The Guru Is Self-Effulgent
"Guru is heavy, not light--heavy with knowledge and realization. This
truth should be evident to all sincere, discerning Vaishnavas."
Q. In his Chaitanya-caritamrita (Madhya 1.220 purport) Srila Prabhupada
says that an acharya is self-effulgent. What does he mean by this?
A. In this purport and in the one before it, Srila Prabhupada discusses
pseudo-Vaishnavas and how their opinion or vote doesn't have any
authority over a self-effulgent Vaishnava acharya. Here self-effulgent
means obvious or self-evident. Srila Prabhupada is saying that sincere,
discerning devotees will recognize a Vaishnava who is qualified to be
acharya, others may not. Sincere and discerning are important words
here. Sincere means free from pretense, deceit, and hypocrisy, and
discerning refers to persons of good judgment, which in Vaishnavism
means those who look to saints and scripture for answers. Two things
are necessary for initiation--qualified gurus and sincere, discerning
followers.
Someone may be self-effulgent, but if others do not know what to look
for in a guru, they will not recognize such a self-effulgent acharya.
If one has a superficial notion of the qualities of a self-effulgent
acharya, misconstrues details for principles, and identifies with form
over substance, one will not be able to see the obvious. Prabhupada
himself was self-effulgent, but even many of his Godbrothers could not
recognize him.
Q. What is the difference between an acharya and a guru? And what is
the difference between an acharya and a founding acharya?
A. Srila Sridhar Maharaja discusses the difference between acharya and
guru in the following passage from his book Sri Guru and His Grace.
"Guru and acharya are the same (in that they both give initiation and
relevant instructions) but generally it may be said that an acharya
does more extensive work. And also the acharya must have extensive
knowledge of the scriptures, whereas the guru may not have expressly
deep knowledge of scripture, but may have real knowledge of their
purport. He may not be able to quote scripture extensively, but feels
the meaning of the scriptures. He may be a guru. But an acharya is one
who preaches widely and is able to extensively quote scriptural
evidence."
Prabhupada writes that the first business of an acharya is to make a
literary contribution. While the word "acharya" refers to one who has
good behavior or teaches by personal example, both Prabhupada's
statement and Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja's statement define an acharya
as one who is a guru and more, one who is more in terms of founding a
system of Vedanta or perhaps a mission within a particular system of
Vedanta.
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura referred to the Vaishnavas who
founded systems of Vedanta--Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc.--as
founder acharyas. In a lesser sense, Prabhupada and his Godbrothers,
who like him founded missions within Gaudiya Vedanta or Gaudiya
Vaishnavism, referred to themselves as founder acharyas of their
particular missions. I say a lesser sense because such founder acharyas
of particular missions within our lineage all teach the Gaudiya Vedanta
given to us by the founding acharyas of Gaudiya Vedanta, the six
Goswamis of Vrindavan, who founded the lineage itself and articulated
the system of Vedanta--acintya bhedabheda--that made the ecstasy that
Mahaprabhu embodied approachable by locating it on the scriptural map.
Founder acharyas of particular Gaudiya missions in turn dynamically
teach what has been given by the Goswamis, making relevant
time-and-circumstance adjustments of details in order to deliver the
principal teachings. It is important to note this distinction. If we do
not, we run the risk of conflating a dynamic adjustment of details with
establishing philosophical principles and mistakenly thinking that such
details can never be altered. Such confusion freezes the lineage in
time, rendering it less than spiritually vital.
Q. What do saints and scripture say about the qualifications of the
guru?
A. In the Bhagavad-gita (2.54) Arjuna asks about the characteristics of
a realized soul and Krishna responds by explaining the status of a
jivanmukta, one who is liberated in this life. Such a person of wisdom
has renounced sense desire born of the mind and is satisfied in the
self. In his purport to this verse, Srila Prabhupada explains this
simply by saying, "Such a transcendentally situated person has no sense
desire resulting from petty materialism, rather he remains always happy
in his natural position of eternally serving the Supreme Lord."
Srila Prabhupada was also fond of quoting Mandaka Upanishad (1.2.12),
samit-panih srotriyum brahma-nistham--Guru means one who has complete
knowledge of the scriptural canon, and moreover is brahma-nistham. In
other words, the guru's knowledge is not merely theoretical and at the
same time he or she has considerable theoretical knowledge along with
realization. It is also said, sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany
upasamasrayam (SB 11.3.21), on which the revered Vishvanatha
Chakravarti Thakura comments thus:
"One should surrender to a guru who is skillful (nisnatam) in
understanding the meaning of the Vedas (sabde) and other scriptures. If
he does not have this quality, the faith of the disciple will become
weak, since he will not be able to destroy the doubts of the
disappointed disciple. He should be capable as well in realizing the
Lord (pare). Otherwise, his mercy will not bear results. The position
of being fixed in realization of the Lord is described: he is not under
control of anger and greed (upasamasrayam)."
Q. In one Gaudiya Vaisnava institution, the process of certifying a
devotee as an initiating guru requires the candidate to vow loyalty to
the managerial leadership board that presides over the institution's
gurus, have a good record of service, chant sixteen rounds of japa
daily, and follow the four regulative principles (no meat eating,
intoxication, gambling, or illicit sex). Is this not the basic
qualifications of a guru?
A. One member of that sect, Jayadvaita Swami, recently referred to such
a policy as "an exercise in creative managerial theology." Time served,
loyalty to the organization, chanting sixteen rounds of japa, and
avoiding illicit sex, intoxication, meat eating, and gambling is hardly
the qualification for serving as a guru. This is more a standard for
being initiated, not for initiating. It is not that the guru and the
disciple should have the same qualifications other than time involved,
and while time spent in sadhana is not to be dismissed, it should
result in other obvious qualifications. Unless one has those
qualifications, "becoming" a guru is a recipe for disaster. Guru is
heavy, not light--heavy with knowledge and realization. This truth
should be evident to all sincere, discerning Vaishnavas. Otherwise, it
is the disciples that certify the guru, others involved in managing an
institution should see that dynamic as it takes place and honor it.
