Last fall, Malati Manjari dd was asked by Srila Acharyadeva to transcribe relevant parts of his lectures and interviews and organize them into an anthology. Thus, for approximately one year, she has been transcribing his material and categorizing them into various topics.  Malati has explained that she is especially focusing on Acharyadeva's special interests, such as Indian and Western philosophy (including ontology, epistemology, hermeneutics), Vedic culture, history, religion, the guru topic, and many others.  We must also recognize the services of Varshana dd, who is contributing as an editor, along with several others who are assisting with transcription work.  Keep up the great work team!  If anyone else is interested in helping with transcription work, please contact Malati at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

The following is an excerpt from the anthology, taken from the "Guru" category, listed under the subtitle of "Acharyas and Sastra": 

*

I agree that one must accept Guru and Shastra as fixed authorities. That's why it is so important that we give young devotees a reasonable, shastra-based understanding of these things. Many devotees teach a type of mythical, non-shastric concept of Guru and Shastra and this creates unnecessary conflict in the minds of intelligent, reasoning young devotees. That has been my common experience.
(Personal letter, August 16, 2009) 

The great Acharyas, like Srila Prabhupada, always claim to be representing the previous acharyas. If we study Prabhupada's statements, we find that often he said things like, "I may not be perfect, but I am following the perfect."  I certainly understand the difference between a great Acharya like Srila Prabhupada, and ourselves. In the sixth chapter of the NOD, Srila Prabhupada states that a devotee should follow in the footsteps of the great acharyas under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master. Prabhupada is the great acharya and we are trying to guide the devotees so that they can please Srila Prabhupada. All of us are followers of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada is saving all of us, and it is Srila Prabhupada who has the authority to establish the parameters for serving Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.  In 1980, when we, the GBC, had to deal with the first wave of Guru problems, we came to a firm, explicit, widely preached conclusion that a guru is bona fide only by following his guru, especially when one’s guru is the great Acharya. Thus we do not conceive that there is a competition between the GBC and the guru, but rather that by cooperating with the GBC, as Prabhupada has ordered us, we are obeying Prabhupada, and this is the entire basis of our service as gurus.  How can a guru claim to be absolute in the sense of being independent of the Acharya? By obeying the Absolute, one represents the Absolute. Otherwise, what authority do the young devotees have when we send them out to declare Prabhupada's teachings to the world?
(Personal letter, March-21-99)

In every relationship people have different expectations and if those expectations are reasonable and when they are met, there is a good relationship. We can clearly see in Prabhupada’s own life, that when he first came to the West, he had certain expectations of what a disciple would be and then he had to adjust those expectations. Prabhupada expected that when people made vows, they would keep them, whether it was a marriage vow, or an initiation vow.  I remember that Prabhupada was quite startled in the beginning of the movement when certain people not only didn’t keep their vows, but drastically changed their whole attitude. One example of Prabhupada adjusting his own expectation as a guru or Founder-Acarya is regarding marriages. In the beginning of the movement, Prabhupada personally arranged many marriages because he thought, here is a boy and there is a girl who claim to be surrendered to me, both say that all they want in life is to serve, so they can help each other serve!

As it turned out, in sociological terms, when people have very powerful conversion experiences, for a certain amount of time, they may be very zealous and idealistic and then this euphoria and spiritual ecstasy settles down and their human side resurfaces--and they have to deal with it.  So people made vows in the ecstasy of that new experience, which they couldn’t keep, whether marriage vows, initiation vows, or just vows to do a particular service.  So from the point of view of the guru, he was learning to have more reasonable expectations based on where and what the people are.

Also, what is a reasonable expectation for a disciple to have for the guru? What should a disciple think of the position of the guru? The simplest definition of a guru is one who is representing Krishna. Not only Krishna, but he is also representing the great Acaryas. In the 6th chapter of the NOD Prabhupada translating Rupa Goswami’s teachings says that the duty of a disciple is to follow in the footsteps of the great Acaryas under the guidance of a bonafide spiritual master.

A bonafide spiritual master doesn’t create a new way of Krishna Consciousness.  That is done by the great Acaryas. There is Acharya with a capital “A,” and acarya with a small “a.”  We all should be acaryas, but Prabhupada says that the great Acaryas are the ones who are guiding the whole direction of Vedic civilization.  The Acarya is the one who establishes the way to serve Krishna in a particular age, in a particular circumstance. A bonafide guru is helping the disciples to do what the guru is doing: to follow the Acarya. So everyone is following the great Acaryas and, naturally, those who are more experienced help those who are less experienced. That’s it, that’s my simple understanding. As I sometimes say, “I just work here.”

