus the first effect will be that new devotees will be forced to use their discrimination much more carefully. They will carefully study scriptural references about the qualifications of a guru. They will look for a natural relationship rather than trying to create one with an institutional guru who they may have never known. They will obviously be very careful before surrendering to a guru – and that is the instruction of scripture.
De-institutionalizing the guru would not mean that the GBC, or anyone else for that matter, could not be consulted on the question of whether or not a guru or his disciple are qualified. But, in accord with scripture, it must remain the decision of the parties involved whether or not they seek advice and whether or not they want to take it seriously.
The fear that unqualified gurus will create havoc need not be entertained, in my view. What institutional charisma or influence will any guru have if there is no institutional approval? Gurus will only be able to attract disciples on the strength of personal qualities and by their own personal preaching. ISKCON can offer education to instruct devotees in what are the qualities of a bona fide guru. It is then up to the disciple to make his own informed decision. If someone is foolish enough to accept an unqualified rogue posing as a guru then what can be done? That is going on anyway. The worst thing is when it appears to be going on with the approval of the ISKCON institution, as it does now with our present system when gurus fall down. With a de-institutionalized guru there is no fear that the institution will be in any way implicated if gurus fall down or do anything abominable. It is entirely the decision of the disciple who he or she accepts as guru and thus the consequences of that decision belong entirely to the disciple. The institution makes no judgment in regard to whether or not any guru is qualified.
And as far as the huge scriptural power of the guru not being harnessed; again, without the institutional charisma lent by approval what institutional power will they have? Of course, the guru is all important in a disciple’s life, but that does not preclude the acceptance by the disciple of other authority. To work within ISKCON we have to accept GBC authority no matter who our guru may be. That is the case now and it will remain the case if we de-institutionalize the guru. In fact ISKCON Law already clearly states that the GBC authority supersedes that of gurus with the following:
ISKCON LAW:
1.1.1.12. Follows and upholds the GBC
(ISKCON Gurus) Must recognize the GBC as the ultimate managing authority in ISKCON, support the GBC system, and follow the GBC. (15)
CAN WE MAINTAIN OUR STANDARDS?
Of course, maintaining standards in ISKCON is a very important consideration, and no doubt one which was a prime mover in the creation of our guru laws in the first place. But let’s think about it carefully. When is initiation and the qualification of guru and disciple an issue in regard to standards? There are certain times when it is important to know if a person is actually properly initiated. For example, deity worship. Before one can perform deity worship one must be twice initiated by a bona fide guru. Also leadership. Here in the UK our constitution requires that before one can be accepted on our management bodies he must be properly initiated. And one should not give classes in ISKCON centers unless properly initiated. Perhaps there are other institutional instances where initiation is an issue. But does our present system do anything to help in this regard? If someone desires to occupy an institutional post which requires that they are properly initiated, then before they are offered the post there will be a selection process undergone by ISKCON authorities. This will undoubtedly involve references for the applicant. Amongst the various consideration may be the question of who is the applicant’s spiritual master. But still, whoever is the applicant’s guru will not be any guarantee at all that the applicant is properly qualified for the job. Nor is there any guarantee that the spiritual master himself is qualified. As ISKCON law itself states, ‘the ‘no objection’ is not a statement about the degree of God realization of the guru’. In other words, it will be up to the careful discretion of the ISKCON authorities as to whether or not they accept the applicant. Our lines of accountability can provide protection for everyone, institution and individual. The identity of the applicant’s guru is hardly relevant, whether they are ‘approved’ or otherwise. Even if someone is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada he may well be disqualified on so many other counts. Obviously the decision of the ISKCON authorities will be influenced if they discover that the initiating guru of the applicant is a rogue or rascal of some sort, but it is ultimately all down to the careful discretion of those authorities as to who they accept for any position or responsibility.
This is also the case when it comes to giving classes in ISKCON, obviously another major concern in ISKCON. We do not want to have classes given in our temples that are against our philosophy. But again, the discretion of the ISKCON authorities in our centers must be exercised in determining whether or not a person should be allowed to give class. The person’s initiating spiritual master is a secondary consideration. Just because a person is initiated by a certain guru does not mean they are necessarily going to speak good philosophy. Again, the institution has offered no guarantee of the guru’s God realization, what then to speak of his disciple?
Basically then, I would suggest that, rather than legislating relationships, it is strong and vigilant management that is required to maintain the integrity of ISKCON. I am suggesting a change of paradigm, where we view the term guru simply as a relationship one person has with another, not with the institution. How we relate with the institution should be defined by our management structure, in which there should be no such thing as a post of ‘guru’. Ultimately, we need a constitution which sets forth the rights and responsibilities of all individuals who partake of the institution of ISKCON. Here’s Srila Prabhupada himself speaking:
Bhavananda: There will be men, I know. There will be men who want to try and pose themselves as gurus.
Tamal Krishna: That was going on many years ago. Your God-brothers were thinking like that. M.Maharaja…
Bhavananda: Oh yes. Oh, ready to jump.
Srila Prabhupada: Very strong management required and vigilant observation. (16)
For maintaining our standards we can use control and management, i.e. legislation, but I feel it is inappropriate to apply control directly to relationships. Returning to my ‘ISKCON Husband’ example: we have made some legislation in ISKCON which is aimed at protecting the integrity of the institution, by preventing persons guilty of irresponsibility towards their spouses from occupying leadership posts. But if we tried to protect ISKCON’s integrity by imposing laws which laid down who was a qualified spouse (‘Authorized ISKCON Husband/Wife’) then quite likely we would soon have a very chaotic and quite unmanageable situation. But laws are there which make it clear that the consequences of irresponsibility in marriage are that one cannot be an ISKCON leader.
