The Guru Problem

Summary

• Analysis of data on Hindu Institutions shows some individuals or institutions (The Guru) are better than others - to learn from.
• Institutions that are more focused, and have a good succession planning are better likely to survive for generations.
• The best individuals or institutions help us in teaching the ideas of Hinduism to maximize our full potential in life. The art of putting those teachings into practice solely depends on us.

Introduction
Many of us can recall the amount of time we spend researching on a particular item or a service before we commit to buying it. Just think of the time we spend - reading reviews on Amazon drifting from one product to another, comparison shopping before we buy that flight ticket for our next destination, finding the amenities available at the hotel we are staying at just for the weekend, researching the career track of the kids before considering putting our own toddler in the neighborhood day care (OK…The last one may be a stretch). Yet, when it comes to selecting an individual or an institution that can influence the most valuable possession of our lives – our brain, we tend to skim the research and trust in the Gods of probability.

For those of us who are fortunate enough to have stumbled upon the spiritual path, the journey usually starts off with a friend or a flyer describing some workshop or a session over the weekend. It may also be due to a book or a blog referred by someone we trust. After attending a couple of sessions or skimming through a few chapters, if one is convinced enough of the benefits and would like to be around other followers of similar thought– the journey is likely to continue further.

For the serendipitous- That is how it is supposed to be. For the skeptical – the question is: Is there a better way? There is nothing wrong if the journey happens to be a pleasant one ... not only in the short term, but also for years to come. But what if, the Guru (either the institution or the individual) we plan to ride with in our journey of life – takes us for a ride? 

Is there a better way?

With the number of Gurus (both institutions and individuals) making headlines for the wrong reasons, despite having thousands, if not millions of followers - have we learnt enough to avoid the treacherous path in trusting our Gurus? Every religion has had and continues to have their share of issues from sex and violence to Terrorism- AsaramBapu or Nithyananda; The Church of Scientology; The Catholic priests ; Madrasas and Buddhists - all came into light for the wrong reasons.

I strongly believe that most followers of all religions (including genuine atheists in pursuit of maximizing their potential) go through the same quest of life. However, just because every religion failed in some of their leaders or institutions, we simply cannot urge everyone to turn into atheists - In other words, you cannot throw the baby with the bath water. Every one learns differently and some need Gurus more than others. Just like we all learn a skill or a trade differently- Some of us are tinkerers in our basements while some go to technical colleges, while a few start a business and learn along the way- there is room within the so-called “organized religion” domain for us to learn from.

So, the question is - Is there a better way to find our Guru (both the individual and the institution itself) in a more structured approach? Let’s look at what the data says. If you want to jump straight to the conclusion, skipping the detailed analysis - please go to the last section - Whom to follow.

Analysis of Hindu Institutions

I am going to limit the scope of my analysis to Hinduism, a school of thought that I am reasonably familiar with. The same approach can be extended to other schools of thought and any other religion or philosophy.

Hinduism doesn’t have a founder. It has a lot of proponents who have created numerous ideas and institutions. These proponents and their institutions focus on many of the core concepts and package them differently for different audiences. In the business parlance, if these institutions were offering products, some of the key product lines can be considered as Karma Yoga, Bhakthi Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga; Some treat Hatha Yoga, and Kriya Yoga also as "product-line extensions".

This is akin to open-source software philosophy – which doesn’t necessarily have a true founder. Different people came together with the concepts over a period of time. Yet – institutions like Red Hat, SUN, and Google have all "profited" from Linux, Java and Android respectively and some survived better than others.  They all have concentrated on different product lines and sectors – Operating System, Programming Languages, Enterprise Applications, Educational content (Open Courseware, Wikipedia, Khan Academy) – Yet, all of them believe in the fundamental “philosophy or values” of open source.

Is it wrong ? (Individual vs. Institution vs. Ideology)
Sometimes there is a feeling that we are not supposed to question the institutions or their founders in the religious path.  A few would even go to the extreme of describing it as blasphemy. 

Questioning or analyzing the Hindu institutions is not tantamount to questioning the religion or the ideology itself. In fact, the core values of Vedanta encourage a strong individual analytical reasoning and thus we are following the true spirit of Hinduism. 

Survival of the institutions is simply dictated by market forces and organizational dynamics - How well they are run in the short term and how well they are positioned for the long run. All of these institutions are formed with a core purpose (just like start ups), many of them fail (with in the first generation), and a few succeed (for several decades or centuries). However, most of them espouse the values of Hinduism and offer the "same products" we discussed.