All of us, everyone here, helps other devotees who may be not as experienced as you in certain areas, to understand Krishna Consciousness better. So everyone is acting as a guru. Prabhupada referred about 200 times to the verse: yäre dekha, täre kaha 'kåñëa'-upadeça (Cc. Madhya 7.128). "Whomever you meet, tell them Krishna’s instruction and by My order become a guru”.

Prabhupada really insisted that every man and woman – children also -- should become gurus. What kind of guru, çikña or dékñä or vartmapradarçaka-guru, just depends upon your situation and the circumstances, but everyone should become a guru. Prabhupada considered that if you don’t become a guru, you are being selfish. In other words, being a guru is not a trophy, it is not a status symbol. It is about being willing to sacrifice a little bit of my selfish time, time when I do what I want to do and, instead, help other people.  So it is an act of giving. Prabhupada concluded that if you are a good person then you should help other people. And if you do that, then you are a guru.

Another point in the guru-disciple relationship is that the guru should be liberated, follow the principles and practice bhakti yoga. If he or she is doing that, then they are considered liberated as also explained in the Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu--but even liberated souls may still be works in progress. Prabhupada wrote to Professor Staal (in the course a conversation in 1970 that began when I approached the professor), that, “All my disciples are pure devotees.” What he meant by that was that they are giving their life and following all the principles. So in that sense, all of one’s activities are pure.

Prabhupada was, in a sense, behaviorally focused on what you were doing. If you had good intentions and were doing the right thing, then fine.

There is a tendency among certain people, who are not the brightest--especially outside of ISKCON--to try to base spiritual qualifications on esoteric, non-verifiable criteria. In other words, “My guru is the only pure devotee.” At the present time, I think there are only 38 living, pure devotees on the planet. However, Prabhupada gave us a spiritual science, and we say that this is not a sectarian religion, this is a spiritual science--but if you want to use that language, you have to be prepared to back it up.  As with any science, that means making claims, which can be publicly verified.  If I say, “Last night I was dancing with Krishna,” then my assertion is, “Prove that I wasn’t dancing with Krishna or let me try to prove that I was.” I can’t prove that I was, you can’t prove that I wasn’t, and in this world, as P.T. Barnum says, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  It is not that hard to find some “guru-pie” followers and form a little cult.

So if I say that, “ I am a pure devotee and I am seeing Krishna.  Prove that I am not seeing Krishna!” So this is not scientific. There is a statement by Prabhupada in his books where he says that the uttama-adhikäré or first class guru has three qualities and they are all verifiable.  They are not subjective. Therefore these three qualifications can be part of a spiritual science. They are (in random order):

    * The guru should have a thorough knowledge of scripture, really understand and present scripture in an expert way
    * The guru should be faithfully practicing bhakti-yoga
    * The guru should be a teacher

If you take any one of these three away, you’ve got a problem. If the guru knows the scripture very well and practices, but is not really inclined to teach and help people, then how can he be a guru?  If the guru is a teacher and is practicing but doesn’t know the scriptures very well, in that case, Prabhupada says he is a madhyama, a second class guru. Or, if the guru knows the scriptures and teaches, but doesn’t practice–that’s another problem. So from Prabhupada’s point of view, if a disciple is dedicated to his mission, the disciple has learned, in a mature, realized way, Prabhupada’s books, and is practicing, what more can you ask of someone, and did Prabhupada ask more than that? “Learn my books, practice and dedicate your life to teaching.” If someone is doing that, there is no other special qualification.

Among people who are following those qualifications, obviously you have to find someone that works for you in the sense that it has to be the right chemistry. One factor is that we bring a lot of baggage to our relationships. I’ve been doing this guru service for half my life now and a variety of people come into this relationship. If they have had a bad relationship with their father, suddenly, their guru becomes their father and all kinds of junk comes out. Some people are very needy. There are all kinds of psychologies. Some people do better in separation because they don’t fall into the familiarity-breeds-contempt trap and they need more independence and space. They flourish in a situation where they can just go out on adventures for their guru and bring back trophies. Some people need a lot of TLC (tender loving care), and some need more attention. 

