Chapter 15 of Prabhup\u0101da Vijaya, 'Deliverer or Instrumental Guru?' thor\u00adoughly exposes, with stunning clarity, the defects in the institutional conceptions of guru-tattva. Backed by substantial scriptural references with a particu\u00adlar emphasis on the supreme position of R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>
Question:<\/strong> Recently, we read an article where the author begins by establishing certain well-known scholars from the R\u0101m\u0101nuja and Madhva samprad\u0101yas<\/em> (most notably H.H. \u015ar\u012b Ra\u1e45gapriya Mah\u0101-de\u015bikan Swami and Vidy\u0101-v\u0101caspati Bannanje Govind\u00ad\u0101c\u0101rya) as authoritative sources of transcendental knowledge regarding guru-tattva<\/em>. In that article the author tries to establish that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da is the deliverer-guru for the duration of 10,000 years. All gurus following Prabhup\u0101da are only instru\u00admental-gurus, whose purpose is to assist him. Is this in any way correct?<\/p>\nNarasi\u1e45gha Mah\u0101r\u0101ja:<\/strong> We have personally had the pleasure to meet \u015ar\u012b Ra\u1e45gapriya Mah\u0101-de\u015bikan Swami and Bannanje Govind\u00ad\u0101c\u0101rya on several occasions, and we are happy to say that they are indeed scholars and sincere devotees of \u015ar\u012b R\u0101m\u0101nuj\u0101c\u0101rya and \u015ar\u012b Madhv\u0101c\u0101rya, respectively.<\/p>\nWe also agree that what the Madhva and R\u0101m\u0101nuja scholars have stated in regards to guru-tattva<\/em> is indeed true to their creed and applicable to their samprad\u0101ya<\/em>.<\/p>\nHowever, the conception of guru-tattva<\/em> in the Madhva tra\u00addition is quite different from the concept of guru-tattva<\/em> in the Gau\u1e0d\u012bya samprad\u0101ya<\/em>. The fact that Madhva himself could not accept the pastime wherein Brahm\u0101 (the original guru of both his and our samprad\u0101ya<\/em>) became bewildered, is itself conclusive evidence for this statement. While Madhva omitted the section of Bh\u0101gavatam<\/em> known as Brahma-vimohana-l\u012bl\u0101<\/em> from his version, the illusion of Brahm\u0101 was accepted by \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b, the original commentator on the Bh\u0101gavatam<\/em>. \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b\u2019s commentary was accepted by \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu.<\/p>\nThat which is useful to Gau\u1e0d\u012byas in Madhva\u2019s commentary is certainly negligible compared to that of \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b. Most notably, Madhva accepted Vi\u1e63\u1e47u as the \u0101\u015braya-tattva<\/em> (ultimate shelter), whereas \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b accepted \u015ar\u012b V\u1e5bnd\u0101vana-candra (K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a) as the \u0101\u015braya-tattva<\/em>, and \u015bara\u1e47\u0101gati<\/em> (surrender) as the ulti\u00admate s\u0101dhana<\/em>, or means to the end.<\/p>\nBearing this in mind, it would be safe to say that guidance from the Madhva tradition in the matter of understanding guru-tattva<\/em> amongst Gau\u1e0d\u012byas is indeed of limited value in the ultimate issue. Although it may appear to be helpful to some devotees at this present time, since there seems to be a glaring inability for many to understand our own tradition from within, it will none\u00adtheless lead to difficulty in the future.<\/p>\nThe teachings of R\u0101m\u0101nuja are much closer to Gau\u1e0d\u012bya sid\u00addh\u0101nta<\/em> than those of Madhva. In the conception of R\u0101m\u0101nuja, \u015bara\u1e47\u0101gati<\/em> plays the essential role, as it does in the teachings of \u015ar\u012b Caitanya. Regarding topics like d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101, arcana<\/em>, and sanny\u0101sa, <\/em>there are also more similarities between the R\u0101m\u0101nujas and the Gau\u1e0d\u012byas than there are between the Madhvas and the Gau\u1e0d\u012byas. Our connection with the Madhvas is actually one of form, whereas our connection with the R\u0101m\u0101nujas is based more on substance. The similarity between the R\u0101m\u0101nujas and the Gau\u1e0d\u012byas is cer\u00adtainly an interesting topic, but it is not the topic of this essay and can therefore be dealt with separately at another time.