And institutions themselves are founded by individuals - all of whom will have to leave this material world in about 80 years. In the first few decades of a new institution, it is hard to differentiate the individual from the institution. Those founder individuals who are able to successfully articulate this differentiation enable the institution on a successful path for future generations.

And, regardless of whom we are relying on to teach us the ideas- the individual or the institution, we would have to personally put these ideas into practice and annihilate the other "I" - the Ego . And that is the lion's share of the work - that totally depends on ourselves alone.

The Data

Looking at the religious institutions that survived over the years, is there a pattern that helps us place our bet on the right institution or the Guru? There are about 60 institutions that I started with. It gives enough sample size to start the analysis. I gathered the following attributes for these institutions.

Foundation
Who started this organization? How did it get started? Is it a “spin-off” from another organization of the same or similar philosophy? Is it a “split-up” from an institution with a common founder? 

I tend to think of founders of any system/institution (religious or otherwise) as rebels from existing systems/institutions. Those rebels who end up successful with their philosophy or institution get branded as founders. Those rebels who are not successful keep fighting the battle till their ideas are either decimated or become successful(in which case they become founders). For instance, Jesus who rebelled Judaism and Buddha who rebelled Hinduism were successful founders of their respective religions. Daniel Jones, would be considered more a rebel and not a founder because his concept of Jediism did not succeed.

Practically, many successful Hindu institutions claim the lineage of Adi Sankara. Swami Narayan is another common founder across many institutions of similar philosophy. Similarly, there are a couple of institutions that associate with Swami Vivekananda / Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

How long have they been in place? Especially in their current institutional form?

For instance, the four original Sankara Matams have been in place for centuries in their current form. Sangh Parivar, for instance is known to have created many institutes (VHP, RSS, Samskrita Bharathi, Hindu Munnani etc.) over the last century.

Succession Planning
Chinese have a saying – Wealth never survives three generations; Even in English, there is a saying attributed to Andrew Carnegie - “From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”; If an institution survives for at least 60 to 75 years, the odds are high that it has solved the problem of "transfer of power or control" at least twice. For instance, If you are associated with institutions that have been time-tested, the chance of your relating with your grand-kids is higher on topics that emanate from these institutions. Other wise, they will be searching for their own institutions just like we are searching for institutions different from what appealed to our grand parents.

Questions to consider are: Who is the current head of the organization? Is it still being led by the founder generation? How many times have they been able to successfully transition power/leadership to the next in-charge? What is their philosophy of succession planning? Do they have a source of next -generation leaders ?

And, this is where lineage comes into question. If founders don't associate themselves with lineage (another Guru that they learnt from) - called as Guru parampara, how could we expect a successful transition of their own power/control to the next generation ? Do they intend to mean lineage starts with them? Or do they intend to run this as a single-generation organization? If so, do we still want to be associated with it?  

Having a source of next-generation leaders is likely to put some checks and balances into any institution. And, even if there is disagreement within the current institution, there is a possibility for some of them to spin-off another institution - which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Founders like Jaggi Vasudev (Isha Yoga) claim to not be associated with any lineage or teachings from within the religion. Sathya Sai Baba's organization struggles to find its place after the founder's death because there is no identified succession planning. 

Most people invoke Ramana Maharshi as an example of a realized person even without a Guru. He was one of those rare ascetics who also rejected being initiated into Sringeri Sharada Peetham - one of Adi Sankara's peetams and did not promote a lineage. There can always be some true exceptions. But, not every one is living the life of a Ramana Maharshi.

Core purpose
What is the core purpose of this organization? How many sectors/product lines - Jnana, karma, Raja yoga etc.. are they in ? Are they focused on single sector? Are they diversified into multiple sectors? (Philanthropy, Temples, Hospitals, Educational institutions etc.)? Are they growing too fast into multiple sectors?

Sathya Sai Organization is in diversified sectors. Chinmaya Mission or the Sankara Matam temples can be considered to be in fewer sectors – Jnana Yoga and Bhakthi Yoga respectively.

Scale
What is the order of magnitude for current followers of the institution? Are they in the hundreds, thousands, or millions?

Scale is a double-edged sword. Too few or too many are symptoms to watch out for. Scale is one of the dimensions for the viability of a successful idea. At the same time, one may not feel connected enough if there are too many followers- especially since Groupthink promotes network effect in these cases.

Some concepts never reach the scale though they may have been in place for a long time. Naga Sadhus (in Hinduism) and Amish (outside of Hinduism) come to mind in these cases as examples in this category. 

