Sannyasis or Householder Gurus - Which is better?

No need to visit Babajis or Sannyasis. There are perfectly excellent Gaudiya gurus who are lifelong householders!

And who don't travel like sannyasis, attracting followers (in fact, because of family duties probably don't even have time to take care of disciples), so for some aspirants to discipleship, this option may come a little too late.

(Are overrun sentences a disturbance, Madhava?)

Now that's an awfully sweeping statement, that householders probably don't have time for taking care of disciples. You don't need 16 hours per day for that.

Tanking care of a household is a time consuming engagement, I am sure you know that from personal experience. Dedicating time to disciples and followers is an activity of a different nature than being busy with family life. Individuals with no family involvement are, undeniably, in some sort of advantage over householders in dedicating time to study, reflection/meditation, cultivation of one’s own devotion so to nurture disciples’ faith.

Family life is dharmic, not necessarily involving bhakti.

The Vedic tradition is that Gurus are householders. Sannyasi Gurus is a relatively new phenomena. The family Guru does not go out from 9 to 5 on a job in an office, he is maintained by his disciples and can spend his full time on his disciples.

These are relatively known facts. I suppose the questions could be placed: Should Vedic tradition be revived in this instance also? What is wrong with a sannyasi guru, if he can maitain his vow, that is? Shouldn't both options be open to humanity?

Madhavendra Puri was the Guru of Advaita Prabhu and Isvara Puri of Mahaprabhu. The options are both open. Even now in the Gaudiya Vaishnavas both ashrams give diksa, the babajis (as sannyasis) and the caste Gosvamis (as grihasthas).

I imagine that in some respects, a householder guru can give MORE personal time to his disciples than travelling sannyasis with large numbers of disciples dispersed thoughout the world.
I imagine there are householder gurus with relatively small numbers of disciples who visit the guru's home regularly for instructions and seva, being welcome into the home like a member of the family, relating in a loving and familiar way with the guru's family members, taking prashad with them, etc. I imagine this could be quite sweet and endearing.

I wonder how much self-reflection and meditation can be done on an airplane, moving car and a beach in Hawaii?

According to recent research, alot.
The repetative sound of a moving car creates a certain type of relaxing, semi-hypnotic noise much like a fan can lull people to sleep at night.
There is a similar feeling in airplanes, according to recent research.
People have reported that they've been able to concentrate more in such situations in regards to reading, working (lap-tops), prayer and meditation.

As far as a beach we all probably have experienced the difference in our meditation, chanting, whatever, when we are outdoors with nature as compared with in doors.

It is.

A householder can give MORE personal time because of not traveling and not having a large number of disciples? A sannyasi can match that easily. Easier, in fact.

According to your logic, number of disciples and imobility is what a quality guru makes.

Match what?

Sweetness of stationary householder gurus? This cannot be matched until and unless it happens. And if it ever happens, or has happened, I don't see why it cannot be matched by sannyasis.

Anand, I'd be curious to see how you would support this assertion with shastra. After all, just your saying something doesn't make it so. As you know, in Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Mahaprabhu asserts that anyone, regardless of their status in society, can serve as spiritual master if they understand the science of Krishna consciousness: kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya/ yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru' haya. In Madhya-lila, where Madhavendra Puri's glories are discussed, Advaita Acharya accepts initiation from Madhavendra Puri, even though Madhavendra Puri is a sannyasi. My spiritual master, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, explains:


In short, the Lord asserts that even sannyasis can initiate disciples, if they can give them such transcendental knowledge. There's another problem with sannyasi gurus that Srila Prabhupada mentions somewhere, and that is that sannyasis are enjoined against leaving remnants of their meals. I assume this is seen in our line as a karma-kanda injunction and therefore less important than the benefit of taking the remnants of an advanced devotee's meal.

As a practical matter, it's a matter of where someone feels he or she can best get the guidance needed to develop their inherent love for the Divine Couple. If we were honest, we could have to admit that many of the sannyasi preachers today are busy travelling and spearheading big projects. That often leaves them less time than some disciples may need for personal guidance and instruction. I have seen many of these sannyasis come to a temple where they had some disciples and not know their names. And it's true that most householders I know are compomised by the need to work to maintain their household. I know that's certainly the case with me; my job seems to take so much time and emotional and mental energy that I feel useless as a disciple. But those householders who are able to make time for teaching Krishna consciousness to whomever they can reach could no doubt serve their disciples at least as well as someone in another social station.