Similarly we can protect ourselves from irresponsible guru disciple relationships by having, if we so decide, legislation which makes it clear that a person initiated by a fallen guru, or one outside parampara, may be disqualified from occupying certain positions in ISKCON. And so on. It simply requires a little thought.
In other words, we can protect ourselves from the consequences of bad decisions made by individuals, rather than try to control the decisions they make right from the outset. We can make it clear to devotees what will be the consequences of their decisions in terms of their relationship with the institution. We can say what are our acceptable standards. Then, if one wishes to serve within ISKCON, one can carefully take this into account when making decisions. But attempts to control people’s decisions are fraught with problems, as we can see from the sheer volume of ISKCON Laws dealing with guru disciple relationships. In any event, is it even desirable to take away an individual’s free will in making his own important life decisions? Will this create independently thoughtful people, which Srila Prabhupada made clear is the aim of ISKCON?
(The) Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. (17)
Of course some bureaucracy is unavoidable in managing an institution. Laws are required, but by moving into the tricky area of personal relationships we tend towards over-legislation.
Obviously with any system of management there is a certain amount of underlying trust required. Discretionary decisions are always inevitable and, as I say above, the best protection for everyone is found in having an equitable constitution which provides adequate lines of accountability, with lines of recourse and appeal for any aggrieved parties.
CONCLUSION
Bearing in mind all the above, I would therefore argue that, based upon certain assumptions which are incompatible with our scriptural teachings, we have institutionalized in ISKCON the post of ‘Initiating Spiritual Master’. By so doing we have simply created problems. It is clear that we need lines of accountability in order to maintain the standards and integrity of ISKCON, but the post of guru is an unnecessary creation and does not fit into those lines. I suggest that the only ‘ISKCON Guru’ who can be universally accepted as such is Srila Prabhupada. ISKCON can and I believe should provide systematic education so that, as far as possible, we may not be bewildered by any bogus gurus. But it should not present certain individuals as bona fide gurus. It should have effective managerial procedures which ensure the integrity of all its representatives, and allows for the possibility of any of them taking the responsibility of guru, whether siksha or diksha.
I present this only as a discussion paper from another perspective from that generally seen by the GBC and ISKCON law makers. Being in the position of having to carefully search for a guru in ISKCON, I have become convinced that institutionalizing the guru is not necessary and does nothing to assist the prospective disciples. I would like to see all institutional controls in this regard lifted and much more education in the matter of gurus and initiation offered by ISKCON. I think ISKCON would only gain from such a move, but perhaps there are problems which I cannot see from my perspective and maybe in response someone might like to point to those.
‘Siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa
iha haite krsna lage sudrdha manasa
A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, thinking them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one’s mind becomes attached to Krishna (18)
Krishna Dharma das 1995
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.24
2) ISKCON Law Revised and Approved 1995
3) ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts’. Ravindra Svarupa das
4) ISKCON Law Revised and Approved 1995
5) Ibid.
6) Ibid.
7) ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts’. Ravindra Svarupa das
8) Bhagavad Gita 4.34
9) Ibid (purport)
10) Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya Lila 24.330
11) Srimad Bhagavatam 3.20.4 purport
12) Ibid Adi Lila 1.35 (purport)
13) Ibid Adi Lila 1.47 (purport)
14) Ibid
15) ISKCON Law
16) Srila Prabhupada Conversation May 27 1977
17) Srila Prabhupada letter to Karandhara 22 December 1972
18) Caitanya Caritamrita Adi Lila 2.117 2
This is the best article I have seen in a long, long time. Thank you!
Krishna Dharma Prabh in one place you state:
That is apparently in response to the Iskcon law you cited:
And then in another place you write:
You later wrote:
I don’t know what the devotees were thinking of when they made that law. A siksa guru is anyone who gives a class or preaches to anyone, it’s not a position that should be written about in Iskcon law. If that law was enforced then no one could preach to anyone unless they were approved in some unstated way.
You then wrote:
There may be other reasons then simply fearing that prospective initiates are not intelligent enough to be able to discriminate properly. Although that factor certainly shouldn’t be discounted. Often time there is simply not much of a chance at association because of busy conflicting schedules and different geographic locations. Whereas a prospective disciple can listen to tapes or read the words of a prospective diksa guru and by doing so get some kind of an idea of where that person is at spiritually speaking, the diksa guru doesn’t necessarily have the time to study every prospective disciple. In the traditional milieu the guru has his ashrama and he may travel a bit to preach, but he is not a person who is engaged in a world wide preaching mission. The traditional guru had as his raison d ‘etre to train disciples. In Iskcon the devotees main purpose is spreading Krishna bhakti to non-devotees. So these are different priorities and therefore different needs call for different solutions. Srila Prabhupda was the perfect example of this paradigm at work. Most of his disciples were not tested and then accepted by Srila Prabhupada, they were tested and deemed worthy by his disciples. And Srila Prabhupada was not accepted by most of his disciples due to intimate contact to see if Srila Prabhupada was qualified, they relied mostly on his books and taped classses and encouragement of others.
Then you wrote:
You say that Iskcon confers “institutional power” on a guru by making that guru Iskcon approved, and that this will lead to problems. If everyone could be a diksa guru in Iskcon then they would also have the same stamp of approval as the current status quo i.e. “Iskcon accredited guru”. Whether Iskcon diksa status is limited to GBC nominations or not limited, in both cases Iskcon is giving the stamp of approval that “this person we accept as good enough to be your guru should you so choose to accept him or her”.