The Framework

The picture started to emerge after I mapped it along two dimensions.
On the horizontal axis – I used the dimension of time to represent the number of years these institutions have been in place. This data is relatively easy to obtain based on the year of their founding and what qualifies for a true institution. I used 75 years as a rough approximation to account for transfer of power/control over three generations - assuming the founder runs it for about 30 years and is able to do two transfers over the next 45 years.

On the vertical axis - There is a way to think of these institutions as having scaled or not. As mentioned earlier, scale is relative. For those that have scaled - are they in diversified sectors or are they focused in delivering their messages in a few areas? 

The 9 Regions

Region 1:

This is the group that hasn't scaled enough in the last 75 years. 

Most of us find our Gurus in extended family who pass on their wisdom, especially while we are growing up. Parents, Grand-parents, Uncles and aunts, and even siblings and friends - Their collective teachings are the foundation on which our experiences are built. Lucky are those with a solid foundation in this corner. With time, and at the appropriate time, each one of us will have to come out of this shell and experience wisdom from other institutions for wider applications of our life. Eknath Easwaran is one of those who found his Guru within the family -his grand mother as his spiritual teacher.

There are other genuine individuals whom I have heard of - Performing meditation in the Himalayas or some such place. Many of them like Tapovan Maharaj and Ramakrishna, who didn't scale by themselves, but enabled their students to scale.

It is also in this group that we are likely to hear of many individuals, who are smart enough for the common man, yet no where near a truly learned individual. Commander Selvam, who was recently put behind bars is an example from this category of people.

Since it is difficult to differentiate these individuals, unless one is on an active search for Guru oneself, it is generally better to find an institution after having learned enough from our extended family. Well run institutions have a better chance of "selecting" or "promoting" good individuals. In other words, for most of us - this is a good region to start with, that we would have to mature out of - at the appropriate time.

Regions 2 and 3:
These are institutions that have NOT been fully time tested and are in early stages. Some are first generational while a few are in second and third generation. These institutions are
- split/carved off from existing ones (AVG with Chinmaya roots, Sathya Sai off Shirdi Sai)
- started as a child institution off a parent umbrella (VHP off Sangh parivar)
-first generational founders with no lineage (Nityananda, Deepak Chopra, Isha, Asaram Bapu, Art of Living, etc.)

As the data reveals, there are not many institutions that stay diversified after the founder is gone. The only ones you see operating after 75 years are all those who constantly nurture a group of leaders.

Region 3:
Those that are diversified across multiple sectors usually have higher mass appeal and they are in Region 3. Leaders of this region, like Ram Rahim Singh of DSS - Dera Sacha Sauda have acted in movies. Either due to their innovative /unconventional techniques or due to focus in diversified sectors, this region is prone to more controversy than other regions.

I do not intend to say there is no room for founders. New ways of teaching are always good. But Innovation is different from sustainability. Data shows that many of these institutions in Region 3 wither away by the time they get to 3rd generation or die a premature death after the first generation founder passes away or get into trouble even while the first generational founder is in place.

Either way, it is important to understand the risk in relying upon first generational founders that have not yet ceded power/control at least once or have not even established a credible base/source of leaders for future generations. 

Region 2

Those that have a specific focus on a single purpose usually follow Jnana Yoga or Karma Yoga path. They are usually in Region 2. 

The really mature ones nurture a group of leaders preparing for a successful organizational transition for generations to come. Chinmaya Mission (2nd generation – 62 years) and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam (1st generation -34 years) are excellent examples of institutions in Region 2 that have a steady source of next generation leaders. 

Region 4:

Region 2 institutions that continue best practices for 75 to 150 years finally get to Region 4. These institutions were founded in the pre-independence era. In addition to focusing on a few sectors very well, they have successfully transferred power/control for about a century. 

They have enough dedicated audience to keep them going, but are generally not as big as the diversified institutions. These institutions mainly face challenges in bridging the gap across multiple generations without losing their core purpose.

Brahma Kumaris (Sister Shivani for instance) and Ramakrishna Mission (Swami Sarvapriyananda for instance) are great examples of how they brought Vedanta into the campuses of IIT in India.

Region 5:  

These are the GEs(General Electrics) of religious institutions. Few succeed over the years staying together as a diversified business. BAPS is one example that came up in my data. Just like any institution with a diversified purpose – they cater to a wider audience. And, just like any institution is expected to have, they have had their shares of splits and mergers in the early years and have successfully overcome the initial hurdles. 