Please don't let the length of this response distract you from supporting your assertion with some shastra.

Your assertion to which I referred is "A householder can give MORE personal time because of not traveling and not having a large number of disciples? A sannyasi can match that easily. Easier, in fact."

What I see there is that you believe a sannyasi can easily match the personal time a householder guru has to guide and instruct disciples. Did I read it wrong? My response is based both in scripture and practical consideration.

And yes, I did cite enough scripture to support both sides. In his discussion of Bg. 17.15, where Krishna describes austerity of speech, Srila Prabhupada says, "The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear." Moreover, my intention is to suggest that there is no dichotomy, except in the rhetoric. There's a third position--Mahaprabhu's position--that social status doesn't matter as much as depth of realization.

I will definitely opt only for Babaji or housholder in traditional line. I was unfortunately harinama initiated by one of main ISKCON grihastha householders and before that, I was aspiring also for ISKCON sannyasi. I had my mistakes, but those people definitely have messed up my previous devotional life. After that, I took initiation in an offshot of Gaudiya Math and Iskcon, and that was little better, except for some shouting outbursts (with cursing words), and that sannyasi's(which used to be my Guru) opinion about grihasthas.

I can honestly say: Sannyasa, no thanks!

I was putting forth my opinion, my own wishful thinking, like cheering on my favorite team, that if householders can do very good, sannyasis should be able to do as good or better. As far as supporting with sastra, as I pointed out, you have already done that, so no need to test me.



And I will assume that you agree that quoting sastra without due depth of realization is a form of social status. Thus I refrain from quoting sastra. We see that even very learned individuals, as it happened recently in this very forum, might come to a dispute over interpretation of sastra, each party opting for his own, differing interpretation from the other. In instances, even sastra will be a source of dichotomy. Tolerance in the face of oposition makes things easier, and might even make it pleasurable.

Well, with regard to quoting shastra without commensurate realization, you've nailed me.

With regard to tolerance, I agree fully. It's hard to have a conversation when we see everyone else as an adversary.

And then there are those strange moments when everyone abstains from disagreeing, that some uncomfortable silence sets in...

No, the ones I have in mind travel constantly preaching, giving Patha and Diksha to thousands of disciples, just as their ancestor Lord Nityananda did.

Mind you they are flat out ministering to their Bengali brethren, but anyone from anywhere who visits them in India is welcomed.


Anyway, I'm just suggesting that there are more possibilities than people assume.

In line with Lord Nityananda's mood of giving an opportunity to everyone, wouldn't/shouldn't His descendants travel in the West as well?

Yes, why not? But Lord Nityananda travelled in East Bengal, Bangladesh, and that is where they preach also.

Seeing as Bengalis and Bangladeshis are still amongst the poorest people in the world (especially Gaudiyas for some reason), it's a matter of resources in this case.

Compare them to Tibetan Gurus, an apt comparison. Who should be the Tibetan teacher's priority, Hollywood stars or poor persecuted Tibetans? Let them eat cake eh?

Anyway, who says Gaudiyaism is for everyone? Chanting the Holy Name can be practiced by anyone in any religion or stage of life. One can remain even a Muslim and chant. There are also so many forms of Vaishnavism and Krishna Bhakti such as Pushti Marg which is growing in the western countries without any active preachers at all, just by word of mouth and westerners travelling to India.

These devotees I mention are aware that Sri Bhaktivedanta Swamiji spread the Holy Name around the world and they regard this as a great and laudable thing.

Yes and why didn't Nityananda, if he is as merciful as they say, come to the West?

Bhaktivedanta's answer was, "They left that for me to do."

Why, then, is it unacceptable that Nityananda's followers leave that primarily for Bhaktivedanta's followers for the time being?

There is then discrimination in how, where, and when Lord Nityananda's mercy will be extended. For some reason this does not seem to be in accordance with what we have learned so far about Lord Nityananda's nature.

In this regard, I have a question: Lord Nityananda Himself, either as Balaram or Nitai, wasn't or isn't in madhurya rasa, yet was always very kin in convincing one to take Lord Gauranga's name and seva. How can He be the giver of the most concentrated form of conjugal love? What experience He has of it?

Well, the fact is that everybody can't go everywhere at once. Some folks go to East Bengal, some go to West. Nityananda went to certain places, and to certain places he did not go. Like the West. Is that not in accordance with his nature?



Sri Ananga-manjari-samputika of Ramacandra Gosvami: