|
Ravindra Svarupa dasa
This statement of the understanding of the Guru in
ISKCON was specifically written for inclusion as evidence in a recent
legal challenge brought by ISKCON against alleged misrepresentation
by the German Federal Government. The word Guru has found it's way
into the international vocabulary over the last thirty years but
few can claim to understand the words actual meaning, especially
in its relationship to the language and culture from which it comes.
This statement is concise, philosophically sound and relevant to
ISKCON's unique culture of global Vaishnavism. As such it is an
important contribution to our attempts to communicate a genuine
understanding of Vaishnava culture in today's world.
Those who have not actually studied ISKCON can easily misrepresent
the position of the guru as actually understood and practiced in
ISKCON. They usually derive their prejudice from vague, over-general
conceptions of 'Hinduism,' or from what they see in some Hindu-derived
guru-sects which are in fact quite contrary to ISKCON in philosophy
and practice.
There are many diverse traditions in what is called 'Hinduism.'
ISKCON is the contemporary extension of a particular, very ancient
Vaishnava tradition or denomination called the Gaudiya Madhva sampradaya.
The Vaishnava traditions are the monotheistic denominations within
'Hinduism.' They all teach that every living being is eternally
the subordinate servant of the Supreme Being, God. Those who have
not taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with ISKCON, or even
with the teachings and practices common to all Vaishnavas, crudely
misrepresent the position of guru in ISKCON as an absolute autocrat,
accountable to no one, able to act on any whim, to whom the disciple
owes unthinking, uncritical, fanatical obedience. These ignorant
critics claim that the guru is thought to be identical with God
Himself-a blasphemous equation according to Vaishnava teaching.
The guru is the representative of God as well as of the entire
historical teaching tradition. He is not God but the servant of
God, and indeed the servant of the servants of the servants of God.
The Word of God is Scripture, and that Scripture has been elucidated
and applied throughout the historical guru-succession coming from
God. The devotee who has become a guru or teacher in succession
does so by virtue of being the disciple of the previous teacher,
who has in turn become guru by the same process. Thus the guru is
held accountable for his actions to Scripture and to the teaching
tradition, that is, to the previous authorities of the community.
The guru in the Vaishnava tradition is not absolute in himself,
then, but rather supremely relative: relative to the Lord and to
the tradition.
As a teacher, the guru is supposed to instruct his students in
the Scripture and in the teaching of the previous exemplary devotees.
He makes these texts and instructions available to his students.
The students are to use their own critical judgement, their intelligence,
to see that their own teacher is in strict conformity with Scripture
and tradition. Only by virtue of that conformity, that relativity
and dependence, can the guru be said to truly represent (re-present)
God and the tradition.
For this reason, Srila Prabhupada made it the prime work of his
mission to deliver to us a vast library of philosophical and practical
writings. These books are the central Scriptures of the tradition,
elucidated by the reflections and realisations of the previous teachers
in the tradition. Whatever he taught was backed up by the word of
God and the great authorities of the past. Thus, Srila Prabhupada
gave the standard by which we were to judge him, and accept him
or reject him by the exercise of critical intelligence. That meant
gaining real philosophical understanding of the tradition, and applying
it with discrimination.
'Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism,'
Srila Prabhupada wrote in his commentary to Bhagavad-Gita
3.4. He amplified this in a lecture of l966: 'You should be religious,
but should understand everything philosophically. Otherwise one
becomes fanatic, religious fanatic. In the Caitanya-caritamrta
it is clearly said that caitanyer dayera katha karaha vicara.
You people, you try to understand the gifts of Caitanya Mahaprabhu
by your philosophical understanding. Not blindly, philosophically.'
This instruction is applied in the matter of the guru: As stated
in the Science of Self-Realization (Chapter 2): 'The sastras
[scriptures] enjoin that before we take a guru we study him carefully
. . . . We should not accept a guru suddenly, out of fanaticism.
That is very dangerous.'
Indeed, the regulations of ISKCON also explicitly set forth the
specific circumstances under which a disciple ought to reject his
guru. These regulations are based upon the direction of previous
authorities. The existence of such provisions (for a disciple's
rejection of his guru) attests to the recognition of the need for
continuing cultivation of critical intelligence on the part of the
disciple.
The regulations of ISKCON are established by its governing board.
ISKCON also differs from many 'guru-sects' in that it is headed
not by a single individual, but by a board of directors, the Governing
Body Commission. At present this board consist of about thirty members,
some of whom are gurus and some not. Within ISKCON, about sixty
devotees currently act as initiating gurus. Each one of them operates
under the GBC's authority and scrutiny, and are fully accountable
to it.
Thus the guru in ISKCON is not an absolute autocrat who can act
according to his whims and whom his disciples must blindly accept
and follow. The guru is held up to a rigorous standard and is accountable
for all he does: to God, to Scripture, to the tradition, to the
governing body of ISKCON, and to his own disciples.
|
Print
this page |