Regions 6 and 7:

Institutions that have done well for more than 150 years obviously have done a lot right. Many of these institutions are likely to appeal to those pursuing the path of Bhakthi Yoga. These are the regions that get tagged with “Organized Religion” and are likely to be perceived as more “traditional or ritualistic”.

The Matams established by Adi Sankara for instance have been in place for more than a thousand years and had a successful lineage of more than 70 leaders.  Many of these temples are the institutions that reveal the timeless nature of Hindu philosophy. And, yet - their successful scale could become a deterrent making us feel not connected enough.

Regions 8 and 9:

These institutions have lasted for more than 75 years or 150 years - despite having not scaled enough. The word that comes to mind is "cult" - but, not in a negative sense. This way of life or teaching appealed to enough people that it lasted for so long. As much as I hear about Naga Sadhus every Kumbh Mela (once in 12 years) – I would not consider them to have had any scalable effect. Please use caution in clicking on this link and this link about Naga Sadhus. It contains nudity.

None came up in my data for Region 8. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If they really don’t exist – it must be because the world has stopped creating fringe organizations of not too big scale in the last 100 years. If Church of Scientology survives for another 2 decades, we could see it here one day J

Whom to follow?

If your heart or gut says you have found the institution or guru to learn from, you knew all along this article was not for you. Thanks for reading thus far and I hope you found the right one and wish you the best in your spiritual journey.

If you were searching for an institution, I hope this article helps you in driving a closure in your mind, thus putting an end to wandering from one Guru or institution to another.

Twenty years from now, you wake up to the breaking news that the institution you have been following for half your life is mired in a scandal. If this is the risk you want to avoid – stay with institutions that have been there for at least 60 to 75 years with successful transition of power/control at least once or twice, and also have a group of next-generation leaders ready. These are typically in the later parts of Regions 2 and most of Region 4. Depending on the sector that interests you - Jnana or Bhakthi or Karma etc, there are many institutions available to be affiliated with. Most of these shown in the circle are dedicated to the path of Jnana Yoga.

If the institution that you follow is not listed, ask yourself the questions listed under the data section, and map your institution using the framework. This reasoning should allow you to know more of what you are really seeking.

From time to time, it is still critical to seek inspiration from the temples and institutions that have been there for centuries. It would be good to visit them from Regions 6 and 7. These are the annual pilgrimages where our parents and grand parents have taken us. In other words, listen to your Region 1 institutions too - Your family !

Radical Hindu and Moderate Muslim - The other side of the media

Check out the societal pressures as Pakistani school girls debate Indo-Pak's military strength.

http://www.youtube.com/user/drdsumeet#p/a/u/2/81cfly1npRA


Check out the influence of an extremist view on a young Hindu girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHd_7-9oNw0&NR=1

The Hindus: An Alternative History

<<< Excerpt from email #1>>

I went in with a totally open mind into the book and am on page 480 and 200 odd pages to go in this voluminous book. Not sure if I can go on further. plan to though...

Mixed emotions. A good read as it starts with the Indus period and offers the usual interpretations around Aryan invasions. Haven't been able to keep it down in the last week and wasn't even running (thanks to Pollen too). 

But I can certainly feel that the author had her mind set on raising a controversy or at least preparing for one. It also feels like she had a magnifying glass for all the negative things to say about the Hindus based on her loose interpretations based on 20th century Freudian terms (which themselves are an outdated viewpoint) and chose to barely touch the so called positives. 

The tone started sounding more bashing as the chapters go past the Vedic and Upanishad times. She was even able to put the reader down from time to time by having a total disregard to the point that she occasionally intersperses good things to say in a chapter full of otherwise seemingly slamming off-hand remarks. 

If she were to author a book on American History - it was as if she  had just focused on slavery, Trail of Tears,  civil war, KKK, and Greed  with an occasional mention of the virtues of  the land of the free, capitalism and stock markets. Not getting into details on the topics if some of you hate the spoilers like I do before picking up any art form.

Is it too much to expect a careful handling of history from a non-native author? I was prepared for the occasional or even reasonably cynical viewpoint. But it seems like her disparaging tone has a purpose behind it.

<<< Excerpt from email #2 >>

First to answer D's comments - the definition of Hindu takes four pages or so in the beginning of the book. And a few paragraphs for Muslims too.

History is usually written by winners who survived. We had been told all along the history in India (as any other country does) in a pro-native way obviously. The attempt these days, which I first felt first with The Argumentative Indian (Amartya Sen) is to retell the history in an inclusive way giving a fair share to not only a Hindu India but to a multi-cultural India. (This is the liberal view in India).

