We Do Not Appoint Gurus

[suchandra 1]

This seems the official statement from the GBC office today (btw, why do they consider it as important to make such a statement?), although, as pointed out by Balavidya das, things look quite different.

(a) Only those have gone through the GBC certification procedure can initiate within ISKCON; (b) Those who have not gone through the GBC certification procedure certainly cannot initiate within ISKCON without going through the GBC process; © The ethos in ISKCON is that those who have gone through the GBC process "are the diksa-gurus of ISKCON, all others are not gurus".

 

 

 

A Successful Guru Policy

BY: BALAVIDYA DASA

 

Sep 29, USA (SUN) — "What is a Guru" not "Who is a Guru".

 

Dear devotees, the following e-mail in response to Bhanu Swami's e-mail may be of interest.

 

Dear Bhanu Swami,

 

I have received your reply, as repeated below, to my earlier essay "

Those Who Deviate are Useless

".

• You wrote:
  "Actually the GBC does not appoint gurus. It only certifies that certain people have met certain standards that the individual can consider in this search for guru. Isn't this the present policy?"

Before I reply to your question, let me say that I have great respect for you and so will answer in a straightforward way with no offense intended.

 

Does the GBC appoint Gurus?

 

Firstly, let us examine your basic premise "Actually the GBC does not appoint gurus."

 

This statement implies that the GBC understands "the GBC should not appoint gurus". In the past, the GBC made no bones about the fact that they were officially "appointing diksa-gurus". The present policy, as you have pointed out, asserts that "the GBC does not appoint gurus". Therefore, with this new policy, the GBC have tacitly recognized that the previous policy of officially "appointing" diksa-gurus was erroneous and unwanted. This is also the conclusion of "Those Who Deviate are Useless".

 

However, we must consider if this is actually an accurate statement, i.e, "the GBC does not appoint gurus". And if the GBC can be shown to be in effect "appointing gurus", then logically they have to stop the procedure by which they are contradicting themselves.

 

First, let us analyze the present GBC policy to see if it is actually a diksa-guru-appointment system or not. We see that: (a) Only those have gone through the GBC certification procedure can initiate within ISKCON; (b) Those who have not gone through the GBC certification procedure certainly cannot initiate within ISKCON without going through the GBC process; © The ethos in ISKCON is that those who have gone through the GBC process "are the diksa-gurus of ISKCON, all others are not gurus".

 

Now quite frankly, considering (a), (b), and © can any intellectually honest person really assert that the GBC "certification procedure" is not an appointment system?

 

It does not behoove us to argue that "black is white". Let us be simple and straightforward, the GBC "certification of standards" is a de facto appointment process. To say otherwise is simply unbecoming word jugglery, a self-delusion.

 

A De Facto Appointment Process

 

Naturally, the next question to arise is: If the GBC on one hand asserts "We do not appoint gurus", then why, on the other hand, does it determinedly maintain a "de facto appointment process"?

 

As the old adage goes: "You can't have your cake and eat it too!"

 

In effect, the GBC position may be summarized as: "We don't appoint gurus, we just certify who can initiate!"

 

Quite frankly, this is a farcical posture that is destroying the dignity of the GBC. It smacks of tricky diplomacy and covert motives. And it is fooling no one. Everyone knows the GBC is "appointing diksa-gurus within ISKCON".

 

The fact is that, on one hand, the GBC is maintaining a covert appointment system, while, on the other hand, it is duplicitously asserting "the GBC does not appoint gurus".

 

Furthermore, if the GBC is actually sincere when it says "the GBC does not appoint gurus", then it must scrap the present "certification" because it is de facto an appointment system.

 

The Simplest Point

 

Maharaja, the simplest point on this whole affair is that if Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC to appoint/certify exclusive diksa-gurus, he would have said so, he would have said so, he would have said so. But as we all know, he didn't.

 

The question for the GBC is "Where did Srila Prabhupada say do like that?"

 

Presently there is a complicated local committee appointed to judge a candidate, then it goes to the GBC for another convoluted and protracted judgment. Then if the person manages to jump through all these hoops, he is allowed to "be a diksa-guru" after some more time. How anyone can assert this is not "appointing gurus" we cannot understand, but the point here is:

 

"Where did Srila Prabhupada say do like that?"

