Week 1 - The Principle of Sri-Sri Guru -

Thread for this section of the week 1 reading.

I thought it would be helpful to type in Sri Ananta das Babaji's commentary on Sri Manah Siksa verse 2, which appears in this section. I've only included the parts of the commentary relavant to the quoted section.

In this section, commenting on Sripad Visvanatha's famous sAkSAd dharitvena samasta-zAstrair -verse, Baba writes:


Any thoughts on the guru's "being perceivable" as the dearmost devotee, and yet the disciple's vision of him being of something more? This touches an important point in the proper understanding of the theology of guru-tattva.

The commentary on Sri Manah Siksa (quoted directly before Sripad Visvanatha's verse) quotes Sri Jiva's Bhakti Sandharba (213) saying that the pure devotee sees the guru as nondifferent from Krsna 'on the strength' of the guru being Krsna's dearmost beloved. This seems to imply that the disciple sees guru as nondifferent from Krsna, and the pure devotee understands why the guru is nondifferent, because the guru is Krsna's beloved.

The way I read the passage is that objectively speaking, ie. in the eyes of the others, the guru may be seen as a bhagavad-priya-bhakta. And in truth, this is what the guru is for those who are not his disciples.

However, for the disciples, Bhagavan himself manifests in the persona of that guru, and this manifestation is known as vyAsti-guru, or the localized appearance of samAsti-guru, Sri Krishna as the guru of all.

The difference in the two perceptions, both valid, is that the disciples see guru as a priya-bhakta who is a manifestation of Bhagavan, in particular his faculty of grance. guru kRSNa-rUpa hana zAstrera pramANe, guru-rUpe kRSNa kRpA karena bhakta-gaNe. "Guru is a form of Krishna, that is proven by the scriptures. In the form of guru, Krishna bestows his grace upon the devotees."

These couple of verses in the first chapter of Adi-lila in Chaitanya-caritamrita are very instructive. Everyone should have a look at them.

Ok, I was initially a little confused, but after writing a long post and then scratching it, I think I've gotten a little understanding. Is it that the disciple has to see the guru as non-different from Krsna as a matter of not committing an offence, but the pure devotee can see/understand the action of Krsna's grace coming through the guru, and then can really see the guru as nondifferent from Krsna? Note, I'm using information from the Mana Siksa commentary here. I hope everyone reads it, as its relevant to the conversation.

In that case, is the comment of others seeing the guru as bhagavad-priya-bhakta directed not as a comment on pure devotees, but an instruction (if you will) to Vaisnavas on how to look at and respect one in the role of guru?

It is not only a matter of not committing offence. It is a matter of opening a direct current of power from Sri Krishna. Baba said, "If you do not think like this, how will that power come?" Through the disciple's faith, the direct channel of grace opens through the medium of the guru, and through that potency all success is attained. However, for someone who does not view the guru as a manifestation of Krishna's grace, even if initiated, this powerful relationship will not manifest.

Therefore we have statements such as guru-kRpA hi kevalam, "The grace of the guru is the only means." And indeed, yasya prasAdad na gatiH kuto'pi, without that saving grace our goal won't be reached.

The non-difference should not be understood as absolute unity in identity. The guru will not play the flute and dance with the gopis. It is understood as a qualified non-difference, as unity of hearts and intent, and so forth.



Yes, that is understood as an instruction to all Vaishnavas.

In this vein, I would like to add that one should not see only the diksha-guru as a manifestation of Bhagavan's mercy nondifferent from him. The same applies for the siksha-guru. The evidence for this is there in the Chaitanya-caritamrita, the section mentioned earlier on. The relevant verses:





Two more points I would like to mention:

1. One should see the gentle-hearted, advanced and learned Vaishnavas, who are affectionate towards oneself and instruct one in the mysteries of bhajana, as siksha-gurus and regard and respect them in accordance with the principles of guru-tattva delineated herein.

2. One should not think that the eminent diksha-guru is not a siksha-guru as well; Rupa Goswami has taught, kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSAnam, that one accepts diksha and subsequent instructions in the matter of worship from the guru.

I would like to add my thoughts on this section as well, to see if I am on the right track or completely barking up the wrong tree. The picture I am getting from SGTV and the discussions that have taken place so far is as follows:

For the disciple, Sri Guru is non-different from Krsna. For those who have not received diksa or siksa from him, a Guru is one of many sadhus/bhaktas. Now, if I have understood correctly, the reasoning behind the Guru being Krsna for the disciple is something along the following lines.

The disciple receives siksa and/or diksa from the Guru. Receiving these gems allows the disciple to deepen their relationship with Krsna and and since this is not possible unless Krsna's grace is there, Sri Guru is essentially the very embodiment of Krsna's grace. In this sense, Guru is Krsna. Continuing along this line of thought, can we also say that Guru is Krsna's grace, and if Krsna's grace is there then eventually we are bound to attain Krsna. Therefore Guru is (as good as) Krsna?

Having reached this conclusion, it seems reasonable to say (as Srimad Bhagavata does in 11.17.27) "do not find faults in him...". But I wonder, how far should the disciple go in applying this? I am thinking of cases where the Guru 'falls' and in a really major way at that. Of course, we would say that the Guru probably wasn't qualified to be a Guru in the first place because if he was, he would not have fallen under the control of the shad-ripu. Nevertheless, these cases do take place. Let's say there is a sincere disciple, who has taken diksa from a Guru thinking them to be perfectly qualified. They have seen them as Krsna and have avoided finding faults with the Guru. But, the Guru then seriously 'falls' in some way or another. What is the disciple to do in this sort of case? To what extent does one apply the "do not find faults..." principle?

Any thoughts would be most welcome, and please accept my apologies for the rambling nature of this post.

Read the first paragraph of 'The Characteristics of a Sad-Guru'. You will see that when the devotee has cleansed their heart, and bhakti has fully awakened, and 'who have become ornamented by the saintly qualities such as compassion and kindness'*, by Sri Krsna's wish the guru-potency emanates from Him (Krsna) and appears within the heart of this bhakta, whom then becomes a guru.

As for the guru being 'as good as' Krsna, see the footnote to the Sri Mana Siksa commentary I posted above. While one may see the guru as non-different from Krsna, the guru is still a special manifestation of Krsna, and can not/does not take the place of Krsna. The footnote simply states that one always worships the guru first, Krsna second

*Its interesting to note (and I'll bring this up in the appropriate thread) that not all saints may manifest these qualities?

Just for reference, and for the sake of being a nerd, may I ask where that sastric quote comes from, as well as who is zrI BaGkabihAri VidyAlaGkara?

Right. Yes, I didn't mean that Guru takes the place of Krsna and Krsna becomes redundant, but instead was trying to understand the reasoning behind the idea that the disciple should consider the Guru to be Krsna. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Incidentally, is Baba's commentary on Sri Manah Siksa published as a separate book? Where can I get a copy?

Its contained in Sri Sri Stavavali Volume 1 & 2 - available through loibazaar.com - tho Braja doesn't have it listed. Just pm him & ask about it. Hardcover, ~$20 if I remember correctly