You then wrote:
Iskcon gurus should let prospective disciples know if they are not on the highest level of bhakti. It’s not that all gurus are “on an equal level with God”. As Srila Prabhupada pointed out in his letters; madhyama adhikari gurus can take disciples. A madhyama guru is not on an “equal level with God”. It’s not the giving of diksa which elevates a person to the status of being worshippable as “good as God”. It’s that those on a lower level can give diksa if there is not a higher level guru around to send the disciple to.
From Srila Prabhupada:
An uttama adhikari guru is on the highest level of Krishna consciousness. Such a person is directly in touch with the Krishna within. From the purport to S.B. 4.29.50
And also From the purport to S.B 4.12.11:
And also from From S.B. 4.28.41
And also from the purport to S.B. 4.28.52
The above type of Guru is to we worshipped as equal to the Lord, not just anyone who is giving diksa. When Jiva Goswami wrote the following he was refering to the liberated maha bhagavat vaisnava guru, not about a madhyama adhikari guru:
Bhakti Sandarbha 237
Gurus and disciples in Iskcon need to realize the difference between the potency of an uttama adhikari devotee who converses directly with the Lord and the guru who is on a lower level. Problems arise not from “institutional sanction” but rather from ignorance about the level and type of guru who is giving diksa.
From the purport to C.C. Madhya, 24.330
That is the best route to take. But Srila Prabhupada has also said madhyama adhikaris can also give diksa. There should be no blurring of the lines between the two in the minds of prospective gurus and prospective disciples. It should be made clear that the madhyama guru is not the same as the maha bhagavat uttama guru.
Even if anyone in Iskcon is allowed to give diksa still there will be the “problem” of institutional sanction. Why? For example even if anyone could give diksa in Iskcon, in reality “anyone” couldn’t give diksa in Iskcon. Those gaudiya vaisnavas who work outside of Iskcon will not be allowed to preach or give diksa in Iskcon because the fear in some leaders or most leaders is that they are preaching a philosophy which is at odds in some way or another with Srila Prabhupada. If Iskcon were to really trust people to make their own decisions about whom to acept as a diksa guru then why should you impose on them any limitations? Why can’t they be free to choose from the numerous gaudiya diksa gurus outside of Iskcon and still remain in Iskcon? Isn’t Iskcon law interfering with the testing process by saying that only Iskcon devotees are qualified diksa gurus? If anyone in Iskcon is allowed to give diksa but not those outside of Iskcon then Iskcon is still giving institutional sanction to some people and rejecting the possibility of others to guide a person’s faith. Either way, with GBC sanctioned gurus or a free for all diksa process, still only Iskcon approved vaisnavas will be allowed to give diksa.
You wrote:
What if some people say the devotee guru is great and other people say he is a rascal? Who is to be believed? Where does this lead? I can envision a lot of acrimonious interaction between many devotees due to divergent viewpoints on the qualifications of a prospective diksa guru. People have grudges and they have favorites, which more often then not is based on friendship or dislike then actual spiritual qualification.
Then also wrote:
The same will occur regardless of whether the guru is GBC sanctioned or not. In either case it is the disciples and the public who will be adversely affected and lose faith, to whatever degree, in Iskcon as a place that provides bona fide gurus.
You the wrote:
The same problem will exist regardless if the GBC sanctions gurus or if anyone can be a guru. A guru may have problems and still be accepted by Iskcon as a stuanch devotee, it doesn’t matter if the guru is GBC sanctioned or not, the problem doesn’t go away if the GBC sanction goes away.
You then wrote:
If anyone can be guru and then they gain quite a following and then publicly fall down, how is it going to be any different then the above example? In both cases Iskcon will be sponsoring a person as a bona fide spiritual master, and in both cases Iskcon will be embarrassed.
You then wrote:
All it takes is letting people know what the standard is for being a diksa guru. Of course there is going to be an implication that not just anybody in Iskcon should be seen as being a worthy diksa guru. Who expects that everyone in Iskcon is worthy to be seen as a spiritual master? Or should be seen like that? Due to the high turnover rate in Iskcon most devotees are neophytes. Should there not be an objection to neophytes representing Iskcon as spiritual masters?
Then you wrote:
How many of those devotees are qualified spiritual masters? How many are still gaudiya vaisnavas? How many haven’t been involved in bhakti in many years? Or who have gone to others organizations or have fallen into all kinds of maya? How many are still in Iskcon? Not many, very few in fact. Most are not qualified or are not interested in being involved in bhakti or with Iskcon to much if any degree. Those who are involved and want to be diksa gurus are not automatically qualified to lead others just because they want to be a guru. Those who are serious will apply to be a guru. I read in the sastric advisory report on this issue on how they feel that due to a highly advanced devotee being humble he will not apply to be a guru, therefore they conclude that by letting anyone be a guru that their humbleness will all of a sudden disappear and they will accept disciples? I just don’t get it.
I could go on but I’ve said enough on this topic for today.
Your servant
Shiva das
Thank you for your comments Shiva prabhu. Here are some responses.
Sastra does not support this fear, as I have pointed out. Therefore on what basis do you say it should not be discounted? And what other reasons are there, reasons that are based upon sastra?
Yes, and in my view this is just one of many problems created by our present system. If things were opened up the situation would change and the phenomenon of âworldwide gurusâ with umpteen disciples whom they hardly know will begin to diminish and hopefully stop.
I would suggest that our main purpose is education, firstly of ourselves and then of others.
Yes, and we try to emulate Srila Prabhupada. However, he also wrote sixty volumes of books from the self realised position, recorded over 1000 lectures, personally trained his senior disciples who he expected to carry on that training, and began a worldwide mission to accommodate and train his disciples. If any of todayâs gurus can match that then I for one would have no objection to their accepting disciples in the same way as Prabhupada.
Iâm sorry, but I donât follow your logic here. If ISKCON is making no statement at all about the qualifications of a guru, then why should it reflect on ISKCON if that guru falls down? Especially if ISKCON is doing its best to educate devotees in the proper standards.
