May 6, 2007...5:27 pm
Two Gurus and a False Dilemma
Vibhisana, the brother of Ravana, appears before Lord Sri Ramacandra
Lord Ramachandra had reached the ocean separating Him from the island of Lanka, where Ravana was holding His wife Sita captive. He and His army paused for some time on the beach. Suddenly, Vibhisana, the brother of Ravana, troubled by his brother’s outrageous behaviour, became visible. He claimed that he was defecting from his brother and asked with folded hands if he could join Lord Rama’s entourage. Lord Rama’s followers were dubious of his sincerity. Some claimed that Vibhisana was part of a trick being played by Ravana. ‘How can the brother of such a demon be a trustworthy man of good character?’ they argued. An animated discussion ensued as to what should be the characteristics of someone before he could be allowed to join Rama’s entourage…
Once, when the great saint Ramanujacarya (1017-1137) was narrating this particular story, he suddenly noticed that many members of his audience were standing up and leaving. Noticing their troubled expressions, he enquired as to what was their concern that they should leave his discussion. “By hearing Lord Rama’s associates describe Vibhisana’s disqualifications,” they said, “we think that we shall never attain Lord Rama’s company for we also have these disqualifications. The sincerity required before one can gain the company of Rama, means that we will not attain His eternal company at the end of our lives.” Ramanuja replied with great concern, “My dear friends, please come back, sit down and be peaceful. I shall personally speak on your behalf to Rama. I shall take you all with me at the end of your lives and thus be your guarantee of salvation.”
The followers of Ramanuja back then took this seriously, and today, many centuries later, they still do. Ramanuja, as the acarya of the Sri Sampradaya, is still the guarantee of salvation for every initiated disciple. During the initiation ceremony in some branches, the guru asks the disciple: “Who is your guru?” The disciple replies: “You are my guru.” The guru then corrects him, saying: “Sripad Ramanujacarya is your guru…and I am also your guru.” The disciple will then be given his new name, ending in Ramanujadasan ‘the servant of Ramanuja.’
In our ISKCON, one who accepts Srila Prabhupada as the acarya is factually accepting him as his guru. How could it be otherwise? It is Srila Prabhupada who has supplied all members of our Vaishnava community with knowledge and an example of pure devotion. It is he who fashioned a worldwide mission for the spreading of Krishna consciousness, and he who left a legacy of temples and centres dotting the world. When any of our preachers is successful in bringing a soul to spiritual life, it is through the power of Srila Prabhupada’s words which he or she has repeated. And certainly we are all depending on Srila Prabhupada to intercede with Krishna so that we can attain His shelter. He is surely our guarantee of salvation if we follow his instructions and personal example in our daily life.
And yet saying all this does not, as some claim, obviate the need for another guru in the life of the disciple. Srila Prabhupada explained that the guru is the ‘external manifestation of the caitya guru, the Paramatma within the heart,’ and someone who thus ‘appears before the physical senses of the disciple.’ He also said, notably in London, that the guru was not in the air or in books only but ‘concrete.’ Why should this be if the active necessity is for the disciple to gain knowledge and divine grace? Well, the guru’s task, as well as giving divine knowledge, is to offer practical guidance to the disciple, to show how to render service to the Lord, and then occasionally to correct the disciple, or even to rebuke him. While this can be obtained from books and recordings, the simplest way to have a spiritually productive relationship with a guru is to have one where the conditioned, physical senses will be confronted, at least periodically, with his physical presence.
Srila Prabhupada was once asked by a senior disciple why he travelled the world so much to see his disciples if he was personally present in his books. “For the intelligent I am in my books” he replied, “for the less intelligent I make a personal appearance.” That he travelled the world 14 times in 12 years visiting all his disciples meant that Srila Prabhupada felt they needed his physical presence.
Despite all the protests of some who only wish to be connected with the acarya, it is not that the physical presence of a guru in one’s life can be so readily rejected. Even if the stature of the guru cannot compare with that of the acarya, which, quite frankly, is to be expected, still there is a pressing need for a relationship with a guru who is ‘ before the physical senses.’ Even at the risk of being considered a fool who needs the periodic company of a personal spiritual teacher in order to prosper, it is better than being overly intelligent and dispensing with thousands of years of Vaishnava tradition and plain necessity.
Srila Prabhupada had no spiritual limitations, yet he had physical limitations. He could not distribute his own books in all the countries of the world, and so engaged us, his willing disciples, as his arms and legs to do it. He wrote the books and we sold them. That fact does not mean that somehow we were the ones who should take the credit for spreading Krishna consciousness. We were simply the willing instruments, moved by his order. Similarly, one who has accepted the role of guru in modern ISKCON should not take the credit for being a mere instrument in Srila Prabhupada’s hands. Although others may view him as guru, he knows that he remains a simple disciple, a ‘classroom monitor’ in Srila Prabhupada’s school.
