Tattva-viveka
Faith in Guru
Gaurangi-priya Devi - June 8, 2006 4:19 pm
The discussion on Dhanurdhara Swami turned to not just being about clearing his name, but to faith in Guru. There were many interesting posts and I thought it would be nice to discuss faith. I'm wondering what are the differences between blind following and firm faith and trust in Guru? How do we use our own intelligence and instincts, and also have faith in what Guru says? Or do we for some time not use our intelligence? Do we have faith in Guru in all aspects of life?
I have experience of "suspicion is suspension", and I know it's not a good place to be. But is there healthy questioning? Do we accept everything Guru says as absolute? There seems to have been so much conflict over Srila Prabhupada the absolute, and Srila Prabhupada the human pure devotee.
Also it seems that sometimes the guru instructs the disciple to only hear from the mouth of him, as in this quote by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati that Gurumaharaj posted on another thread.
"We should hear the Lord's glories only from Sri Gurudeva or the like, A true devotee will say - " I will only hear hari-katha from the holy lips of Sri Gurudeva and I will hear and speak about the Bhagavata that Sukadeva spoke from his lotus mouth. With guru-nistha I will hear and discuss about Krsna's Name, Form, Qualities and Pastimes according to the path of pure devotion as taught by Sri Gauranga as I have heard from Gurudeva. I will not hear from anyone else."
It seems that at one stage of faith, the guru only wants the student to hear from him, but as faith is stronger a disciple hears his guru everywhere. It seems that this may be why Srila Prabhupada was at times very firm in his instruction to his disciples to not associate with his godbrothers. He was trying to establish faith in himself. But not that this instruction should be carried out for eternity. Interestingly, I just noticed how in the above quote by BSST it says hear from Sri Gurudeva or "the like."
These are just some things I've been thinking about. This may seem like many topics and I hope they make sense. By grace I do feel faith in Gurumaharaj that he wants to help me advance in Krsna consciousness. Faith is a wonderful thing to feel. And I also feel that I can ask him about anything, which is helpful for my sometimes doubtful nature. Having complete faith seems to be a gradual progression with different levels and with ups and downs. Is that right?
Audarya-lila Dasa - June 8, 2006 6:51 pm
Thank you Gaurangi-priya devi for starting what I hope will be a very fruitful thread. As we are all students eternally, I'm sure we can all gain from such an exercise.
First off I'd like to suggest that the starting point for a discussion of faith is surrender as the two go hand in hand. Surrender has no limit nor does faith - we strive to dive deeper and deeper to discover the mysteries of bhakti devi.
Your point about Srila Prabhupada and the division of those who think everything he did and said was absolute and those who recognize not only his divinity but his humanity is a critical point. One of the reasons for this division, I believe, is that some devotees haven't thought deeply about what it means for the pure devotee to be free of the four defects attributed to those who are conditioned souls. Because the four defects are usually enumerated as: subject to commit mistakes, subject to illusion, having a cheating propensity and having imperfect senses the simpliest (and one that doesn't require deep reflection) conclusion is that the Guru can never commit a mistake, be illusioned, cheat or demonstate having imperfect senses. Guru Maharaja in his Tattva Sandharbha has given the four which are mentioned by Jiva Goswami as evidence as to why a conditioned soul isn't a reliable source of perfect knowledge as: brama - confusion, pramada - inattention, vipralipsa - deception and karanapatava - imperfect senses.
If one accepts the simplest conclusion I mentioned above it has some awfully foolish and obviously incorrect implications. Will the Guru never spell a word incorrectly? Should the 'faithful' disciple suggest that the dictionary is wrong rather than acknowledge the error? Will the Guru never mistake a snake for a rope or a rope for snake? What is meant by perfect senses? The example that Guru Maharaja gives is Krsna whose every sense can perform the actions of the other senses. Will the Guru whose eyes are failing all of sudden be able to see perfectly? Will the Guru who is hard of hearing never misunderstand what is spoken to him/her?
Guru Maharaja starts the discussion by stating that the first mistake is to misidentify the body as the self. We know that the Guru does not make this mistake and his/her very life and actions are a testament to this fact. I would like to suggest that due to the Gurus' deep engagement in bhakti and highly advanced position of surrender and service that their being beyond the four defects relates to their position in devotion. The Guru will not make the mistake of identifying with the body and serviing his/her senses, he/she will not be in illusion regarding how to act to serve Sri Guru and Gauranga (but even Bhrahma who is the head of our Sampradaya was put into illusion - a fact we, as Gaudiyas, accept - but Madhvacharaya could not accept the Bhrama vimohana lila in the Srimad Bhagavatam - so the obvious conclusion is that even Sri Guru can be put into illusion by Krsna for his special purpose), the Guru will not cheat for his/her own end but we do have experience that the Guru will cheat others on behalf of Krsna. This fact can have serious repercussions if someone who is not on a high level of attainment (at least to nistha, preferably ruci) uses it to justify their actions which are not as yet beyond defect since they are not fixed in devotion. The Guru's senses will be perfect because they are engaged fully in Krsna's service - but they will still have the same limitations they did before they were engaged in Krsna's service - in fact, they may become more limited. For instance the Guru's eyesight may worsen over time or his/her hearing may begin to faulter.