 

This whole concocted procedure, what is the instruction of Srila Prabhupada upon which it rests? Furthermore, where is the sadhu and sastra to support this procedure?

 

Yet the GBC does not answer this question, rather it acts that the question does not exist and keeps quiet, hoping it will go away. But, this is not some small issue. The matter is of highest importance: The continuance of the Brahma-Madhava Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

If the GBC wish to maintain the present procedure, appointment or certification whatever, then they have to justify it with a direction from Srila Prabhupada, in line with sadhu and sastra.

 

"Where did Srila Prabhupada say do like that?"

 

Maharaja, we believe you are the chairman of the GBC this year, kindly provide an official GBC answer to this question.

 

Recognition of Reality

 

Actually there is no need of inventing processes. Srila Prabhupada covered the topic of parampara continuance hundreds of times in his books, conversations and lectures. And only by following Srila Prabhupada without concoction can we hope to be successful in propagating the parampara. We have to recognize the reality that all the various processes the GBC have invented since November 1977 have all been failures. The stated objective has always been that the restrictive appointment systems will stop the unqualified from initiating. This has not been the case. All we have created is failure and contention between godbrothers by our deviation.

 

We have to admit that we have been going down the wrong road by appointing/certifying individual diksa-gurus since November 1977. Srila Prabhupada wanted his qualified disciples to give diksa and thus have their own disciples. However, Srila Prabhupada only ever mentioned guru-by-vote-appointment systems in a mood of condemnation. This is irrefutable: Srila Prabhupada condemned the institutional appointment/certification of gurus. Therefore such systems within ISKCON will always remain very inauspicious for all involved. History bears witness to this fact right up to the present day.

 

Unfortunately, ISKCON members and particularly the GBC have become so conditioned since November 1977 that many cannot imagine how to run the society without "appointing gurus". Therefore, even though we admit we should not "appoint" gurus, we now delude ourselves by saying that we are not "appointing", we are "certifying". This is a sorry, contradictory state of affairs.

 

The Solution: "What is a Guru" not "Who is a Guru"

 

If we want the solution, we just have to look to Srila Prabhupada: In his teachings, Srila Prabhupada enunciated the qualities of guru and instructed those interested in diksa to find a spiritual master on that basis. Srila Prabhupada only ever mentioned guru-appointment systems in a mood of condemnation. Interestingly, Srila Bhaktivinoda and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta P. also never appointed successors or instituted guru-appointment-vote systems. In the sastra, the qualities of a bona fide spiritual master and disciple are described, and a period of close mutual examination through preliminary tutelage is prescribed (see appendix below).

 

Why can't the GBC adopt the same policy? It is after all the sastra, the system of the Supreme Lord, the object of our surrender. The recommended system would be to (a) educate the duties and qualities of the bona fide disciple and guru; (b) educate those interested in diksa to follow a period of close mutual examination; and © educate those giving and taking diksa that the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders to make the right decision. A book could be prepared with all the relevant quotes and made available throughout the society.

 

In effect the new GBC policy would be to teach WHAT IS A GURU, rather than the present policy of WHO IS A GURU.

 

The GBC would still maintain its supervisory role of stepping in if someone misbehaves, as a check and balance. So, previous to initiation the GBC role is to educate, and after the initiation, the GBC role is to see that all duties are being followed nicely.

 

The position of the GBC is thus enhanced because it will never more be in the position of having certified a guru who turns out to be unqualified.

 

Furthermore, because those initiating have not been "officially certified by the GBC" their position becomes lesser than the GBC, as they cannot claim to have the institutional authority of the GBC behind them. Thus the authority of the GBC is enhanced relative to the diksa-gurus when the diksa-gurus are not appointed/certified. Thus the GBC becomes more potent in the matter of overseeing the diksa-gurus' performance.

