This is a reply to a comment from Don Randall on the Have Another Hit post:
I have noticed that when even a novice bhakta speaks or even simply reads Krishna-katha in an organized and thoughtful way, there are sure to be some in the audience who will accept the speaker as advanced or even a pure devotee. This is especially true if one speaks just after sankirtan.
In your opinion, do “manipulator” gurus take advantage of this situation? If so, to what extent? Aren’t there at least some limitations to how much manipulation people can get away with? I would assume that most people would change their opinion of a guru quite quickly if he were to begin exploiting someone the minute he realized the person had mistaken him for a mahabhagavat.
Manipulator gurus are trying to convince others that they are worthy of people’s devotion. They do so because they want fame, fortune, etc. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism we see this all of the time, especially since the Internet has given anyone with a few shekels a platform to promote themselves. The good ones, i.e. those who have done a lot of reading and study and are capable of repeating what they have learned, can come across to credulous people as enlightened self-realized spiritual masters.
You asked to “what extent” can bogus gurus manipulate people? To the extent of people’s ignorance and credulousness, and to the extent of their karma. Are there “limitations to how much manipulation people can get away with?” Well, look around. How many people devote themselves to gurus to varying degrees? A lot. Some may not give the guru anything, but do accept his manipulative and ignorant teachings nevertheless, and thereby may suffer from that.
An example is someone like Tripurari Swami. He can come across to credulous or ignorant people as a very spiritually advanced enlightened person. He has done a lot of study and spent years learning how to repeat what he has learned. He tries to use that learning to make it appear that he is a qualified spiritual master. He promotes an exploitative form of the Gaudiya tradition, one which demands submission and service to a spiritual master as the most important thing a human can ever do. One that demands submission and service to a guru as the only way to escape suffering and attain God’s mercy. He just so happens to be ready, willing and able to take care of that for you. He is always going on in one way or another about how important devotion, humility and dedication are, and of course within the context of applying that to a guru. Sometimes he is very straightforward, other times he tries to be more subtle, hoping people will make the connection, i.e. surrender to him. Even if you don’t give him anything, you are receiving a teaching which can harm your spiritual progress. If you believe that you cannot advance on the spiritual path without devotion to a guru, yet have no real world ability to physically do that, you can become despondent and give up on the path of bhakti-yoga believing that you cannot advance — so why bother?
Bogus gurus are not always easy to spot, especially if you have been deceived into thinking that what the guru is promoting is a bona fide doctrine. A guy like Tripurari Swami or other gurus working in the same tradition, have a large pool of people who have been conned into believing that they cannot gain God’s mercy and love unless they devote themselves to a guru. They have been deceived by bad translations, misinterpretations, hyperbole and anachronistic teachings — presented to them by official looking “holy men.” Being credulous and naïve they don’t realize that those people were hoping to gain a following by that presentation, e.g. Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja, etc.
Once you accept a bogus guru as a bona fide spiritual master, you will be led into a land of his ignorance and darkness — posing as a land of ultimate enlightenment and light. Because they are not actually self-realized nor enlightened, they cannot truly understand what they pose as experts on. They pass their misunderstandings on to those who they have conned, who in turn pass those misunderstandings on to others, and on and on. It’s a vicious cycle of ignorance, creating communities of deluded ignorant people who believe themselves to be the best and the brightest, when in reality they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Vraj,
Are there any Guadiya Vaishnav gurus you do recommend? Given you appear to have written off most gurus as bogus manipulator gurus, I’d love to hear what your suggestions are.
Vrajabhuni, thank you for yet another great article.
So, how would you describe a non-bogus, non-manipulating guru, i.e. a bona fide spiritual master?
(do most people even know the literal meaning of “bona fide”?)
Is it even possible that there may exists someone real on this planet at this moment?
Don Randall
Do I recommend any gurus? I don’t know the teachings of very many. So there may be gurus who are actually self-realized and giving diksha today. I just don’t know of any. The gurus I am familiar with are the ones coming from ISKCON or other Gaudiya Math offshoots. But, like I said before, if a guru is promoting the absolute necessity of diksha and submitting to and serving that guru, then he is a bogus manipulator guru, or, he is simply ignorant and therefore not someone who is an actual master of spiritual knowledge.
Ashvauttama
A bona fide spiritual master is someone who has more than book knowledge. That person is a master of spiritual knowledge, not simply a parrot of spiritual knowledge. That person can properly interpret or explain the teachings from sastra, previous bona fide acharyas and from personal realization because they are self-realized. They can see and have experienced the true nature of themselves, God and this world.
That person has vijnana or wisdom — realized knowledge; whereas the pretenders only have jnana or knowledge, and, due to their lack of spiritual insight will constantly misinterpret many teachings of the sastra and of previous bona fide spiritual masters.
Are there any true spiritual masters living today? I’m sure there are. But I haven’t met anyone or read the teachings of someone whom I believe to be a self-realized spiritual master.
Pure devotees who don’t promote themselves will not be famous and they won’t seek followers.
Those who promote their fame or seek disciples will be bogus.
This is cache 22.
therefore, pure devotees are rare.
Bhakti is easy. Keep remembering Krishna and He will guilde you from within and send you teachers when needed.
Vrajabhumi
I think it’s wrong to see diksha initiation in a bad light at all. And I also think it’s silly to assume a guru is not bonafide just because he /she gives diksha.
Diksha initiation, the Guru’s great knowledge of the siddhanta , the Guru’s loving disposition towards his/her students do not have to be mutually exclusive or unrelated.
Just as a tiny mango seed is a potential for a huge mango tree, so does disksha is bija or seed of potentiality for the fruition of the highest spiritual goal.
Diksha is packed with power in the form of mantra and serves as an energetic momentum in the form of instructions on bhajan to help us move with inspiration on the spiritual journey.