This is a nice quotation, Shiva prabhu, as are the others in a similar vein. After reading this, though, how many devotes do you think are likely to accept a less than uttama adhikari guru, at least in their estimation? How many devotees do you know who do not think their guru is on the topmost platform?
Could you clarify what you mean by âin ISKCONâ? How would you define this?
In my view it is entirely up to an individual who they choose as guru, be that âin ISKCONâ or otherwise. Then it is entirely up to ISKCON how they deal with those devotees in terms of their ability to hold posts, gives classes etc. In other words, as I tried to make clear, ISKCON should control the consequences decisions, not the decisions themselves. I tried making this clear in my paper.
Again, I am not sure of your logic here.
Yhs
KDd
BTW, Shiva prabhu, I would recommend reading the paper by the Sastric Advisory Committee on this issue which is posted on this site. They make many more good points, in my view
Krishna Dharma prabhu:
You requested that I read the SAC paper on this topic, I had already read it. If we assert that the sastra has to be followed closely on this topic then we may not be able to function as a preaching mission in the manner Srila Prabhupada desired. For example the SAC paper quotes these verses from the Hari-Bhakti-Viasa:
Is Iskcon to expect that any prospective disciple live with their prospective guru for one to three years before there can be an initiation? Here we are told: “Indeed, there is no other way to determine this.” How many people who recieved diksa from Srila Prabhupada or other gurus in Iskcon lived with their guru for one to three years before taking diksa? Srila Prabhupada did not follow that injunction and certainly no other gurus in Iskcon have followed that injunction. How will grhastas who have a family to support give up their family and live with a guru in Iskcon for at least a year in order to be eligible to recieve diksa? How will brahmacaris or grhastas accept any diksa guru who doesn’t live in their temple? We cheapen what it means to surrender to a guru if we think that the solution to this problem is to enable devotees in every temple regardless of their qualification to be seen as a spiritual master. People are advised to find the highest level of guru, they are not advised to find a guru who is convenient for them to take diksa from. The injunctions in the above are meant for traditional situations in India, Iskcon is not a traditional situation in India, it is a worldwide preaching mission. Srila Prabhupada did not follow those injunctions.
The SAC alos quoted this from Srila Prabhupada:
Even though Srila Prabhupada quotes the Hari Bhakti Vilasa at the end, in the first part he makes an adjustment to that injunction. Srila Prabhupada said that “one must hear him at least for one year” whereas the Hari Bhakti Vilas says that one must live together or meet together for a year. That is more appropriate for Iskcon. It is not practical for prospective disciples to have to live or meet with their prospective guru for a year. That injunction was not written down with the idea that taped recordings and mass media would make it easy to circulate the words of a guru as easy as it is for us today. The main thing was to hear from the guru. That way there could be some idea of the guru’s qualification.
Krishna Dharma Prabhu you wrote:
Srila Prabhupada writes in Nectar of Instruction:
If a kanistha devotee cannot distinuguish between devotees and nondevotees, how is he or she going to be able to discriminate between many devotees who are trying to appear saintly? There is reason to be concerned about letting anyone at their whim accept disciples in Iskcon. I get the feeling from reading your writings and some other people’s writings that all of you think that qualified gurus are a dime a dozen in Iskcon, that you can’t swing your bead bag without hitting a qualified guru. A person is advised to search out and take diksa from the highest level guru, not just some vaisnava who is nearby and willing to give diksa.
You then wrote:
Imagine if during Srila Prabhupada’s time with us someone suggested to him: “the system of your taking disciples without associating with them for one year is not sastrically bonafide, so what we want to do is let anyone give diksa so as to make it easy for people to associate with their diksa guru”.
You then wrote:
Maybe so, but you took that quote out of it’s context, which was:
The point I was trying to make is that Iskcon is different from a traditional guru disciple environment. It is a preaching mission where the devotees are busy trying to spread Krishna bhakti all over the world rather then a sedentary ashrama with a sedentary guru and disciples. It would be perfect if there were enough qualified gurus so that every temple had constant access to a bona fide spiritual master. But thinking that this problem will be solved by empowering anyone to be a guru is like thinking that to solve a food shortage we will change the name of sticks and stones to laddus and pakoras and in this way our hunger will be satiated.
You also wrote:
So you’re saying there should be a certain amount of busyness before one can accept disciples without close association? What would the cut off point be for the level of busyness before someone is qualified to accept disciples in the way that Srila Prabhupada did?
You then wrote:
If someone is allowed to give diksa in Iskcon then that person is being accredited by Iskcon. That person is representing Iskcon to the public. That is what the public will percieve regardless of some explanation that Iskcon doesn’t really endorse any guru.
Then you wrote:
That’s the problem. People need to be educated on the difference between a an uttama guru and a madhyama guru. The fact is that thousands upon thousands of people in Iskcon have accepted madhyama gurus believing they were uttama gurus and lived to regret it. They were fooled by their gurus and their gurus supporters into believing that their guru was on the highest level of bhakti. Any guru who does not have a direct one on one communication going with Sri Radha Govinda at all times, should understand that they are not on the highest level of bhakti. They should make it clear to their prospective disciples that they are not intimate confidential associates of the Lord. Only the devotee who is directly relating with Krishna as described in those purports from Srila Prabhupada is an intimate confidential servant of Lord. When a devotee attains to the highest level Krishna appears and communicates to that devotee, directly, at all times. Anyone who is accepting disciples and letting the disciples think that they are on a higher level then they are on are not qualified to be gurus. If a devotee is actually on that highest level he will not be overcome with humility and pose as less advanced if he is accepting disciples. He works under the direct instructions of Krishna to take the position of guru in order to guide the conditioned souls. His humility is not false humility. He knows that Krishna is the doer and that he is just Krishna’s puppet. So there is no question of humility stopping an uttama vaisnava from taking the position of guru, it is his duty and he is ordered to do so by Sri Krishna and he knows all his actions are under the control of Sri Krishna. That is real humility, knowing we are not the doer, knowing Krishna is the controller.
