Is anyone here qualified to be a guru? - The minimum qualifications of a diksha-guru

May Srimati Radharani bestow her grace on Betalji and help her on her path of discovery, that is my prayer. Finding a guru is certainly a big part of that journey, and I fervently ask Radharani that Betalji will soon meet someone who incarnates the direction she should take in spiritual life.

Jai Radhe!

Well, I don't see what the italicized comments above have to do with staying loyal to Iskcon. Where is there a connection between the two?

Thanks for your blessings Jagat, but who says I'm in the market for a guru?

Knowingly or unknowingly, everyone is in the market for a guru. But perhaps you could clarify a little more what it is that really draws you to this site.


Perhaps it's not all the same thing. Do you have any idea? What do you really want, Betalji?

Well, since I'm not welcome I will no longer participate here.

You misunderstand. You are welcome. We just want you to GIVE a little of yourself.

I don't get the impression that you think of us as friends. That makes it hard for us to warm up to you. It may be the fault of the medium, or it may be that you are young, but try to think about this.

I'd just like to parse this a little more, Betalnutji. Not so long ago you wrote to me in a PM asking about the verse sajAtIyAzaye snigdhe sAdhau saGgaH svato vare.

Now what we are trying to do here, for better or worse, is created a sangha, a place where people can learn from friendly (snigdha) individuals of like mind (sajAtiyAzaya), who have some knowledge, insight or experience that we don't (svato vare).

In other words, coming here should, as far as possible, be a devotional activity in itself--sadhu sanga.

My assumption is, despite your "veiling" of yourself, that you have some common interests with the people who come here (sajatiya), or you would not come nor have any questions. You must also assume that some of the people here know more than you (svato vare), and can help you with your need to know certain things, or you would not ask them questions.

Now these people are also friendly (snigdha), because they take time out of their busy lives, where time is money, to answer questions, or to research answers, for others they only know through this forum. They ask for little or nothing in return, except perhaps some appreciation for their efforts.

But "snigdha" is not a one-way street. Now, how does one show "snigdha" when one has little or nothing to give? It's fairly easy. In English, one uses words like, "Please, thank you, sorry, excuse me." You know these words, I am sure.

Friendship is marked by exchanges : giving and receiving (dadAti pratigRhNAti), sharing exchanges of thought , information about oneself (guhyam Akhyati pRcchati), sharing food (bhuGkte bhojAyate). Now I can tell you frankly, I found your attitude about the profiles, which was an outright refusal to share, petulant if not outright unfriendly. And this comment


is pure childishness, especially in view of what I have already said above.

You have probably heard in the time you have associated with devotees that we all need the mercy of Guru and the Vaishnavas to make spiritual progress. I can honestly tell you that even if you take Madhava and myself out of the picture, you have a number of Vaishnavas who are regularly visiting and posting (some not) here who are perfectly capable of acting as guru.

You are welcome, you are most welcome, to partake. But please show us a little more of what it takes besides intellectual curiosity.

Jai Radhe !

Qui aime bien, châtie bien.

Perfectly capable of acting as guru in what capacity?

For example, in the capacity of being able to address your questions in accordance with the siddhAnta of the sampradAya.

Thankyou for clarifying that.
I just wanted to make sure he didn't mean anything like diksa guru.
Guru in the sense of being able to repeat what they've read - fine.

"In the sense of being able to repeat what they've read" - How about being able to understand what they've learned and present it in a meaningful way?

Why could he not mean dIkSA-guru, too? Do you have any grounds for judging whether someone here is qualified to give dIkSA?

No. And that is precisely why I would not assume that anyone on here is qualified to be one.

Well that's a peculiar way to look at it.

I have no grounds for assessing the qualifications of the professors at Cambridge, so therefore I would not assume that any of them are qualified for being the headmaster.

Is that a sensible line of reasoning? The best you can assume is that you have no idea.

Yes. I have no idea. I wonder if Jagat also can tell whether some one on here is qualified to be guru or not, and if he has not the vision either way, why did he say emphatically that there are definitely people here that are?

Well, I'd say that he might have some vision there, being a practitioner since over 30 years, having associated with dozens of sadhus and gurus, and having extensively studied both the writings of the gauDIya-AcAryas and the older texts. I'd say that adds up to something.

What is the qualification for anything?

If you know something then teach it. If you know more than the student then you can guide upto your ability. If someone knows more than you, then learn from them. That's all.

There will always be oneupmanship about, who is the most advanced? Or Who knows the most? Or Who is the most devoted? Whatever.

