Guru Tattva - I still don't understand

I have to confess that I still don't understand guru tattva, at least not this explanation of it:

sAkSAd-dharitvena samasta-zAstrair
uktas tathA bhAvyata eva sadbhiH
kintu prabhor yaH priya eva tasya
vande guroH zrI-caraNAravindam
Various translations.

(1) I worship the lotus feet of my spiritual master, who is said by all scriptures to be Lord Hari himself, and is indeed thought of that way by all the saints. But this identity is due to his being very dear to the Lord.

(2) According to the verdict of the revealed scriptures and saintly persons, the guru is honored as much as Krishna Himself, because he is dearmost servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master.

(3) All the revealed scriptures and saintly persons state that the guru is Krishna himself, but the guru is so glorified because he is the Lord’s dearmost servant and is thus authorized to engage in his most intimate service. I consider myself to be the servant of my spiritual master and offer my respectful obeisances to his lotus feet.

This is the way Puri Maharaj explains it: The Supreme Lord, the Param Brahma, Sri Krishna is the supreme object of devotion or the viSaya-vigraha. He has appeared in this world as the Azraya-vigraha, or reservoir of devotion for Krishna. He does so in order to show me by His personal example the path of devotional service. He is Krishna’s dearmost personal associate. He is none other than Krishna himself appearing to me as guru.

This is the way we should understand the tattva of the spiritual master. Otherwise, we may fall into the trap of equating the guru with God in every aspect, and thus give exclusive precedence to the worship of the spiritual master and neglect the worship of Krishna or any of his avatars, thinking that it has no importance.

There is something confusing about this explanation. What does it mean "Krishna appears as the ashraya vigraha"? Especially since he cites "Apani Acari dharma". Is this not a description of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? According to this explanation what would be the difference between Chaitanya and the guru?

I have my own understanding, but somehow I am not altogether happy with this one. Anyone like to comment?

Another verse is this one:

yasya sAkSAd bhagavati
jJAna-dIpa-prade gurau
martyAsad-dhIH zrutaM tasya
sarvaM kuJjara-zaucavat

O King! The spiritual master, the giver of transcendental knowledge, is directly the Supreme Lord Himself, His prakAza-vigraha. If someone has the false idea that he is an ordinary human being, a mere mortal, then all his study of scripture is as useless as the bathing of an elephant. (7.15.26)

Vishwanath's commentary says sAkSAd-bhagavatIti bhagavad-aMza-buddhir api gurau na kAryeti bhAvaH | -- "You are not to think of the guru even as a portion of Krishna, but as Krishna Himself--sAkSAt bhagavAn."

I realize that we are talking mystery here, but this is a problematic issue. This is shown later in Puri Maharaj's article where he speculates that the following verse is interpolated.

avidyo vA sa-vidyo vA
gurur eva janArdanaH
mArgastho vApy amArga-stho
gurur eva sadA gatiH

Whether ignorant or learned, the spiritual master is God Himself. Whether on the path or off it, the spiritual master alone is always our refuge. (HBV 4.359, Aditya Purana)

I know these are old issues that never seem to get resolved (just look at the current arguments on Chakra). I just happen to be doing this stuff right now.

Very interesting verse indeed. Thanks.
We chant this verse and the following one (SB 7.15.27):

eSa vai bhagavAn sAkSAt pradhAna puruSezvaraH
yogezvarair vimRgyAGghrir loko vai manyate naram

regularly in our daily prayers at all Sri Kripaluji Maharaj's ashrams.
And their important meaning is very much stressed to the sadhaka.
I liked Sri Puri Maharaj's explanation in this regard.

Brghumuni makes a statement in As Good As God to the effect that Jiva Goswami was uncomfortable with the equating of guru with God and thus presents three different explanations of it. I'll try to post the exact comments later.

Brahma Samhita text 45

ksiram yatha dadhi vikara-visesa-yogat
sanjayate na hi tatah prthag asti hetoh
yah sambhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad
govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction.


From Bhaktisiddhantas purport with my additions

The supremacy of Sambhu is subservient to that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. (just like the Guru represents God and is the subservient potency i.e puppet of God and therefore non different then God ) The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. This personality has no independent initiative. The sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency.( exactly the same as a jiva )



Then again ultimately everything is manifesting the will of God, so when we can see in this way then everything is able to reveal it's true nature as being non different then God, although there is the concept of one and different as well, still the difference doesn't negate the oneness.