Then you wrote:
In Iskcon means in Iskcon temples. It is entirely up to the individual whom they accept as guru. But Iskcon is not going to allow just anyone to come into Iskcon temples and preach and give diksa. Therefore regardless of GBC sanction or not Iskcon is still going to be determining who is acceptable to give diksa in Iskcon or not. There will still be gurus who are institutionally sanctioned and those who are not.
Then you wrote:
You wrote that there is a problem in that it takes a long time for a guru in the current system to be disqualified as a guru if the guru has problems. And that will “reflect adversely upon the institution” more acutely for Iskcon if gurus were sanctioned by the GBC. I said that will not change if the GBC stops the sanctioning of gurus. Either way the guru who falls down will reflect adversely on Iskcon, depdendent of course on the amount of disciples and the extent of his preaching and influence in the public sphere. Either way the guru represents Iskcon.
Ys
Shiva das
Dear Prabhu,
You have written a thoughtful article, though, there are several places (only two of which I will presently address) that rely on rather faulty logic and/or bad information/research. Please do not take my comments as malicious criticism or as something offensive. It is quite clear that you are an intelligent and thoughtful individual and I am mentioning these two items, merely as examples, such as to encourage you to expand that intelligence and thoughtfulness accordingly.
Quoting your paper:
“There are over 5000 direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada who could all potentially be spiritual masters. However, as at the time of writing there are only 69 who have been approved by ISKCON. The other 5000 or so are just not validated as preachers by the institution for no apparent reason. This effectively dis-empowers a very large part of our potential senior manpower in ISKCON.”
Unless you are equating the term “guru” with the term “preacher” (itself a manner of faulty, or, at least, incomplete, logic), to say that the remaining disciples of Srila Prabhupada- or of any other guru- are “just not validated as preachers by the institution” is simply dead wrong. There are many devotees in ISKCON who, despite not serving as “officially approved” spiritual masters are preaching quite thoroughly and effectively. Their preaching is absolutely validated, supported, and encouraged by the ISKCON society, despite the fact that they are not serving as initiating gurus. There may be a plethora of reasons why they are not serving as initiating gurus, none of which require justification. As you yourself mention in the article, according to the examples you’ve cited from Srila Prabhupada himself, it is largely a matter of personal relationship and, therefore, personal reasoning. We could expand on that idea here, but, that is not the point in question. The point is those devotees who are preaching Krsna consciousness in service to the ISKCON society not only do not require sanction as gurus to be valid in their action but ARE in fact vaildated and appreciated by the society on a regular basis. Their “official position” as guru or not-guru has nothing to do with that preaching being respected by the general and leading populace of ISKCON.
You also write:
“In fact we effectively dis-empower any devotee who is trying to preach but is not an approved guru. As this approval is required before one can even be seen as a siksha guru, then the institutional position is that even though new devotees may be forming a relationship with a preacher in their locality, if that preacher is not approved then the new devotee will at some point think, âNow I need to find a bona-fide guru.â He or she will then begin contemplating the possibilities from the list of authorized gurus given by the institution. The existing relationship with the devotee who actually is acting as a guru, being not âauthorizedâ by ISKCON, will not be seen as being sufficient.”
These are, again, bad “facts” (i.e. “not facts”). As the position of siksa guru is not “officialised” in ISKCON, it is wrong to suggest that an aspiring initiate is “forbidden” to see that person as guru. Again, as you have mentioned, and as supported by Srila Prabhupada’s writings, it is a matter of personal choice. The system in ISKCON does, in fact, encourage that personal choice. Consider this: Is it not true that, at some point in the past, all of the current 69 “officialised” gurus were NOT initiating gurus? They became gurus because “some new devotee” (as you write) DID, in fact, appreciate their instruction and then, subsequently, comfortably pursued a relationship with that person in the mood of a disciple. As that relationship naturally developed, the insititutional process of “officialising” was applied on it. However, that “officialising” process did not at all hamper or interfere with the natural development of the relationship. Rather, it was- as it is in any healthy society- the application of the majority’s socially-accepted tenet (i.e. a “law”) that allowed that process to fructify and develop.
I know that your paper has made many points. I humbly request, however, that if you care to reply, we agree to keep our discussion limited- at first- to these two points. There are too many topics to “topic switch” to, so, if we are to develop these ideas, let us do so in an orderly and “lawful” manner. That will greatly assist the “natural” process all the while enhancing its personal attributes. Hare Krsna.
Your servant,
Sundara nanda-gopala dasa
Thank you for your comments Sundara-nanda-gopala prabhu.
You wrote
I was merely referring to the fact that the vast majority of Prabhupadaâs disciples have no sanction to act as guru, which according to ISKCON law (at least as of 1995 when I wrote the paper) includes siksha guru. Sure, anyone can preach, but then the devotees they make and nurture will be very likely initiated by someone who hardly knows them and will have limited â if any â dealings with them. This has proved a serious discouragement for many preachers that I know. There are probably eighty or ninety devotees today who are approved gurus with the âno objectionâ certification. These are usually the first choices for new devotees who are looking for a guru. Very rarely do they think of someone not on the list, although I understand that this is acceptable, provided the chosen prospective guru goes on to get approval from the GBC. However, what usually happens is that they get inducted into one guru club or another.
