(1)
The Guru’s primary role is that of a Śāstra teacher. The Guru educates the disciple in Śāstra and its commentaries, and clears the doubts the disciple might have by illuminating the rationality within Śāstra. Moreover, the Guru gives moral and spiritual guidance on the basis of Śāstric injunctions.
These are obvious and uncontroversial definitions of Guru, yet this type of Guru-disciple relationship is almost entirely absent from ISKCON, as I explained in a previous posting. Here I will explain why I believe this is ISKCON’s primary problem. Unless dealt with, it will forever prevent ISKCON from becoming the powerful Brahminical force that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted it to be.
(2)
When intelligent and educated people join ISKCON, they seek a Guru who can initiate them into a deeper understanding of Śāstra and the larger world of learned Hindu thought. For example, in addition to canonical texts such as the Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad Gītā, they want to read ISKCON’s foundational theological texts such as the Ṛgveda, Upanishads and Vedānta-Sūtra, and also the six philosophical schools such as Sāṁkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā, etc. In addition to Jīva Goswami and Viśvanātha Cakravartī, they want to read commentaries from other Vaishnava Ācāryas such as Rāmānuja, Vedānta Deśika or Madhva, as well as their opponents such as Śaṅkara. All of this requires Sanskrit knowledge on the part of both student and teacher, as well as an understanding of modes of philosophical and theological presentation in learned Hindu Śāstras. Moreover, it requires a lengthy period of time in which Guru and disciple study together.
(3)
Speaking for myself and a few friends in ISKCON, I can say the first times I experienced a Guru-disciple relationship based on the exchange of Śāstric knowledge was in Oxford University with academics and with Satyanārāyaṇa dāsa Bābājī, a learned Caitanya Vasihnava scholar. Most ISKCON Gurus lack the training, time, desire or inclination to study Śāstra or teach Śāstra to their disciples. There is little sense in which “taking initiation” is understood as “accepting Guru as Śāstra-teacher.” It is not the culture of ISKCON to see Guru as a systematic educator.
Perhaps one of the few exceptions is Garuda Dasa, a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda who is also a theologian and published author. From him I have learned Śāstra and he has served as a Guru for many years now. Of course this sort of Guru-disciple relationship would not be recognized by ISKCON, but that is their problem.
Since this Guru-disciple option is mainly absent in ISKCON, those seeking an education are required to enrich their minds outside of ISKCON, sometimes with learned Gurus in other Vaishnava traditions, sometimes with professors in universities. A Guru-disciple relationship based on the exchange of knowledge is more meaningful and formative than one based on preaching, infrequent personal interactions or sporadic lectures on Śāstra (i.e. ISKCON primarily offers). Thus, many people with scholarly inclinations will find themselves drifting away from ISKCON.
(4)
While a comprehensive history of ISKCON’s membership decline and the specific reasons for it is not possible here, one can observe that many people with scholarly inclinations have drifted away from ISKCON. The reasons for this are of course complicated, but surely one of the primary reasons is that ISKCON Gurus are unable to provide a systematic education in Śāstra.
When Śrīla Prabhupāda said he wanted ISKCON to be the Brahminical “head” of society, surely he meant that devotees would guide society on the basis of their Śāstric knowledge that is enriched by the practice of bhakti-yoga. That cannot happen unless Gurus take it upon themselves to study and then teach Śāstra to their disciples.
ISKCON has a unusual history when it comes to gurus. First, Srila Swami Prabhupada sometimes didn’t even meet his disciples, but encouraged them all to read his books, as the guru and his instructions are non-different.
Generally a sisya should examine the character of a prospective guru for at least 1 year and vice versa. Of course a sad-guru will accept more disciples than simply sad-sisyas, or perfect disciples.
In addition, sad-gurus like Srila Prabhupada are not bound by general regulations regarding accepting disciples, as they are endowed with all the qualities described in the 1st sloka of NOI.
I recommend that all who are interested in this subject read NOI V5 and the purport.
It was back in 1982 that ISKCON’s GBC first passed a resolution banning ISKCON members from accepting divya-jnanam “outside of ISKCON.” This resolution first targeted Sripad BR Sridhar Maharaj, and now it targets Srila Narayan Maharaj. Both of these personalities are mahabhagavats.
Until the GBC changes this resolution and as long as the society is dominated by kanisthas, or materialistic devotees, the guru-disciple relationship within ISKCON will be primarily a superficial one based on a prospective disciple’s willingness to provide hard labor and/or money.
A very interesting and encouraging article. Thank you. I would like to offer my own thoughts in this regard.
In our age and time and place, even a simple person has an intellectual capacity to conceptualize the information about unknown areas, e.g. one can ‘understand’ the spiritual world through conceptual ideas.
Knowing about this development in the human civilization, Bhaktivinode Thakur wrote in the introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita: “Such a matchless book has not been properly explained till now. The people of India and other countries can be divided into two categories—the asslike and the swanlike. (…) Swanlike people abstract the purport of the scriptures for their own advancement and thus benefit themselves. That is why the real purport of Shrimad Bhagavatam has not yet been clearly revealed”.
Similar idea was expressed 100 years ago by Rudolf Steiner, a German mystic, when he explains that the spiritual knowledge, which so far had been available only within closed circles, can and SHOULD now be published and made available for general public who has the capacity to comprehend the spiritual information through concepts.
This was the way of wide-spread and worldwide creation of armies of kanisthas in different spiritual traditions in XX century – through books and public lectures. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas society was not an exception, but rather one of the leaders in this movement of spiritual enlightement of society at large.