The Vaisnava Guru is God for the beginner and middle stage devotee, for the devotee who has come to the end stage everything is God, God is seen to directly control and manifest everything at all times, beginners are advised to see God in the diety or the sastra or the Guru, but ultimately God is everything, the devotee giving instruction is only Guru until the goal is reached of direct dealing with Radha Krsna i.e Paramatma, then the Guru is shown to have been a conduit for Radha Krsna.

Then again Guru can be seen as God incarnate in the sense that the Maha Bhagavata devotee is dealing directly with Radha Krsna and therefore he is directly more God then lesser Guru's who may not be on that stage, they may have a great deal of knowledge but not be dealing directly with Paramatma, they are still Guru if they are sincerely doing the service of their Guru in a bona fide line of teachings, but they are not the same as a Guru who is dealing directly with God, that Guru is considered God because He is like a person with a telephone to God, you can ask questions and he can have the answer given to Him as if He was on the phone to God, He is a pure channeler or medium and is always in touch with Paramatma.

I like this verse from the Devahuti-stava in Padma Purana, quoted in HBV 4.358:



Sorry about the sloppy first draft of this translation. What I like about this verse is the belief in the power of truth on the one hand, and the conviction that the statement is true on the other.

This belief in the power of truth is what is behind Gandhi's satyAgraha. What I liked about it also was that it is Devahuti, a woman, who says this. This is, from the Puranas, a particularly female power. Gandhi's approach to non-violent action is often said to be a particularly feminine approach, and so this struck a chord with me.

It's the same kind of power that the pativratA ziromaNi has:


Which, I guess, brings us back to Adiyen's point about dying for one's faith.

I like it too! This is similar to the verse:

yasya deve para bhaktir yathA deve tathA gurau
tasyaite kathitA hyarthAH prakAzyante mahAtmanaH

Svetasvataropanishad 6.23

If one has supreme devotion to God,
and for one's teacher as much as for God,
to this one these teachings which have been declared
may become manifest in a great soul,
yes, may become manifest in a great soul.

This verse from NBS gives endorsement:

tasmin tajjne bhed AbhAvAt (N.B.S.41)

And Lord Krishna confirms this in Bhagavatam -

AcAryaM mAM vijAnIyAn
nAvamanyeta karhicit
na martya buddhyA sUyeta
sarva devamayo guruH

(Bhagavatam 11.17.27)

I found that verse in Padma Purana (6.128.269) where the wording is slightly different:

bhaktir yathA harau me'sti
tad-variSThA gurau yadi |
mamAsti tena satyena
svaM darzayatu kezavaH ||269||

If my devotion to my guru is even stronger that my devotion for Lord Hari, then may this truth cause Lord Hari to reveal himself to me.

This makes me think of that verse from Padma Purana:

aradhananam sarvesam
visnor aradhanam param
tasmat parataram devi
tadiyanam samarcanam

Parvati asks Siva: "Of all kinds of worship, whose worship is best?" Siva replies, "The worship and devotional service of Lord Narayana, Visnu, is the highest." Devi, disappointed, thinks, "But I am serving Siva, so I hold a lower position." But then Siva, smiling says: "But higher than the worship of Narayana is worship of the devotees of Lord Narayana. That is even greater than devotion to the Lord Himself."

Krsna confirms this in the Adi Purana:

ye me bhakta-janah partha
ne me bhaktas ca te janah
mad bhaktanam ca ye bhaktas
te me bhaktatama matah

"Those who worship Me directly are not real devotees; real devotees are those who are devoted to My devotees."

- "If you love me, love my dog." Surely, the true guru is the most faithful servant of the Lord.

Brahmanda bramite kona bhagyavana jiva
Guru-krsna-prasade paya bhakti-lata-bija

C.C. Madhyalila, 19.151

"According to their karma, all living entities are wandering throughout the entire universe. Some of them are being elevated to the upper planetary systems, and some are going down into the lower planetary systems. Out of many millions of wandering living entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a Rasik Saint by the grace of Krsna.
By the mercy of both Krsna and the Saintly Preceptor, such a person receives the seed for the vine of Divine Love."

tate krsna bhaje, kare gurura
maya-jala chute, paya krsnera carana

"If the surrendered soul engages in the loving service of the Lord and follows the sadhana given by his/her Divine Preceptor and faithfully serves him, he/she can get out of the clutches of maya and become eligible for shelter at Krsna’s lotus feet."

guru krsna-rupa hana sastrera pramane
gure-rupe krsna krpa karena bhakta-gane

C.C. Adilila, 1.45

"According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master himself is another form of Lord Krsna.
Lord Krsna Himself in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees."