It is therefore a false dilemma that is posed by ISKCON’s critics: “Srila Prabhupada or a modern day guru? Take your choice!” A false dilemma and a mistake, I feel, born out of the mind’s inability to hold two apparently contradictory positions at once. It is not a case, actually, that we should have to choose one and be bereft of the other. Whereas the mind in raja-guna tends to polarise two positions and set them against each other, the mind in sattva-guna always tries to reconcile and harmonise.
As my regular readers will know, I have had cancer successfully treated twice over the past five months. The medical team included some highly specialised surgeons who saw me once or twice, operated, then saw me once afterwards. But the bulk of the healing work was performed, every single day, by competent and experienced nurses. Both types of medical workers were essential for saving my life and for my ultimate well-being and I am extremely grateful to both. The surgeons could not see me every day to change my dressings, but the nurses could. It would be a false dilemma to ask me to choose one or the other. I needed them both for the special tasks they could perform.
Srila Prabhupada is the acarya for everyone who takes to Krishna consciousness as taught by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. And the term acarya certainly includes the term guru. So Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s guru. And yet if a disciple is scripturally instructed, personally and practically guided, and sometimes corrected to reduce their tendency to commit offenses, they also have a guru in the person who is doing all that for them. And if that is the case, then they are recommended by scripture to serve and enquire submissively from that preceptor. Otherwise, from where does the all-important humility come?
Besides, in the desperate condition of bhava-roga, the ‘disease of material existence,’ and with such a short life span, do we not need as much help as we can get?
7 Comments
May 6, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Brilliant. I hope your article reaches all Vaishnavas in the International Society for Krsna Consciousness.
Your servant,
Pancha Tattva dasa
Temple President
ISKCON Saint Louis
May 6, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Dear Kripamoya prabhu
Haribol.
This is a very interesting essay. It is always so pleasurable to hear of the relationships of devotees with other devotees and how we can all have a relationship also with Srila Prabhupada.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his servants
May 6, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Great example of the doctors and the nurses. Thank you for this.
May 6, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Woke up to this, this morning here in Australia. I’m going to share it with my friends.
May 7, 2007 at 3:05 am
Dear Kripamoya Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thanks, as always, for a well written article. Just for clarification I had a couple of doubts that I was hoping you could shed some light on .
As Sitapati Prabhu said the example of doctors and nurse was a great example to illustrate how someone who may not be fully qualified can still be absolutely essential in the process as long as he or she is working under the fully qualified person.
In regards to the story of Ramanuja Acarya, did he intend that for all time to come he would deliver all the followers in his parampara? It is almost reminiscent of the classic “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one goes to the father except through me.” From our perspective Christ was speaking to his disciples, not giving an instruction that was to be followed by all spiritual practitioners until the end of time. I am not that intimately familiar with the Sri Sampradaya, maybe he did establish this system. But if he didn’t are we right to assume that he intended it in that way.
If he was giving this instruction, for all time, why would the parampara stop with him, as opposed to his guru, or param guru, or Laksmi Devi herself, the head of the sampradaya.
And the next obvious question is why Srila Prabhupada as opposed to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. Srila Prabhupada always claimed to be a menial servant of his guru, who of course always claimed to be a menial servant of his guru.
Thanks for your consideration.
Your Servant,
Gauranga Kishore Das
May 7, 2007 at 6:35 am
This post is a partial response to ISKCON’s critics who, in their zeal to have everyone go ‘Back to Prabhupada’ have disregarded the obvious requirement in spiritual life: the guru. By focusing on Srila Prabhupada as guru, and not acarya, they have become confused and are confusing others.
Ramanujacarya appointed 74 gurus to initiate after him. They were geographically spread out in different ‘zones’ of India too. He intended for them to do everything, and be everything, a guru should be. The Vedic system is that the guru must personally speak the mantra (gayatri) into the ear of the disciple at the time of initiation so he obviously has to be ‘physically present’.
Currently, in the Sri Sampradaya, Ramanuja-acarya is considered the udharika (saving) and the guru is regarded as upakarika (helping)
May 7, 2007 at 8:20 am
In answer to your other question regarding Srila Prabhupada’s position in relation his own guru. Yes, he did not encourage us to view his own guru as ‘Prabhupada’ and he himself as ‘Bhaktivedanta Swami’
My personal understanding is that came as part of his creation of ISKCON as being something quite independent of the Gaudiya Math. Of course, by 1966 there had been 30 years of splintering into factions by fellow disciples of his guru. Asking his own disciples to ‘look back’ would mean us running the risk of unhelpful associations.
Factually speaking, his creation of a new international Vaishnava community such as ISKCON, which was intended to withstand any amount of attempts at splintering, also demanded that he position himself - a guru and yet a humble servant of his guru - to behave as an acarya.
I consider that one of our early mistakes was to emulate Srila Prabhupada’s behaviour as acarya in the belief that he was displaying the standard behaviour of a guru.
Leave a Reply