Is it possible for one to have a degree of faith/trust in guru which may be far greater than their level of faith in some of the metaphysical conceptions surrounding the idea of God. Since I came in contact with Gaudiya Vaisnavism back in the early 90s, I have always been drawn to it, but have struggled over some of its metaphysical ideas. While there's no denying that I gravitate to Krishna consciousness, and I feel I should honor that interest in a genuine fashion, I often feel a stronger sense of certainty regarding the "guide" versus sastra's metaphysical claims. Is this backwards?
Is it possible for one to have a degree of faith/trust in guru which may be far greater than their level of faith in some of the metaphysical conceptions surrounding the idea of God. Since I came in contact with Gaudiya Vaisnavism back in the early 90s, I have always been drawn to it, but have struggled over some of its metaphysical ideas. While there's no denying that I gravitate to Krishna consciousness, and I feel I should honor that interest in a genuine fashion, I often feel a stronger sense of certainty regarding the "guide" versus sastra's metaphysical claims. Is this backwards?
What you initially posit here is preferable if not the superlative spirit to grapple with these metaphysical ideas in GV. The deeper one wants to enter into GV the principle of taking shelter of the guide becomes more and more essential to the point as we have recently discussed on the Harmonist where guru bhakti sometimes becomes the angi of Krsna bhakti and thus turns Krsna bhakti into its limb. Our association in one sense is our faith. If your faith mostly lies in a superlative Vaisnava then you are extremely fortunate and by his guidance and his example all things will eventually be harmonized.
Some thoughts:
Perhaps it is not entirely an issue of backwards or forwards. What I mean is sastra highlights the guru, but in turn the guru highlights the sastra. They are intertwined. I would think that to the extent one's faith in guru is grounded in the guru's bhakti, as opposed to charisma etc. alone, then their faith in sastra will develop accordingly. And conversely, to the extent that one has faith in sastra, their desire for, or relationship with, a guru will be developed accordingly.
I am inclined to think that when really played out to the fullest, the absence of various metaphysical claims would compromise the very position of the guru—and this is only compounded by the fact that the guru would presumably be promoting these questionable claims. I have heard GM had one disciple who decided he had faith in Mahaprabhu but not Krishna... But there is no Mahaprabhu without Krishna. Similarly there is no guru in the full GV sense without certain metaphysical truths, like the eternal distinction between God and the jiva.
At the same time, like SSM said, the guru is active agent, so that right there gives a lot of support to us finding our faith most manifest in relation to Sri guru, and I think that is probably the experience of most devotees. But ultimately I am thinking it is not so compartmentalized: we have some faith in guru, some in sastra, some in bhagavan, and they all develop together because they are all intertwined, and in some senses, one. Faith in guru is the most tangible because the guru is the most tangible: krpa avatar. And to have more faith in guru than sastra is certainly more desirable than the inverse because the guru is the sastra AND its application in one. We see so many people with sastra and no guru and they are often either teetering on brink of deviation or way far gone.
But I suppose even more importantly, if we have some faith at all, we should fan it—by hook or by crook. To serve without studying the sastra is better than learning with only material aims. Therefore BSST directed a visitor at the Gaudiya Matha to consult the gardener if he wanted to hear the meaning of the Bhagavatam.
...At the same time, like SSM said, the guru is active agent, so that right there gives a lot of support to us finding our faith most manifest in relation to Sri guru, and I think that is probably the experience of most devotees...Faith in guru is the most tangible because the guru is the most tangible: krpa avatar. And to have more faith in guru than sastra is certainly more desirable than the inverse because the guru is the sastra AND its application in one.
Thanks guys! This is helpful. Regarding SSM's statement above, is this the same idea echoed by Maharaja when he emphasizes the difference between the dynamism of the person Bhagavata, versus the static Bhagavata in the form of sastra? I really like this notion of guru as "sastra AND its application in one". This is nice. By serving guru, one serves sastra properly even if the devotees is not sure how to swallow certain concepts therein, what to speak of knowing how to properly execute any injunctions. This is reassuring.
Thanks guys! This is helpful. Regarding SSM's statement above, is this the same idea echoed by Maharaja when he emphasizes the difference between the dynamism of the person Bhagavata, versus the static Bhagavata in the form of sastra?
Yes, exactly. GM often quotes this from SSM when making this point. By contrast, SSM called sastra the "passive agent of divinity".