So a disciple has to find a guru that “works” for him. I remember in Los Angeles one devotee approached me who had been aspiring (for one of the other ISKcon gurus).  He was intellectually inclined and wanted to study but, in this case, the guru had the old idea that colleges are slaughterhouses.  They are, but Prabhupada himself went to college and constantly used what he learnt in college in his preaching and he ordered me to stay in college. That was the first instruction I got from him.  

So, every guru is not everything for everyone. It is a relationship.  Even if someone is a good devotee, it doesn’t mean that they will make a compatible husband or wife for you. You have to find someone that you get along with. Gurus also have different expectations. Some gurus insist upon a certain standard--they want very formal worship--and some don’t. So it is a relationship that has to work on both sides. 

Another point is the expectation regarding knowledge. Jayadvaita Swami was walking with Prabhupada along the beach and asked if the guru is omniscient. Prabhupada was surprised, “What? Of course not! Only Krishna is omniscient.” 

Prabhupada said, “My qualification is that I didn’t concoct anything.” There is no statement in any scripture I know that says that a guru has to know everything about the material world. Look at guru-disciples relationships in the scriptures, like Narada Muni. He would inspire someone, become his guru and give him some general program. There are many cases where the guru gives a certain sadhana and then gives the disciples a mission in life. Think of Prabhupada’s relationship with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. When Prabhupada accepted him, he took on a Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhana and then Bhaktisiddhanta inspired him and gave him a mission and a vision: You should preach in English, in the West. Prabhupada was very inspired by that, made it his life’s mission, and was very successful. 

In the first letter I wrote to Prabhupada, in 1969, when I joined the Berkeley temple as a student, I asked him whether I should stay in college or drop out and Prabhupada told me I to stay. He said, “I want you to be nicely educated so that you can preach to similarly educated people.” So that became my mission in life. Therefore I tend to focus on certain things and I am notorious for having certain views on things, and in my own completely self-justifying, self-flattering version of my own life, I am trying to carry out Prabhupada’s instruction. The beauty is that there are so many of us and every member of ISKCON brings a unique understanding of Krishna Consciousness and of serving Krishna.

I just want to share some of my own realizations. In my own life I feel confident that I am basically doing my job properly. I am acting as a guru in ISKCON. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I am expert in all material things. It doesn’t mean that I can give someone expert advice in psychological or financial matters or in terms of vocational training or say that you should marry a certain person. When I was a temple president Prabhupada wrote a letter and said, “I am not doing marriages any more”, because all kinds of things were happening. 

One of the qualities of a guru and a Vaishnava is that they are “dakña,” expert, from which we have the English world “dexterous, dexterity”.  A big part of expertise is to know what you don’t know. There is a famous dialogue written by Plato, the “Apology”, which describes the trial of Socrates when Socrates is making his defense speech. He knows that it was said of him that he was the wisest man in Athens. There was an island called Delphi where there was a temple to Apollo (Surya) with a lady priest who attended Apollo. People asked questions and the answers this priestess gave were considered to be Apollo speaking through the priestess. That was the Oracle.  Someone had gone to Delphi and asked, “Who is the wisest person in Athens?” and the answer was “Socrates.”  So Socrates said in his trial, “Maybe the reason why the Oracle spoke in this way, was that at least I know what I don’t know and most of the people I meet pretentiously think that they know what they don’t know.”1

So, a part of wisdom and expertise is to know what you know and what you don’t know. As gurus, we are supposed to be çästra-cakñu, to see through scriptures, and yet there are certain elevated descriptions in sastra which are--I don’t want to use the world hyperbole, (e.g. the phala-çrutis), the fruit verses like, “Whoever reads this story will never be defeated in battle”.  So what happens if two, rival kings both read the story?  We may read somewhere that if someone accidentally fasts on a certain Ekädaçé day, a “flower airplane” will come from Vaikuntha and take the person away.  The acaryas teach that this is not true for everyone, but it may be true for some. 

So, there are certain idealized descriptions of a guru or a disciple, and there are idealized descriptions of husbands and wives. As we know, in the real world there are not so many perfect husbands and wives, and yet there are good marriages because people, at least, are pursuing those ideals and measuring themselves against those ideals. Therefore, they are good enough that they can have successful Krishna Conscious relationships. 