We have to be able to distinguish the relative from the absolute. We want to engage ourselves intelligently and we want to be able to represent the tradition in such a way that others will be attracted to participate. 'Blind' faith, or merely parroting things without deep reflection and realization, will have a detrimental effect on ourselves and others and will serve to undermine that which we profess to accomplish. Also, without realization, a sadhaka will misrepresent the tradition and misapply the teachings such that what is truly dignified will become profane, or distored at the very least.
If we find that in Srila Prabhupada's books there are mistakes that will create doubts in the minds of neophytes shall we not correct the mistakes? I'm not sure about the editing of Srila Prabhupada's books - but if Iskcon pushes the idea that they are going to be the 'law books for the next 10,000 years' idea then I am sure that they need updating and editing. If they recognize them for what they are and the tradition contunues to expand and new books are published and new insights are conveyed by advanced devotees then I see no reason to change the historical record. The reason I bring this up is it is one of the areas of contention between the 'absolutists' and what I would call the realists or 'relativists'.
My faith is that by serving Krsna my life will be successful. A further extention to that faith and a natural consequence of that faith is that my Guru Maharaja can help me be successful by directing my service. I am a neophyte to be sure, but I have faith that Guru Maharaja has my my best interest at heart and that he has the experience and realization to help me be successful as a devotee.
Swami - June 9, 2006 2:52 pm
sraddha--sabde visväsa kahe sudrdha niscaya
krsne bhakti kaile sarva-karma krta haya
"The word "sraddha" means confidence that simply by serving Krsna all of one's kamic obligations are fulfilled."
He cites this definition while instructing Sri Sanatana Goswamiji. In doing so he references the Gita's most confidential instruction—"Become my devotee." This verse of the Gita is of course followed by sarva dharman parityaja mam ekm saranam vraja . . . "Give up all dharma (the realm of karma) and simply surrender to me. So surrender (saranagati) and faith (sraddha) correspond with one another.
Sraddha implies faith in and understanding of sastra, most of which deals with the realm of karma and thus religious injunctions. Faith in bhakti implies that one has understood the scripture and is thus no longer directly concerned with Vedic dharma, having come under the jurisdiction of bhakti and thus understood the essence of sastra.
This faith comes from sri guru, who expertly represents the sastra. Ideally he or she is sasrta sunipuna, a scripturally genious and thus a superlative devotee. Such a guru teaches his or her disciples the sastra. Thus the guru's authority is in one sense derived from command of scripture, not merely academic command, but realization.
Just a few thoughts before milking.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 9, 2006 7:35 pm
Interestingly, I just noticed how in the above quote by BSST it says hear from Sri Gurudeva or "the like."
You just answered your own question here. Parampara. They all speak the same thing and have the same goal. Sadhu, Sanga and Shastra, we need all three but there are many branches. Guru Maharaja had a deep discussion of this a while back but when evades me at this time.
We all are His children, but eventually we have to leave the nest and become one of "the like".
Very hard to get that type of qualification and the path of perfection is like walking the razors edge. Krsna has all the qualities and we are only allowed so many, but His Divine Grace wanted us to get them all in this life time as I heard it said why wait. So we keep trying.
Swami - June 12, 2006 12:57 pm
Having complete faith seems to be a gradual progression with different levels and with ups and downs. Is that right?
According to Sri Rupa Goswami there are three levels of faith, tender faith, firm faith strengthened by scriptural understanding,* and firm faith combined with scriptural genious. Interestingly they correspond with one's capacity to engage in sadhana-bhakti. So suspicion does lead to suspension. Furthermore, tender faith is strengthened with the help of scripture as one gradually learns the scriptural conclusions. Thus it is sastriya sraddha that we are interested in. Indeed, devotion that is not in compliance with scriptural conclusions—siddhanta—is not bhakti at all, sruti smriti puranadi pancarätra-vidhim vinä aikäntiki harer bhaktir utpätäyaiva kalpate In Gaura-lila Svarupa Damodara screened any written offering presented to Mahaprabhu to see if it was in accordance with scriptural conclusions. If it was not, it would not reach Mahaprabhu.
Sraddha constitutes faith in the efficacy of all aspects of bhakti—tattva vicara, sadhana vicara, and purusartha vicara, all of which are explained in scripture. Now it should be noted also that it requires reasoning to understand the scriptural conclusions. Thus sastriya sraddha is not blind faith, but rather well reasoned faith. It is well reasoned first of all in that it is based on the reasonable conclusion that comprehensive knowledge is possible only through revelation. Sastra constitutes revealed knowledge. Furthermore reasoning is required to understand the scriptural conclusions. This kind of reasoning is called sastra-yukti. It is a special kind of reasoning or tarka that arises out of the ongoing discourse on sastric conclusions conducted in the guru parampara. Such reasoning seeks to strengthen the scriptural argument in consideration of time and circumstance and in general to new shed light on it.
*This intermidiate position involves firm faith in the scriptural conclusions and the words of one's guru, even though one may not be able to cite either of these in all instances in which one is challenged or questioned. Such a devotee does not, however, suffer from temporary lapse in sraddha altogether as does one of tender faith.
Gaurangi-priya Devi - June 12, 2006 7:58 pm
Thank you for the insight and the thoughts. Very helpful. What I'm really understanding is that a devotee must study sastra and with that scriptural knowledge, along with surrender to the guru, one's faith gradually becomes more and more fixed. I feel that many devotees have taken Srila Prabhupada's words, letters, conversations, etc. and without so much studying the books he gave us, make a religion of "faith" in Prabhupada. Spiritual life is so much about thinking and understanding and delving into the deep meaning of sastra. It takes work!!! 
Audarya-lila Dasa - June 12, 2006 7:59 pm
I decided to go down to Venice beach this past Saturday to attend a lecture by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. The gathering was quite large - I would guess at least 400 people. The lecture that was given was good - it was short and simple and focused on a couple of really good points.
What I witnessed there in general reminded me a little bit of my experience in a pentacostal church. What I mean by that is in the pentacostal church there was an 'alter call' at the end with alot of urging and prompting of 'experienced' christians to have non-members come foward to receive 'the spirit'. Under this type of pressure some people will be compelled to come forward but I don't think it is conducive to the development of the type of faith that we are seeking to develop.
How was the sanga similar to the pentacostal 'alter call' experience I had? Well, Narayana Maharaja had four of his senior sisyas speak before his talk and they all focused on his divinity and how fortunate everyone in the audience was. Comparisons were drawn between A.C. Bhaktivedanta and Narayana Maharaja both in terms of their spiritual position and in terms of their benevolent outreach. Narayana Maharaja himself compared his outreach to that of Srila Prabhupada. At the end of the lecture was an announcement that Narayana Maharaja would be conducting inititations the following morning at 9 a.m. It was announced that any cadidate must be recomended by one of his senior disciples - but it wasn't stated what the standard for getting that recommendation is.
After the lecture there was a lot of clamoring by devotees to 'get close' to Narayana Maharaja and they all followed him out to a car that whisked him away.
Overall I felt that the way the program was held and the heavy preaching about Narayana Maharaja's divinity was out of balance. It left me with the distinct impression that it is this very type of program and emphasis that has led many of his sisyas to push his divinity on others and trample on the faith of others. Not that there was explicit mention of anyone being 'less qualified' or anything - but the impression from the introductory talks was that 'here is the real touch-stone'. I couldn't get over the impression that there was a definite personality cult going on that is unhealthy.
I am not trying to cast any doubt on Narayana Maharaja by stating the above - it's just that I honestly felt that there was an unhealthy side to the way he is being promoted. If I was to try to put my finger on it I would have to say it seems to cater to people who think of the Guru in unrealitic terms. Like many people have a view of Srila Prabhupada and what it means to be a pure devotee such that no one could ever live up to that vision, and indeed Srila Prabhupada didn't either. It appeared to me that this is the type of propaganda and vision that is being promoted regarding Narayana Maharaja and I think that this will be very unhealthy in the long run. It may be that Narayana Maharaja allows it to go on in order to engage devotees and encourage them - but ultimately I believe it is unhealthy. Of course, without that personna the hall would not have been nearly as populated as it was, but I don't think that is a problem and would ultimately be better.
Those are observations I wanted to share on this thread since we are talking about faith and it development - both healthy and unhealthy. I want to balance the above by stating that the lecture was very practical and contained nothing but good advice for all sadhakas. The kirtan was sweet and all the devotees were very enthusiastic.
