Let’s examine two approaches:

  1. One Guru – Many Disciples
  2. Many Gurus – Few Disciples

Both models seem to exist inside and outside of ISKCON and in the present as well as the past, but the first model (One Guru – Many Disciples) is particularly relevant to the dynamic in the modern world and in ISKCON. First I’ll express my comparison of the two models, then I will clarify certain points and questions.

Model One: One Guru – Many Disciples

Guru-Disciple

We start out with a relatively advanced practitioner of bhakti. The guru in any model has to be advanced, at least relative to the people s/he is guiding. This practitioner attracts from the masses a few people who take bhakti seriously enough to become novices.

Guru-disciple Modern

The original novices become more serious initiates. The guru and the disciples continue to attract new people, thus the number of novices becoming dependent on the guru begins to escalate.

Guru-disciple Modern2

The guru has to focus on many newcomers and new initiates, leaving less focus for the existing initiates, who become intermediates fairly slowly. Everyone continues attracting new novices from the masses – all of whom require the attention of the guru.

Guru-disciple Modern3

With the guru’s focus divided to many people, s/he often may not find the time or connection to understand and resolve the specific problems and doubts some of his/her initiates and novices face. Thus, some of them become confused.

Guru-disciple Modern4

If this is not rectified, the confused initiates eventually drift away from direct connection to the guru to fend for themselves (become “independent” and take to “speculation” or “mundane scholarship”), look for a new guru (commit “treason”), or blend back into the masses (“bloop”).

The system reaches an equilibrium, with new people coming in and existing people drifting out. The entire system doesn’t likely progress far beyond an intermediate level, because the guru is more involved in dealing with new people than dealing with the intermediates. There is even significant likelihood that the guru’s own spiritual standing will suffer and slip, since s/he is surrounded mostly by novices.

Model Two: Many Gurus, Few Disciples

In this model, gurus do not accept more disciples than can essentially “fit under their roof.”

Guru-disciple Traditional

It begins in the same way as model one: a relatively advanced bhakti-yoga practitioner reaches out to the masses, or somehow attracts or is sent by destiny a few interested persons to become novices.

Guru-disciple Traditional2

The guru helps the novices become better practitioners, Initiates. Here model two becomes different from model one because  the guru and the novices do not give much focus on finding new novices. They primarily focus on their own development.

Guru-disciple Traditional4

When the initiates start to gain solid realizations and becomes somewhat advanced, they gradually begin to help novices of their own. They become gurus. Thus model two is described as having “many gurus,”  At this point that Model Two begins to expand, exponentially.

Guru-disciple Traditional5

The likelihood of members leaving is much lower because each member gets the attention and understanding they need, since each guru only has a few disciples in his or her care. Each guru also is less likely to fail and “fall” because they associate with advanced disciples, not just novices. Model Two reaches no equilibrium, but continues to expand exponentially.

Clarifications

Yes, there have always been gurus who had thousands of disciples, and there have been  disciples who spent half a minute with guru but achieved phenomenal spiritual success. However, these are exceptional gurus and disciples. Yes, Dhruva heard five or ten minutes of instruction from Nārada and then achieved Hari darśan in six months, but we are not Dhruva and our gurus are not Nārada. Even Nārada says this. When Nārada glorifies Dhruva to the Pracetas (Bhāg 4.12.41-43) he says that no one else can do what Dhruva did.

Yes, some exceptional personalities accept thousands of disciples – but they also establish ways to ensure that each disciple receives their full attention. Bhaktivedāntra Swāmī Prabhupāda, for example, accepted over four thousand disciples, but spent hours every day writing them letters, and, even more important, writing books with commentaries very specifically tailored to the exact circumstances his disciples were in. Through the written word he extended beyond his physical limitations and provided care for each disciple. He was also exceptionally powerful and transcendentally enriched, a “superhero.” A superhero can punch a hole through a wall of solid metal, but if the superhero’s fans try to do the same, they break their hands and the wall remains standing.

A system is mostly useless if it only works when the participants are exceptional. Systems cannot be developed based on exceptions, they must be developed based on norms. We need a system that works well under normal conditions, with normal participants. Our guru-disciple model needs to work with the gurus and disciples that we actually have on hand right now in the real world. The second model (Many Gurus, Few Disciples) works best for the vast majority of gurus and the vast majority of students.

Advantages of Model Two

Model One expands much more rapidly than Model Two, but reaches a ceiling fairly quickly and ceases to expand. Model Two takes longer to rev up, but once it does it begins to expand exponentially, without hitting a limit.

Model One fails to reliably produce experts and even threatens to drain the guru. Model Two produces and nurtures experts slowly but surely.