Now, to advance from a ‘concept’ to a ‘content’ one needs more than books. One needs either a meditational capacity to connect one’s soul with the “soul of the book” – this is a similar process to ‘meditation on the lotus feet of the guru’ or one needs a direct connection with a living example in the form of the guru who not only understood the spiritual concepts, but also applied them successfully in his/her life and developed his/her soul accordingly.
This conceptual learning process has its very important functions, but it also has its limits. Without actual absorption of the ‘content’ of the scriptures to one’s soul, there is no way to properly understand the subtle meanings of spiritual advanced points.
Based on the quote from Bhaktivinode Thakura, which I’m providing below, I would like to offer my proposition that the most important task for a spiritual teacher nowadays (e.g. for ISKCON spiritual masters) should be to try and develop an independent power of discrimination for their own part and their disciples, followers and students.
And this is the quote:
“Those who do not possess independent power of discrimination are in the first category and are called neophytes, or those with soft faith. They have no alternative to faith. If they do not accept whatever the compilers of the scriptures write as the order of the Lord, then they fall down. They are qualified only for understanding the gross meanings of the science of Krishna; they have no qualification for understanding the subtle meanings. Until they gradually advance by good association and instruction, they should try to advance under the shelter of faith”.
Requiring of a student to follow sastric injuctions with full faith but in the same time not striving to assist this person in development of the independent power of discrimination, cannot be regarded as the best attitude of the teacher.
* “Until the GBC changes this resolution and as long as the society is dominated by kanisthas, or materialistic devotees, the guru-disciple relationship within ISKCON will be primarily a superficial one based on a prospective disciple’s willingness to provide hard labor and/or money.”
Baseless, illogical, envious and booooring…
* “Both of these personalities are mahabhagavats.”
In your opinion at least.
Thank you for the comments. I’ll respond to all three in one message.
Sri Svarupa Damodara dasa Babaji:
I was mainly talking about Iskcon today, not about Srila Prabhupada, or the Sadguru. But your points are well taken with regard to Srila Prabhupada. Regarding your final two paragraphs, I’m not sure that Iskcon is dominated by Kanisthas; that would be a difficult proposition to prove. Iskcon is spread throughout the globe and it is varied in its membership, so general claims about it are not easily made. As for Iskcon banning its members from hearing from outsiders, I agree it is problematic, but it may be necessary for an institution to define its borders, especially if that institution feels people are threatening.
Mat:
I agree that independence of mind is necessary. I would argue that it can be obtained from the study of Shastra, for it challenges one to think more deeply and critically about the world. Probably you would agree with that. Thank you for the comments.
Śrila Madhava Das Acarya:
Please refrain from insulting speech. It is not helpful.
Thanks jrdasa,
Yes, I agree that generalisations are limited in a discussion about Iskcon members who look outside of Iskcon to study various sastras; and I certainly have no proof that all Iskcon devotees are kanisthas.
Nonetheless, generalisations are helpful in establishing a framework for further deliberation and discussion, even if such statements are difficult to prove, and fail to present the breadth of variables about the many individuals in Iskcon or in any other world-wide religious institution.
I am skeptical nonetheless about your statement, “but it may be necessary for an institution to define its borders, especially if that institution feels people are threatening.”
Like the statement in my final paragraph, it’s a generalisation which raises further questions. Why do the GBC feel threatened by Srila Narayan Maharaj? And why did the GBC feel threatened by Srila BR Sridhar Maharaj?
It’s well known that GBC members themselves took siksa from both of these personalities.
So further questions come to mind. To what extent do the GBC really influence their congregations or even the disciples of Iskcon gurus?
From what I have seen, they don’t have very much influence, and their opinions don’t necessarily represent the opinions of the larger Iskcon community.
There are plenty of Iskcon members who read books by Srila Narayan Maharaj, Srila BR Sridhar Maharaj and many other authors and teachers who are “outside of Iskcon.”
Who can really stop them? We’re all seeking divya-jnanam, whether it comes from inside Iskcon or from both inside and outside of Iskcon. The extent to which practitioners and scholars will rely solely on the BBT Vedabase Folio will depend on practitioners’ varying tastes, aptitudes and other circumstantial variables.
A large part of this problem, it should be noted, is a kind of anti-intellectualism that is either directly coming from Srila Prabhupada himself, or is at least commonly imputed to him by his first generation of followers.
More generally, there is a mistaken notion of authority of SP, where it is considered an offense to look “beyond” him to the broader tradition. Ultimately, my gut feeling is that ISKCON will not survive in any flourishing way unless SP’s genuine authority, as an adept practitioner with deep realized knowledge of bhakti yoga, is contextualized. That is, such deep realization does not make him an authority on science, history, etc. As long as SP is treated like an omniscient, a-temporal oracle, what need is there to go deeper into Vaishnava or Hindu tradition? And what need is there to change things which he apparently did, that now trouble ISKCON?
Sri Svarupa Damodara dasa Babaji:
Thanks for your reply, but I don’t really see your point. You seem to be saying, “the GBC should let ISKCON members study with Narayana Maharaja, etc.” Ok. Do you expect me to agree with you or argue with you? I wasn’t trying to make a policy statement or a political essay, and I’m not going to get into that now either. Sorry.
Kuyogi:
Great points. I fully agree with your analysis of the cause of the problem. Srila Prabhupada’s authority, or the specific nature of his authority, needs to be addressed.
jrdasa,
I came across your article on the net, and find it an interesting topic. Your four major points all resonate with me due to my own experience with Iskcon.
I certainly am not here for argument, although constructive discussion can be helpful.
I apologise if you feel I was being argumentative.
Sri Svarupa Damodara dasa Babaji,
Thanks for this.
Yours, Janakirama dasa