siksa-guruke ta jani krsnera svarupa
antaryami, bhakta-srestha, -- ei dui rupa

C.C. Adi, 1.4]

"One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna, Lord Krsna manifests Himself in both forms, one as the 'Antaryami', Supersoul, and as the Rasik Saint, the pure devotee of the Lord."

jive saksat nahi tate guru caitya-rupe
siksa-guru haya krsna-mahanta-svarupe

C.C. Adi, 1. 58

"Since the seeking soul cannot visually experience the Divinity of the Lord as the Supersoul, He appears before the surrendered soul in the form of a Rasik Saint.
Such a Divine Preceptor is none other than Krsna Himself."

Off course I’m not underestimating your vast understanding; for me SVCT answers it in the very next verse:

yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasado
yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto 'pi
dhyayan stuvams tasya yashas trisandhyam
vande guroh sri-charanaravindam

“By the mercy of the spiritual master one receives the benediction of Krsna. Without the grace of the spiritual master, one cannot make any advancement. Therefore, I should always remember and praise the spiritual master. At least three times a day I should offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of my spiritual master.”

If the mercy of Guru is the vehicle to attract Bhagavam than It is Bhagavam’s energy and is not different from Him. Therefore, "vande guroh sri-charanaravindam".

Srila Jiva Gosvami in his 'Bhakti Sandarbha' (216/5) said:

'zuddha bhaktAH zriguroH zri zivasya ca bhagavatAsaha !
abheda dRSTiM tat priyatamatve naiva manyante'

Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur introduces his comment in the following way: “In this verse, the Lord decries the person who rejects the spiritual master like foolish pauper who throws a chintamani gem into the mud.”

Saraswati Thakur has also made a nice comment (slightly embellished):


This is, by the way, Haribhaktivilasa 1.31. The first verse about guru-tattva in HBV (1.28) is the following:



Succinctly summarizes a great deal.

The prayers presented bellow, originally in Hindi and said to be from a woman (a policewoman) in honor of her spiritual master, seem laden with realizations of the dependent position of the disciple. Guru, however, is independent, and thus is in a position to bestow kripa.

Gurudeva kripa karke mujhko apana lena
Mai sarana pada teri, carano me jagaha dena

Gurudeva, bestow your mercy on me and accept me as your own. I have taken shelter of you. Please give me a place at your lotus feet.

Karuna-nidhi nama tera, karuna barasao tum
Soye huye bhagya ko, he natha jagao tum
Meri nava bhavara dole, use para laga dena

Please shower your mercy on me because you are renowed as a storehouse of mercy. Oh my lord, only then will my sleeping fortune wake up. My boat is caught in a whirlpool. Please take me across this turbulent ocean.

Tum such ke sagara ho, bhakti ke sahare ho
Mere man me samae ho, mujhe prano se pyare ho
Nita mala japu teri, mere dosa bhula dena

You are the ocean of happiness and shelter for bhakti. You are dearer to me than my life and are always on my mind. I chant your name every day. Please ignore my faults.

Mai santo ka sevaka hu, guru carano ka dasa hu
Nahi natha bhulana mujhe, is jaga me akela hu
Tere dvar ka bhikhari hu, nahi dil se bhula dena

I am a servant of the Vaisnavas and of the lotus feet of my Guru. Please do not forget me because I am all alone, O lord. I am a beggar at your door. Please do not ignore me.

Since I am doing this anyway... Most of you have probably memorized this verse already. As a matter of fact, these verses about guru-tattva are probably the most familiar ones to all of us. The commentaries given here may be less familiar, though I am sure some of you will have heard them before.



Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur comments here that one must take shelter of a guru who has understood the purport of the scriptures (zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM), that is, the Vedas and the subsequent literatures that expand on the meaning of the Veda, such as the Gita and Bhagavatam. If the spiritual master is not fully knowledgeable and expert in these scriptures, he will not be able to rid the disciple of his doubts. As a result, when the disciple becomes inattentive, his faith might become weak. The text can also be read as pare brahmaNi ca niSNAtaM (as the adjective pare “supreme” can be used to modify either zAbde or brahmaNi), in which case it means that the spiritual master should have direct experience of the Supreme Brahman, or Krishna. Without such direct spiritual realization of transcendence, the spiritual master’s blessings will not be effectual. The proof that the spiritual master has attained expertise in transcendental matters and has direct experience of the spiritual realm is that he is not under the spell of the urges like lust, anger and greed. This is the meaning of upazamAzrayam.