Thus those who are preaching without the guru sanction often find it difficult to develop and maintain a meaningful spiritual relationship with new devotees they are nurturing. Some relationship will be there, of course, but at the end of the day a devotee will naturally look toward his guru for his main spiritual guidance. I think one needs to have had a fair amount of preaching experience as a ânon-guruâ to fully appreciate this problem. Personally it became apparent to me after I had been struggling to start a small centre for ten years. Another five years of the same made it even more starkly obvious and I finally gave up trying. And I generally find that (only) those who have had a similar preaching experience can actually understand the points I am trying to make. In my experience, the gurus themselves donât seem to realise the extent of this problem. Obviously their perspective is rather different and things often look fine to them, as almost all new devotees are bottlenecked in their direction
As I state in my paper, this is not true. ISKCON law includes siksha gurus as requiring approval, unless this has now been changed. And if it has been changed then one needs to think carefully about the statement below
You wrote:
Well, this is the theory and indeed the thinking behind the system we now have. However, is it working? Here in the UK when the system began back in 1987 a few new gurus were approved. But since then not a single one has been approved. I think the experience is pretty much the same everywhere. Devotees usually want one of the current âbig gurusâ, who are often widely touted by their disciples. And because our present situation tends to make virtual âsuperheroesâ out of diksha gurus, there is an understandable hesitance about making anyone else into a guru, and often a hesitance on the side of preachers to put themselves forward for that role. We need to think outside of the box. If the situation were to be opened up then the diksha guru would become a different figure to what we see today. IMHO he would be that person who is inspiring and teaching his disciples in a very personal way, and he would only have as many disciples as he can actually deal with in this way. As Prabhupada writes:
Anyway prabhu, I make no claim that my paper or indeed my perspective on this issue is perfect in any way. I am merely trying to point to what appears to me to be a very real problem in our society that is practically strangling the preaching. It seems there are a growing number of devotees who share this view, and I was certainly encouraged by the SAC paper about this issue that is posted on this site. I thank you for taking the time and trouble to read my paper and am grateful for your thoughtful feedback. At least I am getting the matter discussed a little, which is my main aim.
Yhs
KDd
Krishna Dharma prabhu you wrote:
If the devotees who are spending their time and energy in preaching work feel discouraged because they cannot initiate the people who they have preached to, then those devotees need to ask themselves: Why do I feel discouraged? Why do I spend my time and energy preaching? Is it because I seek to please Sri Krishna Caitanya? Is it because it is the wish of Sri Guru and Gauranga that I engage in the sankirtan yajna for my own benefit as well as others? Or is it for some other reason? Why would anyone feel discouraged by being engaged in preaching work if the people who become devotees because of that work are not given diksa by them?
The people who are changed from a state of ignorance to enlightenment by the work of devotee preachers in Iskcon are being given entrance into the books and lectures of Srila Prabhupada and the entire gaudiya sampradaya. That is one of the purposes of our preaching. The other purpose is that we are purified by such work. It is not just for the benefit of others, it is also for our benefit. In fact Sri Nitai Gaura needs no help from anyone to preach. When Brahma stole away the cowherd boys from Vrindavan Sri Krishna simply expanded himself into replicas of those cowhered boys. In the same way the preaching work that you do can all be done without you. The Lord arranges the journey of the conditioned souls within this world. When it is their time, their destiny, to come in contact with the message of Sri Caitanya, then that is also arranged by the Lord. Whether we are there doing the work for the Lord or not doesn’t change the fact that in some way or another those jivas will be brought to the lotus feet of Sri Radha Madhava at their destined time.
It is our priviledge that we can be used by the Lord in His sankirtan lila. It is for your benefit that the Lord is engaging you in the sankirtan lila. By such work the devotee is purified and brought closer to the Lord. If we think that the people who are brought to Sri Caitanya through our preaching work need us for their salvation then we are in illusion. We are not the the cause of their taking to Krishna bhakti nor are we the necessary ingredient which they need in order for them to advance towards the goal of Krishna bhakti.
You also wrote:
What do you mean by “meaningful spiritual relationship”? If you are preaching to people and by that preaching they take to the path of Krishna bhakti and gain full accessibility to the words of the sastra and the previous acaryas and also have the ability to associate with the gaudiya vaisnava sanga, why should you find it discouraging if they don’t accept you as their diksa guru? What kind of relationship are you looking for with these people? They certainly do not need you as their diksa guru, they do not need any one of us for anything. Their lives are controlled by the Lord and the Lord will provide them what they need according to the Lord’s plans for them. If we figure into those plans then that will manifest in whatever fashion the Lord has planned. You make it seem like new devotees need some particular devotee who is around them to give them diksa. You say you gave up trying to start a small centre because the people whom you affected did not look to you as their main spiritual guide. This to me sounds like you were hoping to gain something from those people who were in your preaching area. When they did not give you what you wanted e.g. surrender, money, respect, etc, you got frustrated and quit. If I am wrong would you like to go into more detail on what happened? Let’s turn the clock back and let’s say that you were doing the same preaching work when Srila Prabhupada was here. Would you have quit when those new people wanted Srila Prabhupada as their main spiritual guide? If not then you should ask yourself what motivated you to start a centre? We will get the respect of others as a spiritual guide and the facility to preach according to the plan of the Lord. If we do not get the respect and facility that we desire then that is also the plan of the Lord. If we are motivated in our preaching work by the desire for respect as a spiritual leader, then when we don’t get that respect we will stop preaching. If we are motivated by gaining wealth and prestige but we don’t get wealth and prestige after a cetain amount of time then we will stop. If we are motivated by the desire to serve and be purified then no matter what the result we will not stop unless we are forced to stop by the plan of the Lord.