Essentially Model One and Model Two express the importance of the “teacher:student ratio.” Education is always more difficult when the ratio of students to teachers is high. A low student to teacher ratio is always preferred. In poor schools, for example, one teacher has to teach classrooms with forty or fifty children. In very high quality schools one teacher has only a few students – or in some cases one student even has several teachers.

When Model One Works

The “One Guru, Many Disciples” model works under certain circumstances:

  1. When the guru is exceptionally qualified.
  2. When the concept of “guru” is broad

The first condition needs no explanation.

The second condition indicates that Model One stands a better chance of working when in the context of a culture that does not isolate the guru principle exclusively to a single individual. If our parents, spouses, and sibling can also function in the role of guru, Model One can succeed, because in truth it is Model Two. There appears to be one significant guru figure initiating many disciples, but in fact there are many gurus.

For this to work, however, the guru figure must recognize and empower the parents, spouses, siblings and so on – not work against them. In todays busy and politically burdened institutions I have experienced this to be a reality often spoken of but seldom seen.

– Vraja Kishor dās

VrajaKishor.com

Photo: The photographer is Ganesh Ramachandran. The student being taught is Malini Srinivasan.

Note from Photographer: Guru C.V.Chandrasekhar, his student Malini Srinivasan and myself the photographer – Ganesh Ramachandran | www.purpleganesh.com. This image is a part of the documentary series I have been working on photographing Gurus and Shishyas in non-performance settings. The objective for these photography projects are to reach out to as many people as possible. But that can only happen if we can get duly credited.

11 thoughts on “What is the Best Guru-Disciple Model?

  1. In this scenario the original guru would have to give permission to his or her disciples to take on disciples, whereas the traditional etiquette as you know is that one brings prospective practitioners to the more advanced guru. How would you harmonize the etiquette with the modality you’ve outlined?

    Like

    1. This is only a “tradition” in ISKCON. The members were so young and inexperienced, so Prabhupāda told them to relax and be patient. Outside ISKCON it is the norm for a disciple to accept a disciple in the presence of the guru. You can even see it in Bhaktivinode Thakur’s jaiva dharma. You can also see it in Bhāgavatam.

      Even in ISKCON there are initiating gurus whose own gurus are not deceased or inactive.

      Like

      1. Srila Prabhupada disagreed, he said it was the standard etiquette in Vedic culture. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. You have not.

        “Even in ISKCON there are initiating gurus whose own gurus are not deceased or inactive.”

        The GBC is now (as of 2015 GBC meetings) is on verge of revoking their guruship and going by standard that Srila Prabhupada set.

        Like

        1. You say this is what Prabhupāda thinks.

          If this is really what he thinks, then what does he think of Nārada. Nārada initiated many disciples while his guru Brahmā was still alive. What about Vyāsa. Vyāsa initiated many while Nārada was still alive. What about Madhvācārya? He founded a whole sampradāya while his guru, Vyāsadeva was still alive.

          There are dozens of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇav gurus who initate disciples while their guru is still present.

          It is certainly the ettiquite that we would bring aspirants to the most qualified person. If that person, however, instructs us to take the responsibility for initiating and instructing these aspirants, it becomes our duty.

          Finally – in the post you’ve commented on, I am not talking about “initiation” like a ritual or official event. I am talking about the process of guiding people in the practice of bhakti yoga.

          Like

          1. At what point did Narada Muni do fire sacrifice for Druva and Prahlada? When did Krsna do agnihotra for Arjuna at Kurukshetra? They were siksha gurus not diksha gurus.

            Also Narada Muni is not a human being required to follow manava dharma.

            When did Vysadeva give diksa to Madhvacarya and perform agnihotra? He didn’t, it was shiksha not diksha.

            You are confusing diksha with shiksha. A person can have only one diksha gurus but many shiksha gurus.

            It is not what I say SP thinks, it is direct statement that SP made.

            Like

          2. My post is not about fire sacrifices. It is about shiksa. However there are dozens of human beings who give diksha initiation on the order of their guru while the guru is still living.

            Like

  2. Great article. I completely agree with the the original iteration of guru-disciple relationship, and honestly i havnt been very inspired to get initiated (i am a gurukuli) because of this modern G-D approach. I want someone who I can get hands on experience with, because thats how i learn. Not through emails or lectures a few times a year. I understand that the Diksa Guru can many times be less of a teacher than the Siksa Guru, But I definitely feel that concept has become somewhat of an excuse for this current modern system which is too extreme IMHO.

    Like

  3. Hare Krsna Prabhu. This is a very pertinent topic,and I appreciate your sober approach to this matter. One alternative view, which is somewhat similar to your second model, is what has become known as the “Councilor System”. H.H. Niranjana Swami has discussed this in his book “Taking Care of Krsna’s Devotees” both the principles and specifics of this system are described. I am sure you have been made aware of this system. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the matter. y.s. Shyamarupa dasa

    Like

Do You have a Comment or Questions?

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