<\/p>\nOverall, the numerous rudimentary points regarding the Founder-\u0101c\u0101rya<\/em> and the gurus that succeed him were well addressed in the article that you have mentioned. There is a need, however, for some clarification.<\/p>\nIt is true that Madhv\u0101c\u0101rya and R\u0101m\u0101nuj\u0101c\u0101rya each hold unique positions in their respective samprad\u0101yas<\/em> as the uddh\u0101ra\u00adka-guru<\/em> (deliverer-guru). However, to be more precise, the deliverer-guru in the R\u0101m\u0101nuja sect is Namm\u0101\u1e37v\u0101r, one of the twelve \u0100\u1e37vars from whose writings R\u0101m\u0101nuja drew his doctrine of \u015bara\u1e47\u0101gati<\/em>.<\/p>\nAlthough R\u0101m\u0101nuja considered himself to be an upak\u0101ra\u00adka-guru<\/em> (instrumental-guru), he is nonetheless regarded as the head of the \u015ar\u012b samprad\u0101ya<\/em> in modern times \u2013 the uddh\u0101raka-guru<\/em>.<\/p>\nOne might ask that since R\u0101m\u0101nuja considered himself an instrumental-guru, how is it that his followers consider him the deliverer-guru? The answer can be traced to the fact that it was \u015ar\u012b R\u0101m\u0101nuja who gave shape to the Visi\u1e63\u1e6dh\u0101dvaita<\/em> philosophy (not accomplished previously by Namm\u0101\u1e37v\u0101r) by writing a com\u00admentary on the Ved\u0101nta-s\u016btras<\/em>. One who knows the answer to this question knows the secret of the guru-parampar\u0101. <\/em><\/p>\nThe position of uddh\u0101raka-guru, <\/em>held by R\u0101m\u0101nuja and Madhva in their respective successions, has already been given to \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b Prabhup\u0101da in our Gau\u1e0d\u012bya samprad\u0101ya<\/em> by none other than \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu, 500 years ago.<\/p>\nOur \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da does not hold the same position as Madhva or R\u0101m\u0101nuja, since he did not introduce a new philo\u00adsophical system or establish a samprad\u0101ya<\/em> based on that. That was accomplished by \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b, and hence we are all known as r\u016bp\u0101nugas<\/em>, followers of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b \u2013 this includes \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da, Sarasvat\u012b \u1e6ch\u0101kura and Bhaktivinoda \u1e6ch\u0101kura.<\/p>\nWithout being a r\u016bp\u0101nuga<\/em>, one cannot be a prabhup\u0101d\u0101nuga<\/em> (as followers of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da are sometimes called), and vice-versa. \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da established his mission within an existing samprad\u0101ya<\/em>, for preaching purposes only. His mission was not intended to be a separate samprad\u0101ya<\/em> from that which was already established in the 20th Century by Sarasvat\u012b \u1e6ch\u0101kura and \u015ar\u012bla Bhaktivinoda. If it were a separate samprad\u0101ya<\/em>, then a new tilaka<\/em> would also be necessary for the mission, along with substantially more commentary \u2013 including a new commentary on the Ved\u0101nta-s\u016btra<\/em> in Sanskrit, showing how \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da\u2019s conception differed from that of his predecessor \u0101c\u0101ryas<\/em>. Indeed, no intelli\u00adgent disciple would entertain such a thought for even a moment.<\/p>\n\u015br\u012b-caitanya-manobhi\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e41 sth\u0101pita\u1e41 yena bh\u016b-tale<\/em>
\nsvaya\u1e41 r\u016bpa\u1e25 kad\u0101 m\u0101hya\u1e41 dad\u0101ti sva-pad\u0101ntikam<\/em><\/p>\n\u201cWhen will \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa, who has established the cherished desire of \u015ar\u012b Caitanya within this world, give me shelter at his lotus feet.\u201d (Prema-bhakti-candrik\u0101<\/em>)<\/p>\nI do not think that either the institutionalised devotees or the \u1e5atvik proponents have understood this basic point. \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b is the head (uddh\u0101raka-guru<\/em>) of our samprad\u0101ya<\/em> in this world, and in the spiritual world he is our supreme leader in the form of \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa Ma\u00f1jar\u012b. The samprad\u0101ya<\/em> of the Gau\u1e0d\u012byas has descended from Goloka V\u1e5bnd\u0101vana and its ontology is complete.