One problem with these idealized descriptions of the guru is generated when the guru begins to think of themselves in terms of those highest descriptions: “Yep, that’s me, and even if I don’t always experience all those symptoms I’ll just write that off to humility.” Another really interesting (self-delusional) technique is when the guru decides that those disciples who are most flattering and reverential, are the real, faithful disciples.  In the Freudian sense of the Super Ego, (Freud observed that our sense of self is partly influenced by how others see us), as a guru, I may begin to see myself through the eyes of those people who are ultra-flattering and thus, “most surrendered,” and I filter out other, unflattering views no matter how accurate they are.  If I tend to surround myself with my circle of most-flattering disciples, and read the most exalted descriptions in the scriptures, then that’s how I may start to understand myself.  Then I can be in denial about certain things. Everything I do which is not consistent with those high descriptions is justified as some kind of pastime--the hypocrisy is never addressed and the guru thus may cheat his disciples by misrepresenting his level of spiritual qualification.

Religious societies offer the most extraordinary possibilities for hypocrisy because the higher the ideals, the more likely you won’t meet them and yet you can become attached to the ideals as self-description because they are so flattering. Narada says to Vyasa: na manyate tasya niväraëaà janaù 2: “You have done a terrible thing because you have encouraged people in sense gratification.” And once people have experienced that they don’t want to give it up. So once people have tasted the nectar of being god-like, exalted and worshipped, as if you are infallible--so that even if you make a mistake it is not really considered a mistake--it can be a thrilling experience.  So, once they have experienced this, a person may not want to give this up. 

Of course even this is an extreme picture and fortunately I don’t think we have too many gurus in ISKCON that go all the way in this type of delusion, but it can effect us.  It can affect husbands, if they read descriptions of the “lord and master” of the home. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute power is nowhere so easily available as in religious societies because we claim to be representing God. 

I remember when I was first given real authority in the Hare Krishna movement. I have been in the movement for a long time - about two months - and a couple of other guys had just joined, so naturally, they knew “nothing.” One time I was told to walk them down to the sankirtan party, which was two blocks away on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley.  I remember walking out of the temple door with these two guys who were under my authority. It was almost like “Werewolf under the Full Moon” or something. I felt this incredible surge of “absolute authority,” and in the time it took us to finish the first block of our walk, I think I gave them at least 15 solemn instructions--and at a certain point they just turned to me and said, “What are you doing?” (see also HDG memories)

If we look at Vedic Culture as it was functioning in ancient times, I think there was definitely a sense of law and order.  In other words, the guru couldn’t just do anything.  In fact, there is one amazing story in the 9th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam about King Kalmasa-pada (“King Stainfoot,” because he had stains on his feet).  His guru, Vasiñöha Muni, cursed him and he then counter-cursed his guru.  So there was tension.  There is one story in Mahäbhärata, in which the kings kill all the Brahmins. 

Gurus previously operated in a very explicit and somewhat demanding cultural context, so the idea of the free-wheeling guru that could do anything is something…that is almost a modern phenomenon because in modern times there is secular society, there’s democracy, there’s religious freedom.   So, especially in India, its a combination of two historical factors. Number one, the fact that in India, with some exceptions, (e.g. the Madhvas) you don’t have these heavy religious institutions like the churches in the West, so there was a lot of freedom but then there was great cultural diversity.  So there wasn’t the cultural pressure of a traditional society, nor a heavy institution, so the guru was not rigidly controlled by these factors.  

This freedom was so misused in more recent times--so you now have these totally out-of-control, so-called gurus.  One of the most famous ones, who had the most disciples in India, turned out to be a homosexual pedophile. And some of his followers still think he is God because, (in their opinion), “That shows that God can do anything.” 

So it is a combination of these (cultural and institutional) factors if things like that happen, but if you go back earlier in Indian history there was a tremendous amount of cultural pressure if gurus were too eccentric. An example of that is Jada Bharata or his father Åñabhadeva. Åñabhadeva was certainly a sage, but because he acted eccentrically people attacked him. The same thing happened to the Avantépura brähmaëa. He was harassed wherever he went. People even made fun of Çukadeva Goswämé because he was wandering around naked. So there was very serious cultural pressure to conform to certain standards and even sages, gurus and brähmaëas who didn’t conform were often harassed. I think it is more a modern thing where you don’t have a heavy institution, nor the cultural pressure, and throwing in a heaping table spoon of Ramkrishna’s philosophy of, “Do-your-own-thing,” you get this out-of-control, pseudo Vedic Culture, where the guru can do anything.
(Excerpt of a lecture entitled “Guru down to Earth" given in Atlanta on March 6, 2007) ed.