ceto-darpana-marjanam bhava-maha–davagni-nirvapanam
sreyah-kairava-candrika-vitaranam vidya-vadhu-jivanam
anandambudhi-vardhanam prati-padam purnamrtasvadanam
sarvatma-snapanam param vijayate sri-krsna-sankirtanam
Glory to the Sri-Krishna-sankirtana, which cleanses the heart of all the dust accumulated for years and extinguishes the fire of conditional life, of repeated birth and death. This sankirtana movement is the benediction for humanity at large because it spreads the rays of the benediction moon. It is the life of all transcendental knowledge. It increases the ocean of transcendental bliss, and it enables us to fully taste the nectar for which we are always anxious.
na dhanam na janam na sundarim
kavitam va jagad-isa kamaye
mama janmani janmanisvare
bhavatad bhaktir ahaituki tvayi
O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service, birth after birth.
ashlishya va pada-ratam pinashtu mam
adarshanan marma-hatam karotu va
yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato
mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva naparah
I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord, unconditionally.
If you and others feel discouraged in your preaching by not being able to seen as spiritual masters in Iskcon, if you have a deep conviction that your level of realization makes you worthy of being seen and treated as a bona fide spiritual master, then apply to become one.
YS
Shiva das
Responding to Krsna Dharma Prabhu’s reply:
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU WROTE:
I was merely referring to the fact that the vast majority of Prabhupadaâs disciples have no sanction to act as guru, which according to ISKCON law (at least as of 1995 when I wrote the paper) includes siksha guru.
SNGD: That is certainly true, and, in fact, in discussion with some senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada, one of whom is an active member of the GBC, I have been told that many GBC members believe it to be a healthy idea to expand that number by extending the opportunity to qualified persons.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU:Sure, anyone can preach, but then the devotees they make and nurture will be very likely initiated by someone who hardly knows them and will have limited â if any â dealings with them.
SNGD: Although, because the opportunity does exist by following the process, this is not necessarily true. I do agree, though, that as a social function, this is much more typical.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: This has proved a serious discouragement for many preachers that I know. There are probably eighty or ninety devotees today who are approved gurus with the âno objectionâ certification. These are usually the first choices for new devotees who are looking for a guru. Very rarely do they think of someone not on the list, although I understand that this is acceptable, provided the chosen prospective guru goes on to get approval from the GBC. However, what usually happens is that they get inducted into one guru club or another.
SNGD: I understand this although it seems simple enough to change. What you are reporting on is a function of social consciousness or, perhaps, even peer pressure or following the crowd mentality. As you mention in your initial paper, this consciousness could be expanded by a more thorough enducation in sastra. As that principle is so very necessary, do you have any specific recommendations as to how that activity of sastric study could be increased, or, as to how it could become more a “social norm” (in so much as the other social functions you have referred to seem to be)?
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: Thus those who are preaching without the guru sanction often find it difficult to develop and maintain a meaningful spiritual relationship with new devotees they are nurturing. Some relationship will be there, of course, but at the end of the day a devotee will naturally look toward his guru for his main spiritual guidance.
SNGD: Again, I think this is a highly subjective position. In so far as you may have experienced or witnessed that type of relationship, I have also witnessed the direct opposite. I have seen many initiated disciples of one guru who, for a plethora of reasons, receive the majority of their spiritual guidance from the guru’s godbrothers (or other devotees who we may, sastrically, refer to as “siksha gurus”).
KRSNA DHARMA: I think one needs to have had a fair amount of preaching experience as a ânon-guruâ to fully appreciate this problem. Personally it became apparent to me after I had been struggling to start a small centre for ten years. Another five years of the same made it even more starkly obvious and I finally gave up trying.
SNGD: I am having trouble understanding why the fact that you couldn’t make disciples at all interfered with your desire or ability to preach. I am not entirely clear on your meaning here, although (and please forgive me for saying so) one way in which the above statement could be interpreted is, “I want disciples and because the GBC won’t sanction me to initiate, I am giving up my preaching.” Have I misunderstood? Please clarify this point.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: And I generally find that (only) those who have had a similar preaching experience can actually understand the points I am trying to make. In my experience,
SNGD: Thus I have said that your position is thoroughly subjective. That does not, however, detract from many of the valid points you make in your original paper. I only point to it as evidence that if your arguments were presented in a more objective light they would carry more weight.
SNGD PREVIOUSLY WROTE: As the position of siksa guru is not âofficialisedâ in ISKCON,
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: As I state in my paper, this is not true. ISKCON law includes siksha gurus as requiring approval, unless this has now been changed.
SNGD: Yes, you are correct, this was my mistake. Siksha guru is, in fact, an officialised position in line with GBC law. I do not understand how it is possible to “officialise”this position as it relies entirely on natural formations. Perhaps it could be explained…?
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: And if it has been changed then one needs to think carefully about the statement below
There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service. Adi 1.47
SNGD: That certainly adds a new persepctive doesn’t it?
SNGD PREVIOUSLY WROTE: The system in ISKCON does, in fact, encourage that personal choice. Consider this: Is it not true that, at some point in the past, all of the current 69 âofficialisedâ gurus were NOT initiating gurus? They became gurus because âsome new devoteeâ (as you write) DID, in fact, appreciate their instruction and then, subsequently, comfortably pursued a relationship with that person in the mood of a disciple.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: Well, this is the theory and indeed the thinking behind the system we now have. However, is it working?
SNGD: Yes, I believe it is working, although, like any developmental effort, it may take some time for the “bugs” to work themselves out.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: Here in the UK when the system began back in 1987 a few new gurus were approved. But since then not a single one has been approved.
SNGD: Why? Certainly, one cannot place the full responsibility for that on the GBC. It’s a two way street.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: I think the experience is pretty much the same everywhere.
