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; (c) 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 (c) 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 (c) 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
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
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."
Text 75
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."
Text 76
The Sarasangraha also declares, "The guru should examine an aspiring disciple under his tutelage for a year."
Text 78
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."