What is good about the book:
1) The author is definitely thorough in her prep work. She has strong basics of the region across the ages - vedic, vedantic, epic, and during the Mughal/British periods.

2) She attempted to relay History not just from the typical Kshatriyan and Brahminical points of view as is told in India and was inclusive in incorporating the view of the Adivasis, the tribals, OBCs, the SBCs etc in addition to covering the foreign ruler's and women's point of view.

3) Her pulse on the Hindus is so precise to the extent that she knows that most temples in America are run by women - a keen observation contrasting the male dominated religious circuit in India. There is even mention of the BAPS in Atlanta.

Why it could have been better:

Especially when an author writes for 690 pages, the reader expects to see a holistic view of the history.
1) For the ancient period - The sacred texts alone are the basis for her interpretation of how the people may have lived - to the point of coming to conclusions and making side remarks. There is a sloka in some text about what the husband can do when he hates the guy who slept with his wife. She focuses on the word - "hates" and has a side remark that it is not applicable for those who may have indulged in a menage a trois. Such side comments are through out the book and brought her down as a serious author in my opinion. For instance - at another place , her comment on reading Vedas by day and Kamasutras by night is insulting especially when the two subjects are from two different times about a few hundred years apart. Again, I have no problems discussing the two together. They were catered to two different audiences. There are people who read PlayBoy and there are people who swear by Bible. Though there may be some who do both - using that together in a sentence seems to  justify that as a common trend as opposed to an exception (possibly).

2) She is talented in making any one look bad. I understand History is not about making any one look good or bad. But - a disproportionate coverage of the negative takes away what any person or event actually stood out for.
When she has a sentence about Muslims robbing Indian temples, she is quick to add in a bracket that Hindus also had robbed other temples. This constant "support" of the opposition party (If I may) leaves a distaste when you are in the middle of one version. I have NO problems in talking about Hindus who DID rob temples. But, every time you talk about the mischief done by the oppressors, it seems that she justifies their wrong doing just because it was also done by the victims themselves.. Again, this attitude prevails through out the book for every one.
On the few pages about Gandhi -sleeping with girls was discussed quite a bit,
On the one page about Vivekananda - his statement about his preference for beef was a paragraph.
On the couple of pages about Sankaracharya - his sleeping with the philosopher's wife (as an interpretation of the incident around Grihastha experience where Sankara gets into soul) was discussed enough.

3) 80% of the book is focused on bashing males, the so-called upper castes(and predominantly Brahmins), common religious and social views of the day and de-emphasizing the main aspects of Hinduism, extrapolating the myths of the day to treat them as actual version of what happened. I DO believe that some of the so-called upper castes treated others unjustly. There is no argument about that. However, focusing only on the negatives without mention of the other events that happened in that time is not an accurate portrayal of History either. For instance - Aryabhatta was mentioned for a couple of words within the same sentence. That's it.

4) Though there is mention of the parallels between Sanskrit and Tamil from the ancient days, there is not much coverage of the south. I would have expected more. Roughly 70% was for North Indian based coverage.

5) Tantra took a decent coverage. I am sure she would have talked about Nityananda had she waited a little longer to publish this book :) However, it is sad that tantra took more coverage than the philosophical concepts of Vedantic Hinduism. Actually, there was less coverage for the "Brahman"  or the soul (NOT the Brahmin) than what Tantra had.

6) Hardly any coverage on the other aspects of life - For instance arts, dance, yoga, mimamsa, culture took the back seat. Dogs, horses and Linga took the lead.

7) Too many modern/recent theories (Freudian for instance) and views (feminist for instance) imposed on analyzing a slice of the spectrum of events from the past.

Bottom line:

Worth a read for the alternate view. Couldn't muster the fact that my money would go to her (in a selfish pro-Indian way - and hence the above review could be somewhat biased as much as I try not to) and hence opted the library route. Inspired me to look into my next studies on other cultures that shared the monistic concepts and to focus on Avesta, Confucius, and ancient Greek religions.
2.5 star on Amazon is a true reflection of what I feel about the book!

PS: Intended to write this as a brain dump as opposed to an article.
So, the usual emphasis for proper writing is not there. I didn't even spell check.
Send...

Later

<<< Excerpt from email #3>>

On the Hindus in America.. it was mainly about

- Vivekananda's speech here 

-  the temples built here

- Hollywood influence and other articles (toilet seats, slippers etc with Hindu Gods as example)

- American Tantra and 

- talking about sites like eprarthana as if every one does just that !

Again, it is based on boundary conditions as if it is the mainstream!