The two of them should live together and test one another for one year. This test is fulfilled by observing one another’s behavior and character.

 

atha parékñaëam

 

The mutual examining is described as follows.

 

mantra-muktävalyäm,

 

74 tayor vatsara-väsena / jïätänyonya-svabhävayoù

gurutä çiñyatä ceti / nänyathaiveti niçcayaù

 

In the Mantra-muktävalé: “By living together for one year they can ascertain from seeing each other’s nature whether they can act as guru and disciple. Indeed, there is no other way to determine this.”

 

çrutiç ca,

 

75 näsaàvatsara-väsine deyät

 

There is also the statement of çruti: “One should not give (the viñëu-mantra) to one who has not resided with one for a year.”

 

sära-saìgrahe ’pi,

 

76 sad-guruù sväçritaà çiñyaà / varñam ekaà parékñayet

 

77 räjïi cämätyajä doñäù / patné-päpaà sva-bhartari

tathä çiñyärjitaà päpaà / guruù präpnoti niçcitam

 

And in the Sära-saìgraha: “A proper guru should test for one year a disciple who has taken shelter of him. The faulty acts of a minister accrue to the king, and a wife’s sins fall on her husband. Similarly, a guru certainly obtains the sinful reactions accumulated by his disciple.”

krama-dépikäyäà tu,

 

78 santoñayed akuöilärdrataräntarätmä

taà svair dhanaiù sva-vapuñäpy anuküla-väëyä

abda-trayaà kamala-näbha-dhiyäti-dhéras

tuñöe vivakñatu guräv atha mantra-dékñäm

 

“The Krama-dépikä, however, says this: ‘Without deception and with a heart moist with affection, one should satisfy him with one’s own wealth, with the work of one’s body, and with favorable words. He should do this for three years, remaining sober and thinking of the guru as non-different from the lotus-naveled Supreme Lord. Then, when the guru is satisfied, he may speak the mantra in the initiation ceremony.’ ”

 

Commentary

evaà “varñam ekaà parékñä ca tato dékñeti niçcitam” tatra çré-gopäla-mantra-vara-dékñäyäà varña-traya-guru-sevänantaram eva dékñeti tatra tattva-vidäà mataà likhan dékñä-präktana-guru-sevä-vidhià ca saìkñepeëa darçayati, santoñayed iti….abda-trayam ity atra viçeño granthäntaräd drañöavyaù; tathä hi, “triñu varñeñu viprasya ñaösu varñeñu bhü-bhåtaù / viço navasu varñeñu parékñä tu praçasyate // samäsv api dvädaçasu teñäà ye våñalädayaù” iti. yac ca çäradä-tilakädäv uktam, “ekäbdena bhaved viprä bhaved abda-dvayän nåpaù / bhaved abda-trayair vaiçyaù çüdro varña-catuñöayaiù” iti. tad atyanta-pürva-pariçélita-viñayam iti vivecanéyam.

 

“It has thus been said that ‘There should be testing for one year, and then initiation.’ In this regard, when the initiation is with the best of mantras, the Çré Gopäla mantra, dékñä should be performed only after serving the guru for three years; this is the opinion of those who know the truth. Recording this opinion, the passage beginning santoñayet briefly sets forth the processes of initiation, along with the preliminary service to the guru…. Further particulars about this three-year period can be found in other books, as for example, ‘It is best to test a brähmaëa for three years, a kñatriya for six years, a vaiçya for nine years, and çüdras and others for twelve years.’ It is also said in the Çäradä-tilaka and other texts, ’A brähmaëa is tested in one year, a king in two, a vaiçya in three, and a çüdra in four.’ This, we should distinguish, refers to what was practiced very long ago.” (Dig-darsiné-öéka by Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé)

 

Statements by Çréla Prabhupäda on a Mutual Examination Period

 

1) “Unless one is prepared that ‘I am accepting somebody as my spiritual master. I must accept whatever he says,’ if there is any doubt, that ‘I cannot accept his words verbatim,’ then one should not accept him as spiritual master. That is hypocrisy. One must be first of all convinced. Therefore it is the duty of the spiritual master and the disciple to associate—that is the injunction of Sanätana Gosvämé—for some time, and both of them should study. The disciple should study “whether I can accept this saintly person as my spiritual master.” And spiritual master also will see “whether I can accept this boy, this person, as my disciple.” That is the way. But sometimes the time is reduced. That doesn’t matter. But the principle is this, that before accepting a spiritual master you can examine him, you can scrutinize him, but not after accepting him.” (Çréla Prabhupäda Initiation lecture, 13 July 1971, LA)

 

2) “First of all you find out the person, that one who is better than you. Then you submit. Therefore the rules and regulation are that nobody should accept blindly any guru, and nobody should blindly accept any disciple. They must behave, one another, at least for one year so that the prospective disciple can also understand, ‘Whether I can accept this person as my guru. ’ And the prospective guru also can understand, ‘Whether this person can become my disciple.’ This is the instruction by Sanätana Gosvämé in his Hari-bhakti-viläsa. ”

(Çréla Prabhupäda Bg 13.1-2 lecture, 25 February 1975, Miami)

 

3) “So therefore the process is before accepting a guru, one must hear him at least for one year. And when he’s convinced that “Here is actually a guru who can teach me,” then you accept him, guru. Don’t accept whimsically. This system now should stop that somebody’s coming for three days—“Prabhupäda, initiate him.” Why? First of all see whether he’s fit for becoming a disciple; then recommend. Otherwise, don’t recommend. Because the cheap recommendation is creating havoc. One is not fit for becoming a student, disciple, and he’s accepting discipleship, and after three days he’s going away. This should not be allowed. Therefore, in the Hari-bhakti-viläsa by Sanätana Gosvämé it is directed that the spiritual master and the disciple must meet together at least for one year so that the disciple may also understand that “Here is a person whom I can accept as my guru, ” and the guru also can see that “Here is a person who is fit for becoming my disciple.” Then the business is nice.”