<\/p>\nIt seems that both institutionalised devotees and the \u1e5atvik proponents, each in their own way, want to put \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da in the place of R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b. This appears to be the case largely because a vast majority of devotees have no proper ontological understanding of siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. The idea that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da is the head of the samprad\u0101ya<\/em> for the next 10,000 years has no basis in spiritual reality. It appears that many devotees are simply driven by mundane sentimentality, compounded with vai\u1e63\u1e47ava-apar\u0101dha<\/em>. The result of this is complete bewilderment!<\/p>\nThe position of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b has been conclusively established by Sarasvat\u012b \u1e6ch\u0101kura in his last instructions before leaving the mortal world:<\/p>\n
\u201cAll of you please preach about \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa and \u015ar\u012b Raghun\u0101tha with great enthusiasm. The supreme goal of all our desires is to become specks of dust at the lotus feet of the followers of \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\nAgain, the supreme position of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b in the Gau\u1e0d\u012bya samprad\u0101ya<\/em> is made clear by Narottama D\u0101sa \u1e6ch\u0101kura in his song, \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa-ma\u00f1jar\u012b-pada<\/em>:<\/p>\n\u015br\u012b-r\u016bpa-ma\u00f1jar\u012b-pada, sei mora sampada<\/em>
\nsei mora bhajana-p\u016bjana<\/em>
\nsei mora pr\u0101\u1e47a-dhana, sei mora \u0101bhara\u1e47a<\/em>
\nsei mora j\u012bvanera j\u012bvana<\/em><\/p>\n\u201cThe lotus feet of \u015ar\u012b R\u016bpa-ma\u00f1jar\u012b are my treasure and the object of my worship. They are the wealth of my existence, they are my ornaments and the very life of my life.\u201d<\/p>\n
Actually, \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da was an upak\u0101raka-guru<\/em> (instru\u00admental-guru), in that he delivered his disciples to the lotus feet of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b, the uddh\u0101raka-guru<\/em> (the deliverer-guru).<\/p>\nAs for \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu, He is our i\u1e63\u1e6da-deva<\/em> or the most treasured Deity of our samprad\u0101ya<\/em>. But many devotees do not fully understand this either. Anyone who does not accept these basic conclusions regarding the position of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b and that of \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu is a kani\u1e63\u1e6dha<\/em> disciple, at best.<\/p>\nThere is no indication by anyone from the Madhva or R\u0101m\u0101\u00adnuja samprad\u0101yas<\/em> that the instrumental-guru cannot be a liberated soul or pure devotee, as is the deliverer-guru. <\/em>The fact that all the \u0101c\u0101ryas<\/em> in our parampar\u0101<\/em> since the time of Mah\u0101prabhu were pure devotees does not alter the fact that they were instrumental-gu\u00adrus, and \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b was the deliverer-guru.<\/p>\nTherefore, our conclusion is that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da does not become the head of a new samprad\u0101ya<\/em> because he was a pure devotee, the Founder-\u0101c\u0101rya<\/em> of an institution or even a \u015bak\u00adty\u0101ve\u015ba-avat\u0101ra<\/em> (which we believe he was). In fact, to become a pure devotee of K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a is the necessary qualification to become a guru of any kind, either uddh\u0101raka<\/em> or upak\u0101raka<\/em>! There are no short cuts. This is also not understood by the institutionalised devotees or the \u1e5atviks.