As far as dIkSa is concerned. We already established that the essence of it is the giving of the mantra and that one is connected to a Vaisnava who gave that mantra to them.

So the simple answer to who can be dIkSa guru is that person who has the mantra, and has received it from a Vaisnava. Simple.

All other considerations are matters of opinion as to who is advanced or knowledgable, etc.

Keshava

Yes, I agree. It does add up to something.

Keshava, isn't one qualification for guru "brahma nistham". Then I would say it is much more than just a case of having received a mantra. So many people in this world have received mantras. Does that qualify all of them for guruship? If I were to receive a mantra tomorrow would that qualify me? Then Jagat could also include me in his list of those on here who are qualified. If all there was to it was being a recipient of mantra then there would be no need for ADP to write a book called "guru-tattva vigyan". Being a recipient of mantra qualifies one to be a disciple, not a guru.

Well, obviously having to have received a mantra is one of the very elementary and fundamental aspects of qualification for being a dIkSA-guru. Obviously it is a good idea to choose a guru who is qualified to also instruct you in regards to the deity of the mantra, your relationship with the deity, and all that.

But qualification is not a black-and-white thing. Sri Radha is the most qualified, and down from there everyone is less qualified to various degrees. One who has bhava is less qualified than the premika-bhakta, and the one with ruci is still of a lower qualification, and so forth.

I understand your point. At the same time I do not know how or why my posts on this thread prompted Jagat to say that there are many members on here that are qualified to be guru. It struck me as very odd and out of place. Perhaps he was hinting that I should look to the members of this forum as my respectable gurus/superiors? Other than that I cannot fathom what was his point as this thread originally had nothing to do with the topic of "guru" per se. Also, he may be of the opinion that members of this forum are qualified to be gurus. He has that right. But in the end he has to realize it is his opinion only.

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't harm you if you saw some of the experienced and learned vaishnavas here as your superiors from whom you have a lot to learn, and showed respect accordingly.

I believe his post had more to do with you and these forums overall than it did with specifically this thread.

Yes, I agree 100% with what you are saying.

This is my only point. (sorry are you and I discussing something from another thread?)

In regard to dIkSa ONLY. The absolute minimum qualification for a dIkSa guru is that s/he have received the mantra that they intend to give (and according to NP they should not be NON-Vaisnavas which in context just means they also have dIkSa from a Vaisnava).

That's all I am saying.

I do agree that in practice one should look for the most qualified person available. But sometimes the first person you meet and who you take dIkSa mantra from is not the most qualified.

Keshava

Again let me clarify my ONLY point.

To be a dIkSa guru, the absolute minimum qualification is to have dIkSa.

To give it you have to have it.

Regarding "brahma nistham". Actually one could interpret this in many ways since it simply means "fixed in brahman". Not in itself a necessarily Vaisnava quality. But be that as it may, brahma nistham and other terms can be bandied about as much as you like. No one will agree. The only absolute thing that people agree on is that one has to have the mantra in order to give it.

You say so many have received mantras. OK

Does it qualify them. Yes, it is the minimum qualification.

Many books have been written about the qualifications but none of them contradict this basic fact.

In other words what is the defining thing (laksana) without which one may not be a dIkSa guru. The answer is dIkSa itself.

You say "Being a recipient of mantra qualifies one to be a disciple, not a guru."

On the contrary, the usual system is that the guru and sisya observe each other for sometime and then enter into a relationship which leads to dIkSa. Sure a sisya is always a sisya in relation to his guru (some famous exceptions to this like Ramanuja and Madhva aside).

but:

diksa kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana
sei-kale krsna tare kore atma-sama

"At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself."

One who actually takes dIkSa in this way becomes a Vaisnava, in Krsna's words as good as Himself and therefore has the minimum qualification to give dIkSa.

Regarding the practical search for a guru with more than the minimum qualification. Here is a story. (OK, its from Sri Sampradaya, so sue me!)

Kuresha was a disciple of Ramanujacarya. One day his wife gave birth to two sons. Kuresha immedately thought, "I must present these babies to the master so that they may be initiated into the sacred mantra" "Even though they are just born, life in this world is as fragile as water on a lotus leaf" So he immediately took the babies and headed for the Mutt of his master. Upon arriving there Sripad Ramanuja enquired from him. "Kuresha, why have you come here and why have you brought these small babies?" Kuresha told his master why he had come but then added "On the way I began to fear something might happen to them on route to you. For in this world there is danger at every step. So I myself gave the mantra to them while on the way."


Keshava