(Çréla Prabhupäda SB 1.16.25 lecture, 21 January 1974, Hawaii)

 

4) “First of all, you must find out a person who if you can surrender there. Tasmäd guruà prapadyeta. Tad viddhi praëipätena (Bg. 4.34). Praëipäta, surrender, that is required first. If you think somebody that he’s not worth surrendering, then don’t make him guru. Don’t make a fashion. First of all you test that “Whether I can surrender?” Praëipätena. Then try to understand.”

(Çréla Prabhupäda SB 7.6.2 lecture, 18 June 1976, Toronto)

 

5) “… acceptance of spiritual master must be selected, you see, after careful examination, just like one selects his bride or bridegroom after careful examination. And in India they are very careful because the marriage of the boys and girls take place under the guidance of the parents. So the parents very carefully see. So one has to accept a spiritual master whose guidance will make his life perfect. That is the relation between spiritual master and disciple. It is not a formality. It is a great responsibility both for the disciple and for the spiritual master.

(Çréla Prabhupäda BG lecture, 2.7-11 2 March 1966, NY)

6) “ But if you want to know who is a spiritual master, then you have to test him whether he is speaking exactly like the bona fide spiritual master. Çré Narottama däsa Öhäkura has explained about this, who is spiritual master. What is that? He says, sädhu çästra guru väkya, tinete kariyä aikya. If you want to advance yourself in spiritual science, then you have to test these three things. What is that? Sädhu, saintly person. Sädhu, çästra, scriptures, and spiritual master. Now suppose you want to know who is a spiritual master. Then you have to test whether he’s speaking just like other saintly persons and whether he’s following scriptures. Sädhu çästra. So you have to test a spiritual master by corroborating whether he is speaking according to the scriptural injunction, whether he’s speaking (according) to other saintly persons.”

(Çréla Prabhupäda TLC lecture, 25 September 1968, Seattle)

 

7) “ Suppose you are going here. You are coming here to learn something. When you are convinced that “Swamiji knows the thing,” when you are convinced, then you accept. Then you ask for initiation. Otherwise don’t do it hesitatingly or knowing half. Therefore in the system it is enjoined that the spiritual master also observe the disciple at least for one year, and the disciple also studies the spiritual master at least for one year. So when both of them are convinced that “He can be my spiritual master” or “He can be my disciple,” then the relationship is established. We initiate our students.”

(Çréla Prabhupäda BG lecture 4.34-39, 12 January 1969, LA)

 

8) “It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the çästric injunctions. Çré Jéva Gosvämé advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.” (Çréla Prabhupäda, Caitanya-caritämåta, Adi 1.35 purport)

 

This last reference makes it clear that a real candidate is one who is serious and has studied çästra to the point of being able to recognize who is a genuine spiritual master; not that ISKCON should base its guru system on the uninformed neophyte. We would do better to lean towards a system that educates its aspirants. It is also obvious that such aspirants are the ones who then make the choice. Furthermore, the above condemnation of the acceptance of a spiritual master in terms of ecclesiastical convention casts a negative light on our present system. Finally, the last sentence places the onus on the aspirant to find out who is genuine and compatible.

Gurus Should Test Disciples

 

Although in this paper we are emphasizing the duty of the disciple to personally test and evaluate a prospective guru, it follows from the statements of the Hari-bhakti-viläsa and Çréla Prabhupäda that the guru should personally test and evaluate his prospective disciple.

 

In fact, a guru who does not test a disciple runs the risk of committing the offense of preaching the holy name to the faithless. A dékñä-guru takes the responsibility of recommending the disciple to Çré Kåñëa, and suffers if the disciple commits some mistake.

 

1) “If a servant makes a mistake, the master is punishable because he is responsible for the offense.” (Bhäg. 6.3.30 purport)

 

2) “But when a living entity plays the part on behalf of Kåñëa, he also takes the responsibility for the sinful activities of his devotees. Therefore to become a guru is not an easy task. You see? He has to take all the poisons and absorb them. So sometimes—because he is not Kåñëa—sometimes there is some trouble. Therefore Caitanya Mahäprabhu has forbidden, “Don’t make many çiñyas, many disciples.” But for preaching work we have to accept many disciples—for expanding preaching—even if we suffer. That’s a fact. The spiritual master has to take the responsibility for all the sinful activities of his disciples. Therefore to make many disciples is a risky job unless one is able to assimilate all the sins… Therefore your question was—when I suffer is it due to my past misdeeds? Was it not? That is my misdeed—that I accepted some disciples who are nonsense. That is my misdeed.” (PQPA 6: The Perfect Devotee)

 

We should also note that if a guru does not properly test devotees before accepting them as disciples, the bad behavior of unqualified disciples will hurt the reputation of the Kåñëa Consciousness Movement, not just the individual guru. Therefore, the responsibility of a guru to test disciples should be taken as very important. This duty of the dékñä-guru —the one who officially brings someone into the sampradäya —is similar to the responsibility of a university admissions officer who wants to bring in students who will have a high chance of academic success and of whom the school will be proud.