 

Furthermore, as the new diksa-gurus are not appointed/certified by the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON, the GBC, then the status of Srila Prabhupada as the supreme founder-acarya and foundational siksa-guru for ISKCON automatically becomes enhanced and is not challenged. Srila Prabhupada becomes the center for all standards of discipleship and guruship by the propagation of his teachings on the topic.

 

Furthermore, as the new GBC role is to "educate what is guru", rather than "administer who is guru", then ISKCON becomes moved in the direction of a brahminical educational society. This is what Srila Prabhupada wanted: the study of his books as the basis for all ISKCON, and then the world will follow.

 

So Maharaja, you have a leading role in ISKCON. I humbly entreat you to consider deeply all the above points in an open and contemplative mind.

Kindly see that this matter of central importance is discussed at GBC level.

We have to move beyond the failures of the past systems and see that the Gaudiya Parampara is continued for thousands of years without the "infiltration of material concoction".

 

Kindly see that the system outlined above is based on guru, sadhu and sastra. And when we follow the sastra closely, then the attendant problems of living in the material world become minimized by the grace of Sri Krsna. The sastra is the "center for all" as Srila Prabhupada said. Sastra and Srila Prabhupada present the eternal parampara system and when it is taught within ISKCON, only then will the blessings of Supreme Lord Sri Krsna flow into ISKCON in full measure.

 

We hope this is found helpful,

 

Your servant, Balavidya dasa

 

 

<center>

Appendix: The Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa

The

Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa

was composed by Sanatana Goswami under the direction of Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya, the bestower of religious principles for this age of Kali.

 

The First Vilasa:

Text 74

 

</center>

The

Mantra-muktavali

instructs, "The

guru

and aspiring disciple should live together for a year. They should examine each other to find out their nature, character and compatibility. There is no other way of achieving this."

 

<center> Text 75 </center>

The

Sruti

states, "An aspiring disciple who does not stay together with the guru for a year should not be given

diksa-mantra

by the

guru

."

 

<center> Text 76 </center>

The

Sarasangraha

also declares, "The

guru

should examine an aspiring disciple under his tutelage for a year."

 

<center> Text 78</center>

It is described in the

Krama-dipika

, "The disciple who is desirous to receive diksa [in the Gopala-mantra] must serve the

guru

for three years employing his wealth, simplicity of heart, affectionate behaviour, full physical endeavour, gentle speech and favourable attitude with the understanding that the

guru

is as good as the Supreme Lord. In this manner, when the disciple satisfies his

guru

, he may beg for

diksa

."

 

 

[Guruvani 0]

How come the GBC says they have the power to remove a guru but not the power to appoint.

They claim they only approve gurus not appoint them.

But, if they cannot appoint a guru, then how can they have the power to remove a guru from ISKCON guru status?

 

Obviously, the GBC guru system is an unprecedented breach of classic Gaudiya Vaishnavism where a guru or acharya was never under the scrutiny or jurisdiction a corperate managing body or any governing body commission.

 

Whether or not such a guru system is legitimate or in line with Gaudiya siddhanta is very much up for question and is an issue that if really examined closely becomes very suspect.

 

ISKCON has manufactured a new meaning and a new role for a guru or an acharya in the Gaudiya sampradaya as the subordinate of a managing committee.

 

This of course completely violates the classic Gaudiya culture of the acharya being a direct representative of God and beyond any control or sanction of a corperate managing committee.

 

ISKCON wants to have it's guru cake and eat it too!

 

It's a typically neophyte response of a managing committee trying to fill the shoes of the acharya and not doing a very good job.

 

The leading western devotees of ISKCON have successfully overthrown the spiritual monarchy of the great acharyas and replaced it with democratic oversight of the gurus of the KC movement.

 

It hasn't shown a great success rate in the last 30 years.

[stonehearted 0]

[theist 1]

 

This is not a pipe.

 

:D:D

[theist 1]

"By the grace of KRSNA one gets Guru and by the grace of Guru one gets Krsna."

 

So why is not this simple formulae not good enough? Because it means first one must really believe and hopefully know that Krsna exists and that He is the ultimate controller and have faith that He is concerned about the fate of all living beings.

 

Without this basic understanding and faith what is the practical difference between the ecclesiastical religionist and the atheist?

[stonehearted 0]

Lordy, are you ever hopelessly naive . . .

[theist 1]

 

Lordy, are you ever hopelessly naive . . .

 

I know. Never had no schoolin'. :-)

[Kulapavana 0]

"In the sastra, the qualities of a bona fide spiritual master and disciple are described, and a period of close mutual examination through preliminary tutelage is prescribed (see appendix below).

Why can't the GBC adopt the same policy? It is after all the sastra, the system of the Supreme Lord, the object of our surrender. The recommended system would be to (a) educate the duties and qualities of the bona fide disciple and guru; (b) educate those interested in diksa to follow a period of close mutual examination; and © educate those giving and taking diksa that the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders to make the right decision."

------------------------------

 

Did Srila Prabhupada actually follow that process? Who got to live with him for a year? Who got a chance to observe him up close? Very, very few... Seems to me he modified the process recommended by the shastra to the practicalities of the situation he found himself in. The GBC is doing a very similar thing - adjusting and modifying the shastric process.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

"In the sastra, the qualities of a bona fide spiritual master and disciple are described, and a period of close mutual examination through preliminary tutelage is prescribed (see appendix below).

Why can't the GBC adopt the same policy? It is after all the sastra, the system of the Supreme Lord, the object of our surrender. The recommended system would be to (a) educate the duties and qualities of the bona fide disciple and guru; (b) educate those interested in diksa to follow a period of close mutual examination; and © educate those giving and taking diksa that the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders to make the right decision."

------------------------------

 

Did Srila Prabhupada actually follow that process? Who got to live with him for a year? Who got a chance to observe him up close? Very, very few... Seems to me he modified the process recommended by the shastra to the practicalities of the situation he found himself in. The GBC is doing a very similar thing - adjusting and modifying the shastric process.

 

Obeisances to the cyber sanga.

 

What a sensitive topic. Perhaps Srila Prabhupada himself could shed some light on the topic.

 

Here is the only thing Srila Prabhupada actually wrote in his presentation of the Sastra (according to my Vedabase search) explaining to his audience how they were to understand this issue (time frame and context for mutual examination). This from the lips of the Current Acharya (himself), which is how we are to understand the issue, unless one is already the disciple of an Acharya who appeared prior to Srila Prabhupada, or has by grace found a self effulgent Acharya since him. For as we understand the rule in Iskcon, a disciple understands the purport of all commentary and instructions of previous Acharyas by listening to the current Acharya that they have surrendered to.

 

CC Madhya 24.330 purport.

 

Similarly, a disciple's qualifications must be observed by the spiritual master before he is accepted as a disciple. In our Krsna consciousness movement, the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life-illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication and gambling. In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles. Then he is given the name of a Vaisnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, at least sixteen rounds daily. In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representative for at least six months to a year. He is then recommended for a second initiation, during which a sacred thread is offered and the disciple is accepted as a bona fide brahmana. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the system of giving the sacred thread to a bona fide Vaisnava, and we are also following in his footsteps. The qualifications of a bona fide disciple are described in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.10.6) as follows:

amanya-matsaro dakso

nirmamo drdha-sauhrdah

asatvaro 'rtha-jijnasur

anasuyur amogha-vak

The disciple must have the following qualifications. He must give up interest in the material bodily conception. He must give up material lust, anger, greed, illusion, madness and envy. He should be interested only in understanding the science of God, and he should be ready to consider all points in this matter. He should no longer think, "I am this body," or, "This thing belongs to me." One must love the spiritual master with unflinching faith, and one must be very steady and fixed. The bona fide disciple should be inquisitive to understand transcendental subject matter. He must not search out faults among good qualities, and he should no longer be interested in material topics. His only interest should be Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