SNGD: I don’t.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: Devotees usually want one of the current âbig gurusâ, who are often widely touted by their disciples. And because our present situation tends to make virtual âsuperheroesâ out of diksha gurus, there is an understandable hesitance about making anyone else into a guru, and often a hesitance on the side of preachers to put themselves forward for that role.
SNGD: I disagree. Speaking subjectively, I do not see this “superhero” consciousness as socially prevelant as it was some years ago. Devotees are maturing and they are training the newer devotees to be more discriminating and intelligent. Although, this must be done very carefully, lest we develop a class of new bhaktas and bhaktins who, in the name of “free thinking” challenge EVERY piece of spiritual guidance given to them and thus wholly reduce the sastric standards. From my subjective position, this is actually a greater problem than the low number of “officialised” gurus.
KRSNA DHARMA PRABHU: We need to think outside of the box. If the situation were to be opened up then the diksha guru would become a different figure to what we see today. IMHO he would be that person who is inspiring and teaching his disciples in a very personal way, and he would only have as many disciples as he can actually deal with in this way. As Prabhupada writes:
According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. SB 4.12.32 purp.
SNGD: Yes, that is a very nice idea. What can be done, practically, to initiate this process of “opening up”?
KRSNA DHARAM PRABHU: Anyway prabhu, I make no claim that my paper or indeed my perspective on this issue is perfect in any way. I am merely trying to point to what appears to me to be a very real problem in our society that is practically strangling the preaching. It seems there are a growing number of devotees who share this view, and I was certainly encouraged by the SAC paper about this issue that is posted on this site. I thank you for taking the time and trouble to read my paper and am grateful for your thoughtful feedback. At least I am getting the matter discussed a little, which is my main aim.
SNGD: Thank you also. More than anything, I appreciate your dedication to the actual discussion and am very inspired by your willingness to be detached and humble in consideration of these ideas. I am trying to follow your example and do the same, and, indeed, it makes this discussion very enjoyable. I look forward to your reply.
Your servant,
Sundara nanda-gopala dasa
I caught the last paragraph of Shiva das’s comment, he summed it up.
Get a no-objection certificate and get on with the business.
Dear Sundara-nanda-gopala prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP
Thank you for the ongoing discussion. You raise a number of interesting points to which I would offer my own thoughts in response, for whatever they may be worth.
You wrote
With all due respect, why should anyone have to âextend the opportunity to qualified personsâ? Qualified in whose opinion? How can anyone tell me that my prospective guru is qualified to represent Krishna to me or not? That is surely between me, the guru, and Krishna. Sastra talks only about mutual testing between guru and disciple. Nothing more. On what sastric basis does anyone presume to act as an intermediary? And what value is their judgement anyway? I accepted two diksha gurus who in the considered opinion of senior devotees were both qualified, but both turned out to be not so qualified at all. And as you know my experience was far from rare. What is the value of ISKCONâs approval? As I point out in my paper it is even said in ISKCON law that approval is not any statement of the spiritual status of the devotee concerned. So why say anything at all? Why not just leave it to the disciple to make his or her own decision? What is the problem? Can you name me even one?
Yes. Please read my other paper on this website, âProposal for Improving ISKCONâ.
I accept that there are perfectly good siksha relationships in ISKCON, but my point is that our system of approving gurus does nothing to assist their development. On the contrary, it often impedes them.
This is not about me wanting to initiate. Far from it. I am simply saying that we should let everyone have that opportunity. Disciples should be entirely free to select whoever they like. ISKCON should simply provide sastric education in this regard. Once again, what is the problem? What are we so scared of?
Indeed. If siksha should be unregulated then diksha must be also.
Simple. Stop approving gurus and let disciples make their own choice. Again, what problems do you think this will cause? And if there are any then letâs see how else they might be solved.
My contention is that the approval system causes more problems than it solves. In fact I question whether it solves any problems at all. Why is it in place? That is my question. What are your views prabhuji? Do you think it is helping our society in any way at all? Would you agree that is causing at least some problems, or do you think everything is fine?
Thanks again for your feedback. In my view this is the most important discussion in ISKCON
Yhs
KDd
As a disciple of Srila Prabhupada dedicating my life to Prabhupada’s mission, I have thought of one thing we could all do as a gesture of loyalty to our jagad-guru. Why not organize a grand debate to give new inspiration to the movement that we all participate in as our life’s mission?
The purpose of this letter is to begin a discussion about the uncertain predicament for devotees facing apparently contradictory and ambiguous instructions from Srila Prabhupada. Among the multifarious and vast expanse of Prabhupada’s instructions, which are the most essential?
All organized religions are born with a virtuous and noble purpose to God and man, but by the polluting effect of time they may diverge to some extent from their goals. We see how, historically, organized religions sometimes become disguised political corporations existing for their own sake at the expense of the suffering of others. ISKCON itself is not remote from such an evil possibility. In order to check such danger, a democratic process of continuous quality control must operate. Philosophical debate is the first step, and is actually of paramount importance.
Therefore, I suggest a formal process to select the three most essential instructions of Srila Prabhupada to substantiate his mission. To outline the most prominent, revolutionary contributions of Srila Prabhupada to present and future generations will go a long ways toward dispelling disunity and creating harmony within ISKCON.
I would offer a prize to the foremost participants, but I have no resources available. Anyway, I invite all Krsna-conscious persons who are able to do so to organize such a tournament and to enhance it by their participation. There is no loss, and everyone will benefit. It will also contribute to standarizing Vaisnava criteria for the welfare of the whole world. After all, ISKCON was founded for the upliftment of human society and was meant to be part of the solution to all challenges that defy the intelligentsia of the world. May providence mercifully allow it to occur.
By Atmavan das