Q. Can a bona fide guru break the rules?
A. The guru cannot change the essential principles of Gaudiya
Vaishnavism, but he or she can adjust details regarding their practical
application. For example, saints and scripture tell us that chanting
harinama is the authorized process for self-realization in this age.
Therefore, bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus will not instruct their
students to forgo chanting altogether. The guru may however adjust the
means and methods of chanting in consideration of time and
circumstances. Doing so does not break any rules.
Case in point: Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura asked his followers to begin
their spiritual practice by chanting one round of japa, adding more
rounds as their taste for harinama increased. His disciple Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura expected his followers to chant as
much as possible, but he laid more stress on service: service to
Vaishnavas, the matha (temple), preaching, etc. If due to circumstances
on any particular day his disciples had no service, they were expected
to chant sixty-four rounds, but if they were involved in intense
service they were permitted to chant less--much less. His bottom line
instruction on japa was not to let their mala fast, "malika upavasa
na," so in consideration of their service, his disciples were required
to spend at least some time every day chanting.
Srila Prabhupada also laid stress on service, particularly preaching.
With few exceptions, he required his disciples to chant a minimum of
sixteen rounds a day, approximately a two-hour meditation. One
exception went to a devotee in New Vrindavan who took care of the cows
from before dawn to after dark. He told Srila Prabhupada that he would
have to decrease his service if it he was required to chant the daily
prescribed sixteen rounds of japa. In reply Srila Prabhupada told this
disciple that he was pleased with his service and he should simply
chant as much japa as was practical in his situation.
So the number of rounds that the guru prescribes for a disciple is a
detail, and we know this because we see that it has been adjusted at
different times under different circumstances. In one sense each
individual is a different circumstance, so if the guru could cater to
each individual's particular circumstances perhaps that would be ideal.
Indeed, it is possible that some devotees serving under the guru will
make more spiritual advancement chanting four rounds than others who
chant sixteen rounds; and some who chant sixteen may make more progress
than others chanting sixty-four. The point is that chanting harinama is
not a mathematical formula, rather it is a heart exercise. It is
certainly not about numbers per se, as we see that previous acharyas
have allowed their disciples to chant less than sixteen rounds at the
time of initiation.
As for who is qualified to make adjustments for preaching purposes; the
fact is that making adjustments in consideration of time and
circumstance is the very heart of effective preaching. It does not
threaten the quality of practice but brings it to life and empowers it.
Every preacher must do this on some level, so if one's seva is to
initiate, one must be able to make this call. Such discrimination is
characteristic of intermediate devotees who engage in preaching.
Q. Some devotees say that the universal qualification for initiation
into Gaudiya Vaisnavism requires that one follow the four regulative
principles and chant sixteen rounds of japa. Prescribing anything less
is a deviation that will "destroy bhakti."
A. The scriptures say that faith in guru and Krishna is the only
qualification for receiving initiation into Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Harinama initiation is really only a precursor to mantra diksa, which
is actual Vaishnava diksa, therefore many Gaudiya acharyas give
harinama very freely, setting no number of rounds at all as an
encouragement to begin one's practice. This is not something that I do,
but how can one destroy bhakti by encouraging devotees to chant
harinama, whatever the number of rounds? Chanting harinam is
svarupa-siddha-bhakti, which can only purify one. And Vaishnava diksa
is not dependent on any purascharya (process of purification) for it be
effective or for the mantra, what to speak of the name, to be
empowered:
diksa-purascarya-vidhi apeksa na kare jihva-sparse a-candala sabare
uddhare
"One does not have to undergo (apeksa na kare) initiation (diksa) or
execute the activities required before initiation (purascarya) or
adhere to regulative principles (vidhi). One simply has to vibrate the
holy name with his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class can be
delivered."
So the power of the Holy Name is not diminished when a devotee chants a
lesser number of rounds. This will not destroy bhakti.
As for the so-called regulative principles, they have been explained in
various ways by different acharyas. Srila Prabhupada for the most part
defined illicit sex as sexual activity (even with one's spouse) not
specifically meant for the purpose of procreation. However, at times he
defined it as sex outside of marriage. Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti
defined it as sexual relations with a woman other than one's wife. Both
acharyas gleaned their definitions from the same scriptural canon, so
it's not that one is correct and the other is incorrect. The apparent
difference illustrates that the important point here is the principle,
which is that sexual activity should be restricted in a manner that
leads to transcending it, and that in the context of sravanam
kirtanam--hearing and chanting about Krishna. If one is to actually
follow Srila Prabhupada in the service of an acharya, he or she must be
free to determine if any adjustment is necessary or useful in assisting
a disciple to achieve this end. While Srila Prabhupada's disciples
should follow his mandates, those who serve as his successors in the
capacity of gurus must follow him in terms of his ability to adjust
details when necessary so the desired result is more readily attained.
In other words, a guru must be free to be a guru; free to relay his or
her wisdom as to how the disciple can achieve the goal, all of course
in accordance with sastra. Just as one-size-fits-all does not apply in
choosing a guru; similarly one-size-fits-all does not always apply to
instructing disciples. If the guru is truly qualified, the spiritual
bearing of his or her disciples and the disciples' enthusiasm for
devotional service should do away with concerns that the adjustment of
details is watering down or destroying the institution of
sadhana-bhakti.
You need to be a member of puredevoteeseva to add comments!
Replies