Commenting on the words upazamAzrayam in HBV 1.32, Sanatan Goswami offers the following alternative explanation:



Such a topmost Vaishnava is worthy to be taken as spiritual master.


Observe that knowledge of the scriptures is considered necessary in order to erase the doubts of the disciple. I think it is quite important here to consider that scripture is not simply the original Veda. Throughout our sampradaya's history, there have been new revelations and additions to the corpus of knowledge about Krishna--the realizations of Rupa and Sanatan, Visvanatha and Baladeva--all contribute to the armaments that can be used in the fight against despair. The loss of faith means despair.

Nowadays, for a Western Vaishnava, it is not sufficient to say something like, "If you don't wash your anus seven times with clay and water after passing stool, you will take birth as a worm in stool for ten million lifetimes." You are far better off explaining things in terms of hygiene and ritual purity. My point is that the capacity to remove doubts may require more than simply traditional knowledge.

The verse I quoted elsewhere, taken from Sridhar Swami's Bhavartha-dipika, about the guru's being able to explain in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and local dialects was interesting. Perhaps the meaning is that one is able to explain in a variety of languages--not just languages like Sanskrit, Finnish or French, but also the languages of anthropology, sociology, or psychology.

Faith is about meaning. If something is meaningful to us, we have faith in it. We have faith in the guru because our relationship with him (or her) is meaningful.

Now aparokshanubhuti is another, probably more important element. Vishwanath says that it means the power to give blessings, or at least it is the source of that power. (Sridhar says that it means the ability to produce understanding.) The deeper one has contact with the spiritual source of all things, the root of which we are all branches, the more capacity one has to see the disciple as a person, as an individual, and thus speak directly to that disciple meaningfully.

The third characteristic is taken by Sridhar and Vishwanath as external evidence of the other two. Jiva Goswami (BhaktiS 202), however, who says this verse is about the sravana-guru, not the diksha guru (though he mentions it in that connection later) only explains the first two characteristics:






This Fourth Canto verse is a real jewel. It seems that Jiva is saying that this verse defines the same characteristics of the guru found in the other. OK, alam!

Jai Guru.

To my sweet surprise I have been hearing many times the same verse including the commentaries at Sri Kripaluji Maharaj's lectures in Hindi given world wide.
Another verse SB 11-2-37 is also very much repeated.

bhayaM dvitIyAbhi nivezataH
svAdIzAdapetasya viparyayo'smRtiH
tanmAyayAto budha AbhajettaM
bhaktaikayezaM gurudevatAtmA

Another good site to learn more about 'Guru tattva' :

http://www.hinduism.org.za/guru.htm

Questioner: Sri Aurobindo and others refer to you as having
had no Guru.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It all depends on what you call a Guru. He need not be in a human form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus including the five elements- earth, water, etc. Every object in this world was his Guru.

The Guru is absolutely necessary. The Upanishads say that
none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of intellect and sense perceptions. So there must be a Guru.

Questioner: I mean a human Guru- Maharshi did not have one.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: I might have had one at one time or other. But did I not sing hymns to Arunachala? What is a Guru? Guru is God or the Self. First a man prays to God to fulfil his desires.
A time comes when he will no more pray for the fulfilment of
material desires but for God Himself. God then appears to him in some form or other, human or non-human, to guide him to Himself in answer to his prayer and according to his needs.

Question: When loyal to one master can you respect others?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru is only one. He is not physical.
So long as there is weakness the support of strength is needed.

Questioner: J.Krishnamurti says, "No Guru is necessary."

Sri Ramana Maharshi: How did he know it? One can say so
after realising but not before.

Question: Can Sri Bhagavan help us to realise truth?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Help is always there.

I am afraid I disagree with this. To say Guru is everywhere is like saying that my father is everywhere. Anyone who says, "I have no father" is an ingrate. Certainly, after one has been born, one grows and changes, one may leave the home of the father and move on. This never changes the fact that one has a father.

No one comes in touch with the divine without having received some glimpse of it in the human.

The trouble comes when we doubt the guru's humanity. Then we pretend that God came to us without him. That is not the solution. The solution is to accept both the God that came, and the humanity of the guru, along with his failings.

We have exaggerated expectations of the guru. If the guru is God, then why doesn't he have four hands? We say that to see the guru as human is a flaw, and yet we see that those who are claiming to be gurus, or are honored as gurus, have become gurus out of nothing, ex nihilo. They say Guru is everywhere--except in the human form from which the seed of faith came to them. I like the Bengali term "bhui-phonra."