As far as the mutual testing of the spiritual master and disciple is concerned, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura explains that a bona fide disciple must be very inquisitive to understand the transcendental subject matter. As stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.3.21):

tasmad gurum prapadyeta

jijnasuh sreya uttamam

One who is inquisitive to understand the highest goal and benefit of life must approach a bona fide spiritual master and surrender unto him." A serious disciple must be alert when selecting a bona fide spiritual master. He must be sure that the spiritual master can deliver all the transcendental necessities. The spiritual master must observe how inquisitive the disciple is and how eager he is to understand the transcendental subject matter. The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no less than six months or a year. A spiritual master should not be very anxious to accept a disciple because of his material opulences. Sometimes a big businessman or landlord may approach a spiritual master for initiation. Those who are materially interested are called visayis (karmis), which indicates that they are very fond of sense gratification. Such visayis sometimes approach a famous guru and ask to become a disciple just as a matter of fashion. Sometimes visayis pose as disciples of a reputed spiritual master just to cover their activities and advertise themselves as advanced in spiritual knowledge. In other words, they want to attain material success. A spiritual master must be very careful in this regard. Such business is going on all over the world. The spiritual master does not accept a materially opulent disciple just to advertise the fact that he has such a big disciple. He knows that by associating with such visayi disciples, he may fall down. One who accepts a visayi disciple is not a bona fide spiritual master. Even if he is, his position may be damaged due to association with an unscrupulous visayi. If a so-called spiritual master accepts a disciple for his personal benefit or for material gain, the relationship between the spiritual master and the disciple turns into a material affair, and the spiritual master becomes like a smarta-guru.

 

So, as we can see, the so called living with the Guru, adjusted to time place and circumstance, is that Srila Prabhupada examined his aspiring disciples, either himself or through his REPRESENTATIVES.

 

He gave the standard criteria, and expected his leading men to observe and hold new aspirants to the criteria.

 

If an Acharya says that he is empowering others to assist him in the fulfillment of any of his duties as Acharya, that is that.

 

 

[cbrahma 0]

As Polonius asked Hamlet 'What do you read my lord?"

Hamlet replies "words words words".

The GBC is so weighed down with its own bureaucratic artifices it has yet to invent an artifice to proclaim it uses no artifice.

Again as Polonius tells the Queen. 'Madam I use no art'.

Whatever the process - the GBC is a self-proclaimed authority over guru-tattva. Any group or individual that claims such authority over a living acarya is -- acarya - no less. So I should really be initiated by the GBC since the buck stops with them.

[suchandra 1]

 

As Polonius asked Hamlet 'What do you read my lord?"

Hamlet replies "words words words".

The GBC is so weighed down with its own bureaucratic artifices it has yet to invent an artifice to proclaim it uses no artifice.

Again as Polonius tells the Queen. 'Madam I use no art'.

Whatever the process - the GBC is a self-proclaimed authority over guru-tattva. Any group or individual that claims such authority over a living acarya is -- acarya - no less. So I should really be initiated by the GBC since the buck stops with them.

 

This question was actually once discussed - since the GBC appointed diksa-gurus, is the GBC legally responsible for the damage when a so called "certificated spiritual master" falls down and leaves for good?

The answer is to be read in the small print, the GBC passed a resolution that in case a "guru" falls down it is only the disciple who is responsible.

[cbrahma 0]

 

This question was actually once discussed - since the GBC appointed diksa-gurus, is the GBC legally responsible for the damage when a so called "certificated spiritual master" falls down and leaves for good?

The answer is to be read in the small print, the GBC passed a resolution that in case a "guru" falls down it is only the disciple who is responsible.

Well ain't that special. The GBC gets to have it's authoritarian cake and eat it too. All authority and NO responsibility. WAIT A MINUTE! That's not guru, sastra or sadu...

[suchandra 1]

 

Well ain't that special. The GBC gets to have it's authoritarian cake and eat it too. All authority and NO responsibility. WAIT A MINUTE! That's not guru, sastra or sadu...

 

Using William Shakespeare's vocabulary in Hamlet: "Fact is: these people have so much blood on their hands they could never clean it up."

[sevabhakta 0]

Here is another crucial point to consider, from Nectar of Devotion Ch 7 purport.