<\/p>\nIf I\u2019m not mistaken, the Madhvas and the R\u0101m\u0101nujas under\u00adstand this point to some degree, but the fact is that they have similar problems in their own samprad\u0101yas<\/em>. For example, being a pure Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava is not enough to initiate in their samprad\u0101ya \u2013 <\/em>one has to be born a br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/em>, and this is often a contentious point in the Madhva and R\u0101m\u0101nuja communities.<\/p>\nAn interesting point to note here is that those that propound the idea of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da being the deliverer-guru are pre\u00adpared to inquire from scholars outside our samprad\u0101ya<\/em>, who know nothing of the teachings of \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu and the Six Gosv\u0101m\u012bs. They refuse to inquire from advanced Gau\u1e0d\u012bya scholars and devotees who are surrendered souls at the lotus feet of Mah\u0101prabhu. Some devotees are prepared to accept the advice of those who are in complete ignorance of the divinity of \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu, but they are averse to accept the advice of Mah\u0101prabhu\u2019s direct representatives. Such a mentality could easily get one classified as a fool and a rascal.<\/p>\nIt seems that the author of the article we are discussing does indeed understand the difference between the uddh\u0101raka-guru<\/em> and the upak\u0101raka-guru<\/em>, save that he does not understand the position of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da. It appears that the leaders of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da\u2019s mission are trying to get out of a difficult situa\u00adtion with the \u1e5atviks, but without help from advanced Vai\u1e63\u1e47avas they cannot come to conclusive answers, at least answers that others will accept. Because they endure in their offences to the senior members of our samprad\u0101ya<\/em>, they have no opportunity to approach them, either personally or through books.<\/p>\nAll these questions regarding the position of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da and those gurus who would succeed him were already answered in 1978 by \u015ar\u012bla \u015ar\u012bdhara Mah\u0101r\u0101ja. Unfortunately, many of the devotees in leadership positions in the western Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava commu\u00adnities have developed amnesia regarding this fact. But fortunately for all, the answers given by \u015ar\u012bla \u015ar\u012bdhara Mah\u0101r\u0101ja regarding guru-tattva<\/em> were recorded and published in a book called, \u015ar\u012b Guru and His Grace<\/em>. This book is recommended reading mate\u00adrial for any and all devotees who would like clarification on guru-tattva<\/em>.<\/p>\nAt the conclusion of the article we are discussing, the author summarises that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da is the deliverer-guru and that he takes everyone back to Godhead. Yet such a statement is not found anywhere in the teachings of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da (books, letters, room conversations, or lectures, etc.). The idea that the institution established by \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da is a samprad\u0101ya<\/em> sep\u00adarate from the line of \u015ar\u012bla R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b is possibly the biggest deviation to have occurred in our samprad\u0101ya<\/em> since the reject sons of Advaita \u0100c\u0101rya began to preach impersonalism.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Chapter 15 of Prabhup\u0101da Vijaya, ‘Deliverer or Instrumental Guru?’ thor\u00adoughly exposes, with stunning clarity, the defects in the institutional conceptions of guru-tattva. Backed by substantial scriptural references with a particu\u00adlar emphasis on the supreme position of R\u016bpa Gosv\u0101m\u012b.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5580,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[207],"tags":[206,208],"krishna_talk_article":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5637"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5637\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5637"},{"taxonomy":"krishna_talk_article","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rupanugabhajanashram.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/krishna_talk_article?post=5637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}