Realistically, diksha maybe the only instruction we might directly get from our guru, especially for devotees living in the west in this modern age .
Let’s face it, knowledge of Krishna can come from
1. our own realization from either our guru’s teachings or teaching of other GV sadhus.
2. from the wide world and nature if only because one aspect of Krishna is His pervasiveness- he is present everywhere.
I will however draw the line on diksha if it is given in a climate of pressure or harassment.
Diksha initiation should be out of love between a guru and the prospective disciple.
This is, if you believe that one needs a guru as enjoined by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. “Approach a guru and make a serious enquiry.”
If not, that is a different story for another time.
Vraj,
I haven’t heard of any bona-fide gurus who teach that diksha is required. A close read of Prabhupada’s books is all that would be required to debunk such an argument.
Nonetheless, especially in modern history, all the Gaudiya Vaishnav acaryas highly recommend diksha, some more than others. Srila Narayan Maharaj has written that diksha is an “absolute necessity,” but he also gives instructions for newcomers or those who for one reason or another never had the chance to take diksha.
He doesn’t reject devotees who haven’t taken diksha, or who don’t feel the need. In fact, he often speaks highly of uninitiated devotees. He certainly doesn’t teach the smarta brahmin philosophy or the sahajiya philosophy.
In addition, there are varying degrees of self-realization. Anyone with firm faith and knowledge of the science of Krishna can act not only as a siksha-guru or a vartma-pradarsaka-guru, but also as a diksha guru. Of course, nobody can act as the caitya guru, but Krishna.
It’s a smarta brahmin misconception that only one born in a brahmin family can act as a diksha guru.
All aspiring devotees are encouraged to take shelter of the residents of Vraj, as they are our eternal siksha gurus.
When you use the term “self-realized,” what exactly are you referring to? Are there not varying degrees of self-realization? And are you saying that only a mahabhagavat should act as a diksha guru?
If mahabhagavats are as rare as I think they are, it would be very difficult for them to act as diksha gurus, except in extraordinary circumstances. This is especially true for gurus who have a world-wide audience.
In sum, it would be ideal if mahabhagavats acted as our siksha gurus, and left the formalities of initiation to others. Such diksha gurus would share in the experience of receiving the blessings of the mahabhagavats.
GM
You said:
I don’t think it’s wrong to seek disciples, as long as it’s for the right reasons, and as long as you are qualified. And as long as you tell them they don’t have to surrender and be submissive to you personally in order to advance.
Malati
You said:
I didn’t mean to convey either of those ideas.
You also said:
I don’t see diksha like that. To me diskha is simply a ritual you can do without. You don’t need to go through an initiation ritual in order receive mantras or instructions. You don’t need an initiation ritual at all. But, most Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus and followers teach the opposite, giving diksha a very essential part in the life of a devotee. Usually this is due to the desire to exploit people by making them think that they are absolutely dependent on a guru.
I have written about this a lot on this blog. See
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/i-should-have-known-better/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/guru-inc/
Diksha?
[In a conversation with Satyaraj Khan, Lord Krishna Caitanya said,] “One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [candala] can be delivered. (Cc Madhya 15.108)
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/108/en1
Don Randall: It is actually Prabhupada who says (in the purport to Text 5 in The Nectar of Instruction) that one should make sure to approach an uttama-adhikari (maha-bhagavata) as one´s spiritual master.
[...] is a reply to a comment from Don Randall on the Idiocracy [...]
Dear Mikael Sjödin,
Yes indeed The Nectar of Instruction is a lovely book, and I am familiar with verse 5 and the purport. But I’m still reading and learning.
Unlike the books I read at karmi school, the sastras are as eternally attractive as Krishna Himself, and they’re also as ever-fresh as Krishna too.
I wasn’t too crazy about the book until after reading several other books by Srila Prabhupada. It was Krishna Book, The Nectar of Devotion, and especially Sri Caitanya-caritamrita that got me hooked. Hare Krishna!
Aim Gurudevaya …
Woman? Diksha guru!
Vraj,
What if a guy finds a suitable personality for receiving Gayatri initiation, but the guru is a woman? Wouldn’t it be best to conduct such a ceremony along with several other people such as a few brahmacharis and brahmacharinis?
Don
Whatever arrangement, is alright with me.
Sanskrit Scripture
The reason I didn’t post your comment was because I have gone over that topic in depth and didn’t feel like going over it again. In the above I gave links to a few places where I have gone over it. Your comment consisted of repeating the exact same argument I have dealt with ad nauseam on the topic of guru-tattva. If I put time and effort into a comprehensive answer on why I think the sastras and previous acharya’s put so much importance on gurus, and why I think that is anachronistic in the modern world, only to then have someone come along and say nothing else but — “hey, the sastras and previous acharyas say you very much need a guru, that’s why you need a guru and should take diksa — because they say so” — I’m not going to post that comment because I feel the person is wasting mine and everyone else’s time and energy.
I am simply amazed at what human beings are capable of. I am actually scared about myself. Not because there are scary gurus, but about human psyche and how I should protect against myself.
I have never been a “guru” person. the one whom I mentally accepted as my so-called-guru is my own good friend who got me interested in KC.
I understood that everyone comes to BG and KC to gain more knowledge getting more satisfaction out of a spiritual practice and reading and out of a will to contribute something unique and in that way make progress. I felt that this is one area which is just meant for self-realization. Where I will have a zillion questions about myself, my role in this birth…karma etc.
BG nicely starts about God, Karma, Man, his relation, Kala etc… So I am amazed that with such rich tomes of knowledge, how can we reduce ourselves to tricking people and not being genuine. Going through personal struggles at the same time focussing on Krishna and reading about him is a constant but wonderful struggle. I just cannot understand human beings at all…