Little Ants on a Leaping Lion


vedanta.jpg

 

The Sri Vaishnava poet Vedanta Deshika (1268-1387)

The year was 1315 and Vedanta Deshika, the great Sri Vaishnava poet, was writing a book about the transmission of spiritual knowledge. He was trying to think of an analogy for the importance of devotion to the acarya, the foremost spiritual preceptor, when he remembered something his nephew, Mutaliyantan, had said to him:

“When a lion leaps from one hill to another, the little ants on its body are transported with him. Similarly, when Ramanujacarya leaped over this world of repeated birth and death, we were saved because of our connection with him.”

 

The saving grace of the guru and the reciprocal devotion of the disciple has always been an essential feature of Vaishnavism, particularly when the guru is a powerful and revolutionary teacher such as Ramanujacarya, who left such a tremendous impact upon the entire tradition.

Yet although he was such a unifying force for generations of Sri Vaishnavas, who numbered in their tens of thousands, discussions on the precise position of Ramanujacarya also became the cause of divergence within the community over the ensuing centuries. It was Ramanuja who claimed that he was the link with God for all who followed him, and yet to continue the parampara he had also empowered seventy-four of his senior disciples as simhasanadhipatis, or ‘throne-holders’ who would conduct initiations after his demise.

As the centuries passed, various theological differences arose between the followers of the acarya, very gradually creating rifts in the community. Some Sri Vaishnavas stressed that the causeless grace of God was the all-important factor in spiritual emancipation, and that there was no independent means by which this grace could be achieved. Only God has the power and the free will to award it. Others argued that personal surrender to God (prapatti) was the most important consideration, since our efforts can attract God’s grace.

Another issue was the saving grace of the guru. Was it the grace of the acarya, Ramanuja, coming down to the disciple that was the most important factor for spiritual emancipation, or was it the guru who was instructing and guiding the disciple within the world? Who was the greatest conduit of divine grace? On the one hand, Ramanujacarya had promised that he would personally intercede with God for his followers, and seems not to have put time limits on this promise; on the other, he installed 74 gurus for all practical educational, training and sacramental purposes.

When considering these and other questions in the 14th century it might have been reasoned, by those in favour of causeless grace, that the redeeming power of the acarya – himself so close to God – was the uppermost guru in the life of the disciple. Those who regarded personal efforts as a prerequisite to grace might have deemed contemporary tuition and guidance as most important. These divergent ideas, it should be noted, were not distinctly different philosophies creeping into the sampradaya, merely differences in emphasis of parts of the same philosophy.

Gradually these differences of opinion resulted in two distinct schools, one in the north known as the Vadagalai, who tended towards regarding the acarya as more important than the guru, and the southern community known as the Tenkalai, who stressed the guru as the focal point of one’s surrender and therefore as more directly relevant than the acarya. I should remind readers at this point, since the parallels with our modern-day ISKCON will not have escaped them, that it does not appear – at least in my limited reading – that the southern Vaishnavas disregarded their acarya because they accepted their contemporary guru as their point of surrender. Neither did those of the northern school become dismissive of initiation because they had accepted the grace previously offered by their acarya. Rather, everyone worshipped Ramanujacarya and everyone became initiated by one of the contemporary lineage holders. That was, and still is, Vaishnava culture.

Everyone understood the necessity of having a guru so that they could learn proper pronunciation of the Vedas, the correct understanding of Vaishnava doctrine free from the beginner’s tendency to speculate, and the daily practises and rituals of sadhana-bhakti. They also understood the obvious principle that the student needed to have a relationship of friendship and service with that guru so that the guru would bless the student.

A thousand years later, when we can have apparent relationships with remote others through technology that removes true human understanding, where we can learn from recordings and writings yet fail to really grasp a subject; and in an age where the service offered to the teacher is simply the money charged, and where even money itself can be simply blips on an electronic screen; perhaps, in such a depersonalised, dehumanised age we have lost something.

Perhaps it is only us, stuck in the darkness of an advancing Kali-yuga, where non-teacher teachers and non-serving students are commonplace; perhaps it is only us who feel the need to have protracted discussions on the possible need for ‘a living guru’ or a ‘physical guru.’ In another age and climate such bizarre notions would have had the Vaishnavas crying for us faithless souls in pity.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Guru-Disciple

3 responses to “Little Ants on a Leaping Lion

  1. Arun

    Hare Krishna Prabhu,
    Interesting Article.
    My questions are these:

    (1) If even today ordinary souls get transformed by reading Srila Prabhupada’s books, then why are they told to submit to a ‘living Guru’?
    (2) And if an innocent soul joins the movement and is initiated by a living guru, who subsequently ‘falls’ down, because he is not situated on the topmost platform, then does it not lend credence to the shloka,’Gurur na sa syat……… samupeta mrtyum’?
    (3) It has always been observed that when a powerful Acharya departs, there is widespread morass in that ‘cult’ only because, the followers don’t follow the Acharya’s principles. We can clearly see, how Srila Prabhupada blazed a trail in the West in a short span of 11 years and in the last 35 years or so after his departure it pains an ISKCON enthusiast to see that the movement is a bare ‘shadow’ of its past glory.
    (4) 50 million books of Srila Prabhupada distributed every year – I think I am correct in this estimation, during his time and down in the ‘Pits’ right now. If we are all honest with ourselves, we should understand what has gone wrong. That’s why Srila Prabhupada quotes, “If a person is really asleep, we can wake him up, but if he is pretending to sleep, then no matter what you do, you will not succeed.”
    Haribol,
    In the service of Srila Prabhupada
    Arun Ramakrishnan

  2. Mohan

    Hare Krishna! I enjoyed reading your article. Could you please tell us about your meetings with Srila Prabhupada?

  3. Hare Krishna Arun, thank you for your questions. Here are a few of my brief responses:

    1. The Vaishnava practise of surrendering to Krishna with help from a guru whom you accept as His representative is a consistent principle that is taught right through Vedic scriptures. It is repeatedly explained by Srila Prabhupada in his books. And therefore it is taught within ISKCON. It is not that every member of our movement becomes initiated. They have a free choice – as you do – and we always ensure they are free to exercise it.

    2. This Sanskrit aphorism, for other readers who may not know it, explains that one should not take a position of responsibility over the lives of others – whether father, king, demigod or guru – if one cannot deliver one’s dependents from the cycle of birth and death. I agree with you. No-one should adopt that role if they cannot fulfil the role. Unfortunately that injunction does not seem to prevent some irresponsible men from having children, and seems not to deter some unqualified persons from accepting others as disciples.

    3. I accept that there are certainly ‘shadows’ within ISKCON just as there dark patches on the moon. Your perspective will be established by what you choose to dwell on. Try to see the good things too.

    4. Srila Prabhupada became happy to hear of how the sankirtan mission was expanding through sales of his books. It was a measure of how the movement was prospering. But I must correct you here on your figures, Arun. It is true that the book distribution levels have varied over the years, sometimes dipping to unacceptable levels, but it has never been ’50 million’ and neither is it ‘in the pits’ now.
    You must understand that many changes have taken place in the membership over the decades. Fluctuations in leadership are only one factor.
    In the early years of our movement the annual book figures crept up from 4 million to 10.5 in 1977. This increase continued to 14.2 in 1979. There were then variable figures through the 80s and a slump in the late 80s. The 90s averaged around 7-8 and although from 2000 the figures have been drastically reduced to around 3, for the past three years we have attained 4.5 every year. To date our Hare Krishna movement has distributed 457,631,473 books. Hope this helps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s