Swami - June 13, 2006 1:43 am
Sri Jiva’s argument regarding valid evidence states that one suffering from the four defects of imperfect senses, confusion, inattentiveness, and a cheating propensity cannot understand the absolute truth without help from above. Thus he concludes that in order to attain perfect knowledge one must hear from scripture—take shelter of revelation. One who does so and attains perfect knowledge thereby is said to no longer be subject to the four imperfections that impede one from arriving at perfect knowledge.
Such a person then becomes a “reliable person,” with regard to the Absolute. He or she will not cheat others by giving them something other than the whole truth, and will not fail to acknowledge the true proprietor. He or she will not suffer from inattentiveness in relation to the Absolute and will not suffer from confusion regarding that which is ultimately real and that which is not. Such a person’s senses will be perfect in that they will be engaged only in the service of God.
One can, however, be in perfect knowledge of the Absolute and mistake something to be other than what it is. On the high end we see this in Mahaprabhu, who mistook a sand dune in Puri for Govardhana. Coming down, Jagadananda mistook the saffron turban of Sanatana Goswami to be the cloth of Mahaprabhu, when in fact he had received it from another sannyasin. Lower still, it is said that in his youth Hanuman once mistook the sun for a fruit and tried to capture it. Bilvamangala was blind—his sense of sight was apparently defective inspite of his standing in perfect knowledge. There are of course many other examples.
Still, that is not to say that there are not sadhus who make no mistakes whatsoever, etc., but I have not met any such persons. Some would like us to believe that all apparent mistakes, etc. are some kind of lila to test students. This is one way to explain how someone said to be free from the four defects is actualy free from them in every sense when it readily appears otherwise. However, I do not belive that it is the best way to explain this phenomenom or that such an explanation is based on a very deep understadning of the nature of reality in most cases.
On a related topic, although the senses and reasoning are not in and of themselves competent to reveal perfect absolute knowledge, they are capable of revealing many other lesser types of relative knowledge and should be relied upon for such, especially since scripture does not deal with these issues.
Guru-nistha Das - June 13, 2006 3:53 pm
This is a wonderful thread! Thank you Gaurangi-Priya for starting it. I'll try to contribute to the discussion later.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 14, 2006 12:54 am
although the senses and reasoning are not in and of themselves competent to reveal perfect absolute knowledge, they are capable of revealing many other lesser types of relative knowledge and should be relied upon for such, especially since scripture does not deal with these issues.
This is unfortunately an often misunderstood point. When we are new we hear that "everything is in the sastra," and then tend to take that too far. Yes, in one sense everything is in the sastra--in a very general sense. But so many details are not, which is perhaps why many preachers don't deal with certain issues--they don't know how to think about them in a dynamic way and still remain true to the siddhanta.
It seems that some devotees, in their newbie zeal and who lack the company of a scriptural genius tend to think that knowledge gained through the senses is perforce misleading and is thus not to be relied on under any circumstances--even though we could not function in every day life without it. There seems to be a tendency to forget that relative knowledge has its place, and that one of the big tasks of the sadhaka is to learn how to discriminate between relative and absolute knowledge.
We are truly fortunate to have superlative guidance in this regard!
Babhru Das - June 14, 2006 2:03 am
When we are new we hear that "everything is in the sastra," and then tend to take that too far. . . .
It seems that some devotees, in their newbie zeal and who lack the company of a scriptural genius tend to think that knowledge gained through the senses is perforce misleading and is thus not to be relied on under any circumstances--even though we could not function in every day life without it. There seems to be a tendency to forget that relative knowledge has its place, and that one of the big tasks of the sadhaka is to learn how to discriminate between relative and absolute knowledge.
We are truly fortunate to have superlative guidance in this regard!
We are, indeed! Swami has more than once pointed out that pratyaksa is also an accepted pramana, when its conclusions find support in sastra.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 16, 2006 11:46 pm
This is unfortunately an often misunderstood point. When we are new we hear that "everything is in the sastra," and then tend to take that too far. Yes, in one sense everything is in the sastra--in a very general sense. But so many details are not, which is perhaps why many preachers don't deal with certain issues--they don't know how to think about them in a dynamic way and still remain true to the siddhanta.
It seems that some devotees, in their newbie zeal and who lack the company of a scriptural genius tend to think that knowledge gained through the senses is perforce misleading and is thus not to be relied on under any circumstances--even though we could not function in every day life without it. There seems to be a tendency to forget that relative knowledge has its place, and that one of the big tasks of the sadhaka is to learn how to discriminate between relative and absolute knowledge.
We are truly fortunate to have superlative guidance in this regard!
So true prabhu. The environment is friendly our Guru Maharaja has said on many occasions and it is up to us to hear what it is telling us about our sat cit annanda interaction or the absolute message we are receiving form it.