Lesson on guru/disciple relations from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's Upakhyane-upadesa

[Narayanidd 1]

My dear vaisnavas,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

In his book of essays entitled Upakhyane-upadesa, "Instructions in stories" , Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur gives the following commentary on the story of Ekalavya.

 

Not only here but in numerous places, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur quite often spoke in *very* strong terms against 'atheistic moralism', identifying it as one of the most insidious opponents of true bhakti, yet which has become quite fashionable in kali-yuga as a watershed for pretensious persons actually opposed to God, appearing to be religious and being lauded and worshiped as such by foolish masses. While accepting adoration of others as great devotees, the spirit of such persons is actually indifferent or opposed to God. Such falsehood was the object of intense exposure by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

 

 

UPAKHYANE-UPADESA

 

"To many people, Ekalavya's devotion to his guru is ideal, but there is a special consideration. What was Ekalavya's fault? That should be considered. Wearing the mask of guru-bhakti, devotion to the guru, Ekalavya actually revolted against his guru. Whether was actually considering him to be disqualified by birth in a low-class family, or was simply testing him for whatever reason, when hid gurudeva refused to teach him the art of Dhanur-veda it was Ekalavya's duty to accept the instruction of his spiritual master. But Ekalavya did not like that. He wanted to become great. Externally, without a guru his work would not be considered bona fide, or perhaps it was not possible to become great without accepting a guru. It was with these considerations that Ekalavya formed an imaginary or clay material form of the guru. Actually, his main intention was to learn Dhanur-veda and become great. In this he wanted to satisfy his own senses. He did not want to sacrifice himself to the will of his guru. That was not his honest desire."

 

"Some may say that ultimately Ekalavya accepted the cruel order of his guru without a protest. But if we consider this issue more carefully and deeply we can see that Ekalavya considered mundane morality to be greater than transcendental devotion. It is a moral code taht when the guru wants some daksina one must offer it with spontaneous devotion. Otherwise he would have accepted the guru's first order."

 

"The natural characteristic of devotion is that it is simple and spontaneous. If Ekalavya had unconditional and natural devotion for Hari, guru, and vaisnava, the the guru, Dronacarya, the best of vaisnavas, Arjuna, and Lord Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna, would not have been disappointed with his behavior. Ekalavya's endeavor to learn Dhanur-veda and his desire to become great were not accepted by his guru. In the core of Ekalavya's heart, he desired to become better than the best of vaisnavas, Arjuna. The desire to become greater than the vaisnavas is not devotion. It is non-devotional, and this is th eprinciple of the sahajiya-sampradaya."

 

"By mundane consideration, this kind of desire to become great is a good desire. But devotion is the effort to remain behind and submissive to the vaisnavas. Ekalavya wanted his skill to be greater than that aquired by learning vedic wisdom directly from a bona fide spiritual master. By reporting Ekalavya's skill to Drona, Arjun showed Ekalavya his wrong approach to learning the Vedic science. If Arjuna had not mercifully pointed that out to him, then the glories of impersonalism would have prevailed. People would have created their imaginary, mundane, unconscious gurus, and learned different sciences and devotions, instead of approaching a bona fide guru."

 

 

"So Arjuna took care that such an atheistic principle was not established. Therefore, Arjuna was not evious of Ekalavya. It was actually a manifestation of his causeless mercy toward Ekalavya and the whole world. If Ekalavya had been an unalloyed devotee of his guru, then Krsna would not have destroyed such an earnest disciple. Krsna always protects His devotees. But finally Ekalavya was killed by the hand of Krsna. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that we cannot judge a devotee just by seeing his external austrities. The demons also perform austerities. Even demigods cannot perform austerities as much as the demons. [Cb. madhya 23.46]"

 

"Ekalavya wanted to become greater than a vaisnava, against his guru's desire. That is why he was killed by Krsna and ultimately attained impersonal liberation. Only the demons are killed by Krsna. Devotees are always protected by Him. Hiranyakasipu and Prahlada are proof. Therefore, we should never try to become greater than vaisnavas and thus, wearing a mask of guru-bhakti, actually become impersonalists. That is what we should learn fron the example of Ekalavya. Proficiency in performing activities is not a symptom of devotion to the guru, or guru-bhakti. Bhakti means to remain subordinate and submissive to the Lord's loving servants, the vaisnavas."

 

 

This naration was very eye-opening to me! I would like to get my hands on a copy of the book for further insight and wonderful Krsna katha! Does anyone know how this would be possible?

 

Your servant,

Narayani d.d.