This is why most of us here, who have moved into this circle of traditional Vaishnavism, have a problem with the issue of disciplic succession. When one fails to show gratitude, it is like plagiarism, like stealing. The failure to recognize the guru or disciplic succession is a breach in the chain of gratitude. And I am afraid this is quite simply wrong.

And remember: There are many rich thieves in the world. But Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati said it himself:

mAdhavendra purI bhAva ghare curi
na karilo kabhu sadAi jAnabo

My spiritual master, Srila Lalita Prasad Thakur, instilled me a deep sense of outrage. Those in the Gaudiya Math cannot understand what he was so mad about. I do.

As often happens, there is a crossover of issues. The previous posts show me where my conservatism lies, where I draw the line, as it were.

But Braja Mohanji also brought up the issue of scientific and religious knowledge. I was just thinking about this same subject in connection with the Bhagavata 11.3.21 above, which says zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM brahmaNy upazamAzrayam. My own reading of the verse sees only two items, rather than three: (1) zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM, and (2) brahmaNy upazamAzrayam. But I agree with the commentaries that divide the two elements into roughly the same scientific and religious categories.

The first, scriptural knowledge, which I wished to expand beyond what we customarily call "revealed knowledge" belongs to the category of "scientific knowledge." This is why Sridhar and Vishwanath specify that this expertise gives the capacity to eradicate the disciple's doubts. My point was that in the present day context, learning requires more than reference to scriptural authority alone. Of course, as anyone can see from my own postings, the scriptural tradition remains the primary source that gives shape to the spiritual conception; anything else naturally tries to understand and deepen faith in that conception.

The latter, or parokSAnubhUti, is covered by my (2). This is "religious knowledge." This is the realm of experience and human character. This is the inexplicable aspect of spiritual life, the ineffable aspect.

The Bhagavatam catuHslokI says

etAvad eva jijJAsyAM
tattva-jijJAsunAtmanaH
anvaya-vyatirekAbhyAM
yat syAt sarvatra sarvadA

This idea of anvaya and vyatireka is also in Bhagavata 1.1.1. There are two ways of knowing: the direct (religious) and indirect (scientific). To eliminate one or the other sides of this equation results in imbalance. At the same time, the tension between the two ways of knowing guarantees an inevitable progression, call it a dialectic if you will.

But the guru doctrine (which means that the locus of spiritual realization is placed in the present time, and NOT in the past) automatically means that the guru (no matter how conservative!) is somewhere on this line of dialectic progression.

What was he so mad about? What was/is outrageous? Would you care to elaborate on this, Jagadananda das?

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's diksha guru is not recognized by the Gaudiya Math. They accept Bhaktivinoda Thakur as a guru in their disciplic succession, but not his guru. This is called ardha-kukkuti-nyaya.

If I said, I accept Bhaktivedanta Swami, but not Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, that would sound odd, wouldn't it?

We try to avoid talking about these things very much, to avoid ruffling too many feathers. Nevertheless, I think that most people from the Gaudiya Math or Iskcon who come here are aware of this.

As I said, I offer credit where it is due, but I know that my guru was not pleased at this and there was a lot of bad feeling as a result. And still whenever it comes up, there is bad feeling. So we'd rather not talk about it, but it will always be there--a break in the chain of gratitude. This is basically the main reason we are here and not there, though of course there are other things involved.

If you are interested, you can read this article: Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami

Or this one: The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru' haya

C.C.

kiba--whether; vipra--a brahmana; kiba--whether; nyasi--a sannyasi; sudra--a sudra; kene--why; naya--not;
yei--anyone who; krsna-tattva-vetta--a realized saint of the essence of Krsna; sei--that person; guru--the spiritual master;
haya--is.

Whether one is a learned brahmana, or a renounced sannyasi
or a low caste sudra--
regardless of what he is--he is a Spiritual Master
if he, the Rasik Saint, has realized the essennce (Rasa tattva) of Krsna.

Krishna Tattva is Krishna Prema Rasa. Vetta is a realized Saint.

as declared in the Upanishadic verse:

...upadekSyaMti te jnAnaM jnAninas tattva darzinaH - Gita 4.34

... zrotriyaM brahma niSTham - Mundaka 1.2.12

...zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM brahmaNyupazamAzrayam ....Srimad Bhagavatam- 11.3.21

...iti veda sa vai vidvAn yo vidvAn sa gurur hariH .. 4.29.51