Week 4 - Special Guru Seva -

I have to admit, I found this section a little confusing, especially in reference to our Week 1 discussion on The Principle of Sri-Sri Guru, and specifically the footnote in the Sri Manah Siksa commentary I posted there.

The implication in this section seems to be that the sadhaka that worships Sri Guru primarily (2nd paragraph, p. 21), as the main item of their bhajan, and the Lord as an auxiliary item of bhajan, is given more than the devotee that is fixed in worship of the Lord.

The implication of the footnote mentioned above is that one starts with worship of Sri Guru, and ends with worship of the Lord. What am I missing?

You may want to go over the Special service to guru recording from the "Teachings on Guru-tattva" entry at Vraja Journal, it discusses this very passage.

The difference here is primarily in the mood of the sadhaka. One engages in various practices of devotion, one among which is guru-seva. The second engages in guru-seva, which also includes various other practices of devotion.

Another angle to this is a more practical situation, where the needs of the guru may sometimes outshadow the various practices of devotion. In this regard, you may want to read the story of Ishvara Puri's selfless service to his guru until the very end.

There is no question of a "starts with ... ends with" logic. Guru is always there. As illustrated in a song of Thakur Mahashaya's:

Would someone like to take a crack at how vizeSa-sevA (special service) can also be sAmAnya-sevA (ordinary, common-place, general service)?

Of the two divisions of guru-seva presented in this section, we should note that while the latter, in which guru-seva predominates, is praised as especially meritious, the other is not dismissed either. After all, it is said:


When I asked about this, and I believe it's also somewhere in those mp3:s I linked to in an earlier post, Baba explained that this special service wasn't for everyone. Generally only some rare devotees would do so, and that it would certainly attract special mercy.

While for some, who are for example living at a distance from the guru, it may not be practically possible to constantly stay with the guru and render varieties of direct services to him, this instruction has been given to emphasize the importance of service to Sri Guru, and the importance of embracing the spirit of service to Sri Guru as an essential factor in the practice of bhakti.

Thanks. This puts it a little more in perspective. So, the tending to the needs of the guru is 'special' seva? I can see how this would be a rare thing. It is not easy to sublimate yourself to the needs and care of another. I was a little confused about what was meant by primary worship of the guru, but this now makes a lot more sense. I can also see how special guru-seva would be an incredibly powerful thing. You are making your every act an act of worship. Incredible mercy, but incredibly difficult!

Not only that. When that is there, and when it takes precedence as one's primary, root aspect of devotion, then that is known as special seva.

I apologise in advance for introducing a mundane consideration into this discussion, but the quotation above struck me as something that is a particularly male point of view. I have come across the view that Gaudiya Vaisnavism can be seen as merely the striving of men for entry into female psychological moods. Of course, from an absolute perspective, on the highest spiritual plane that may be true for all jivas if we are all to give up the purusa mentality and see ourselves as prakrti in relation to the Divine. But from a relative perspective (arguably the appropriate standpoint for the aspiring madhyama-adhikari when evaluating what is what), a psychological interpretation would be that some assumptions about what is "normal" in Gaudiya Vaisnavism are actually just "normal male" rather than "normal female" assumptions, rather than universal truths.

I am not making any criticism of DharmaChakra's comments or mood or anything personal - but I don't consider it to be universally true that taking care of others is very difficult. My guess is that if you did a survey of middle aged women, they would love to be busy for hours preparing a festive meal for their large extended family. Perhaps for women the difficult tasks are more often in knowing when to stop trying to satisfy the expectations and needs of others. (The posts on women who sleep with their gurus comes to mind here!)

So my question is how far does material psychology (to put it bluntly, the assumption that male psychology is the norm) shape the assumptions that underpin the philosophy of bhakti yoga?

Feminist philosophers have suggested that the dynamic of patriarchal societies is to posit the male viewpoint as the "norm", and the female viewpoint thereby becomes the aberrant, abnormal, anomalous, antithetical, atypical "other". Could this also be said of GV philosophy, in its assumptions about our desires and relations with others?

(If this is too off-topic please feel free to move it to a more appropriate section).

Kamala-ji
Very interesting post. Thanks for bringing these topics up! I can only speak for my personal experience, but I am the primary care provider for my two young children (my wife works late & travels often). I do find it difficult, but somehow I doubt it is because I am male. I think if anything its a process of acustomization. I simply become used to filling my children's needs, in fact often anticipating them, but I would not say its easy by any stretch.

I think the results of your survey would have to depend on the options. Would you prefer to be A. cooking a multi-course dinner for 12 people for 4 hours, or B. taking a relaxing bath & reading a book for 4 hours? Think a lot of women would chose A?

This gets to the bottom of my intent. Maybe I'm limited by my outlook, but I can't see how sublimating yourself to the needs of another completely, turning your every act for that person into an act of worship, is a simple or easy thing. Remember, you can not become angry or upset or have ill will towards the guru. In fact, you can not think of the guru as an ordinary person. To embue your every action with this attitude... how could it be easy?

I'm going to have to mull over your post for a bit. Its a great point...

I find that my wife often finds it difficult to take care of all that, even though there are only two of us in the family.

That is, she is chanting one lakh, doing her daily yogapith and smaran, puja, two aratis, kirtan and so forth. And on top of that, she cooks, cleans and so forth.

Balancing the two sometimes seems to be stressful to her. I can only imagine it is the same for someone who is dedicated in tending to the needs of the guru, especially if the guru is an elderly person who may have trouble moving around as easily as a younger person would.

Kamala, there are great points for us to consider. I agree completely the women generally have a much stronger advantage in terms of sacrificing themselves in the service of others. I live in a small community where the women clearly outperform the men, both spiritually and practically (but not financially!) And I see on a daily basis that my wife gives of herself to our children and household more than I ever could.

(For that matter, I've also been to different Hindu temples in the past where the men sit outside or around the back chatting about cricket, politics and business, while the women sing bhajans. Around ISKCON Vrindavan, there are also many more older women serious about bhajan and hearing katha than men.)

But the larger issue of male/female roles and stereotypes in GV probably warrants a thread unto itself.