 

 

In the Seventh Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam, 13th Chapter, 7th verse, Narada Muni, while discussing with Maharaj Yudhisthira the various functions of the different orders in society, especially mentions rules for the sannyasis-those persons who have renounced this material world. One who has accepted the sannyasa order of life is forbidden to accept as a disciple anyone who is not fit. A sannyasi should first of all examine whether a prospective student is sincerely seeking Krsna consciousness. If he is not, he should not be accepted. However, Lord Caitanya's causeless mercy is such that He advised all bona fide spiritual masters to speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere. Therefore, in the line of Lord Caitanya, even the sannyasis can speak about Krsna consciousness everywhere, and if someone is seriously inclined to become a disciple, the sannyasi always accepts him.

The one point is that without increasing the number of disciples, there is no propagation of the cult of Krsna consciousness. Therefore, sometimes even at a risk, a sannyasi in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu may accept even a person who is not thoroughly fit to become a disciple. Later on, by the mercy of such a bona fide spiritual master, the disciple is gradually elevated. However, if one increases the number of disciples simply for some prestige or false honor, he will surely fall down in the matter of executing Krsna consciousness.

 

 

Note there is no timeframe offered on the guarantee of gradual elevation, but every single ambitious monkey like disciple Srila Prabhupada created was made by his MERCY on the rest of humanity who didn't even step up to the plate.

 

In one sense, it seems useless criticizing the GBC et al. for their endeavors unless the one criticizing is spreading the gospel and inducing people to chant himself. They may not have been fit to become disciples way back when, and may still be in the clearing stage, you know the "gradual" part and the next step is elevation to the point where they are at least fit to become disciples.

 

That happens to be the plateau I see before me, that is still a little higher than I can leap up to, but I can understand now why everything has gone done the way it did before I even got on the scene.

 

All glories to the merciful Acharya.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Any group or individual that claims such authority over a living acarya is -- acarya - no less.

I would go even farther to say that even one acharya does not have authority over another acharya.

Even Lord Krishna does not interfere with the acharya.

How can a GBC have power or authority over any acharya.

 

Even if each and every member of the GBC was an acharya in truth, they would still not have authority over another true acharya.

 

Originally, the seniormost respected Vaishnava of any given camp or community would be requested and petitioned by the other Vaishnavas of the community to lead the group.

 

But, in ISKCON it's just a free-for-all of gurus all in competition with each other in total disregard of Gaudiya etiquette that senior Vaishnavas should be respected and recognized.

 

It's a mess.

They don't have a clue.

 

They act like a bunch of rich kids plundering their inheritance on self-indulgence and risk-taking.

[cbrahma 0]

 

However, if one increases the number of disciples simply for some prestige or false honor, he will surely fall down in the matter of executing Krsna consciousness.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

You should have bolded that.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

You should have bolded that.

 

If one is not even fit to be a disciple, but receives the mercy of an Acharya anyway because the Acharya wants to make disciples at all costs, it would be axiomatic that the unfit person was still prone to the four defects, and thus lusty for prestige, or fame adoration and distinction.

 

So it is a crap shoot, and as we can see in retrospect, a large group will fall quickly and hard.

 

But we are assured that someway, someday, they will be gradually elevated.

 

And as far as an Acharya's authority, an Acharya is an Ideal Teacher, and more. They are rare. They also do not make adjustments to the sadhana given to a sadhaka of another Acharya. Not their job.

 

Good discussion.

[cbrahma 0]

 

If one is not even fit to be a disciple, but receives the mercy of an Acharya anyway because the Acharya wants to make disciples at all costs, it would be axiomatic that the unfit person was still prone to the four defects, and thus lusty for prestige, or fame adoration and distinction.

 

So it is a crap shoot, and as we can see in retrospect, a large group will fall quickly and hard.

 

But we are assured that someway, someday, they will be gradually elevated.

 

And as far as an Acharya's authority, an Acharya is an Ideal Teacher, and more. They are rare. They also do not make adjustments to the sadhana given to a sadhaka of another Acharya. Not their job.

 

Good discussion.

The cheaters and the cheated...

We get what we wish for. Why in god's name would I want a defective guru to take me where...back to the material world. No thanks.

What I find funnier than the excuses the GBC make for themselves are the excuses their supporters make.

LOL.