Guest guest Posted April 13, 2000 Report Share Posted April 13, 2000 >"Radha-Govinda Mandir" <govinda >"Radha-Govinda Mandir" <govinda >"Brin Davan" <vaidika1008 >Let me congratule to your >Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:10:08 -0500 > >My dear Mahes Raja: >Namaste, All glories to Sri Krisna and Sri Ramacandra. Firts let me >congratulate your answers to Indira about of your rightly accusation of the >dissidents so called Sridharites. Thanks very much. But, because you arise >the point about of more hooting topics that pervades ISKCON. Also you >affirmed that Prabhupada left Rvuit-viks priest. Please I beg you too, you >would considerate the follow paper about the topic. I am open to dialogue >more. >Hoping for you good will and considerations >At Krishna Service. >Hare Krishna DAs. > >De: Radha-Govinda Mandir <govinda >Para: Adridharan das <Adri >Fecha: Lunes 27 de Marzo de 2000 12:42 PM >Asunto: read!!!!! > > >Recommended or appointed or other synonymous any way. Please I have so much >service I can not waste my time in political. It is no my service. Lord >Krsna teach very clear don't concern with the others duties is dangerous. >But please if you want reform the GBC all right; but don't make this in >public, but in confidence. Many students have chance to read the mistakes >and failures of our GBC and so called reformers. Are you sannyasi? Haven't >sex your? How long you can be in celibacy and without women-sanga? So >please I am attached grhasta, I can no critiqued to sannyasis. Therefore >ledme live in peace. Okey? I have so much to do in the academically fields >on the sake of Prabhupada and Lord Krishna. Don't send more your >newsletters. Please send this all GBC and sannyasis. They hear you better. >namaste, pranam, > >Disciple of My Disciple >An Analysis of the Conversation of May 28, 1977 >by (in alphabetical order): > >a.. Badrinarayan Dasa > b.. Giridhari Swami > c.. Umapati Swami > Acknowledgments >The authors would like to thank all of the devotees who contributed to this >paper. Special thanks to Drutakarma Prabhu for his logical insight and >clear thinking, and to Hrdayananda Das Goswami and Suhotra Swami for their >research on the Sanskrit meaning of "ritvik." The authors would also like >to thank Krishna Kant Prabhu for reviewing an earlier draft of the present >paper. An answer to Krishna Kant's comments is included herewith as an >appendix. > > > >-\ - > > >Foreword >The following paper deals only with the question, "What were Srila >Prabhupada's instructions on continuing initiations after his physical >departure?" Srila Prabhupada answered this question in the conversation of >May 28th, 1977, with additions in the garden conversation of July 8th and >the letter of July 9th. The present paper does not deal with the many >subsequent concerns, which will be addressed in an upcoming book on the >entire ISKCON guru issue, both past and present. > >There is also some controversy over Srila Prabhupada's desire concerning >initiations during his presence. Some say that the May 28th conversation >indicated that Srila Prabhupada would appoint proxies; others say that >Srila Prabhupada intended to name devotees who would act as full-fledged >gurus even during his presence. The present paper, however, deals only with >Srila Prabhupada's order concerning initiations after his disappearance. >That, in fact, is the reason for this paper: to show that Srila Prabhupada >unequivocally stated that after his departure his disciples should take up >the responsibilities of full-fledged initiating spiritual masters. > > > >-\ - > > >Preface >The devotees commonly known as "ritvik adherents" will be referred to in >this paper as "proxy-initiation adherents." The English word "proxy" has >been chosen over the Sanskrit "ritvik" for reasons that will become obvious >as the paper progresses. There has been some objection to the word "proxy" >on the grounds that it is pejorative, but the word simply means "authorized >agent" and has no pejorative connotations either in the dictionary or in >common usage (proxy vote, proxy wedding). The term "proxy-initiation" >refers to the philosophical position of the proxy-initiation adherents that >all initiations performed in ISKCON are proxy initiations and that Srila >Prabhupada is the only initiator. > >The term "pre-samadhi" refers to the time of Srila Prabhupada's physical >presence in this world, and "post-samadhi" refers to the period after his >departure. The term "Controversy Paper" refers to an undated paper put out >by the proxy-initiation adherents. Their paper is called "The Controversy >Surrounding Srila Prabhupada's Final Order on the Future of Initiations >Within ISKCON." The term "Controversy Paper" is a shortening of the title >for convenience. > > > >-\ - > > >Part 1: The Controversy >The controversy revolves around two questions: What was Srila Prabhupada's >final order concerning initiations after his departure? and, Why has ISKCON >had trouble implementing the order? The present paper deals only with the >first question: What was Srila Prabhupada's final order? > >Logically, we should first know Srila Prabhupada's order and then deal with >the problems. But the proxy-initiation adherents have fallen into the trap >of backward thinking: first looking at the problems and then trying to >ascertain, through reverse logic, what they think Srila Prabhupada should >have wanted. They point to the problems of some ISKCON spiritual masters >and then say that Srila Prabhupada's order was misunderstood. The problems, >they say, prove that Srila Prabhupada did not want his disciples to >initiate. > >In other words, they say that the falldowns of some of the new gurus prove >that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not qualified to initiate, at least >not yet. Srila Prabhupada is perfect and cannot set up an imperfect system. >The proxy-initiation adherents say that the falldowns of the gurus prove >that the present system in ISKCON is imperfect and cannot be what Srila >Prabhupada wanted. > >But difficulty in applying an order does not prove that the order was never >given. People have also had problems with other orders given by Srila >Prabhupada. Sannyasis have given up their vows. Marriages arranged by Srila >Prabhupada have ended in divorce. Gurukula teachers have failed in their >jobs. But these examples do not prove that Srila Prabhupada never gave >those orders or that the orders were imperfect. In the same way, the >failures of certain gurus do not prove that Srila Prabhupada never gave his >disciples the order to initiate. > >If difficulty in applying an order proves that the order was never given, >what can be said about the difficulty the proxy-initiation adherents have >had in applying what they themselves consider to be Srila Prabhupada's >order: that all new disciples will be the direct disciples of Srila >Prabhupada? They have not been able to implement this order within ISKCON >at all. By their own logic, this would prove that Srila Prabhupada never >gave such an order. > >One must separate the two questions: What was Srila Prabhupada's order? and >Why has ISKCON had so much trouble implementing it? The present paper deals >only with the first question: Srila Prabhupada's order. Of course, no one >can ignore the problems--the cheating, the fallen gurus, the devastated >disciples-- and these will be taken up in separate papers. But first things >first. > >The present paper will show that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada >ordered his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters. The >proxy-initiation adherents, however, say that the words Srila Prabhupada >spoke on that day have little importance and that Srila Prabhupada's order >is stated only in a letter of July 9, 1977. Their Controversy Paper says: > >"One interesting point to note is that neither the July 9th order nor any >subsequent document signed by Srila Prabhupada ever refers back to the >above conversation [the May 28th conversation]. This is quite peculiar >since the central argument of the GBC is that this brief exchange of words >is absolutely crucial to the proper understanding of the July 9th order. >Was this the normal way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions, >i.e., releasing incomplete and misleading written directives which could >only be properly understood by rummaging through old taped conversations?" > "Old taped conversations"? If Srila Prabhupada's words no more than >old tapes, why have devotees bothered to transcribe these conversations for >the Folio? One could just as easily say that Bhagavad-gita is some old >book. It seems that the proxy-initiation adherents are dismissing the words >of their spiritual master as some old relic hardly worth listening to. > >In fact, it was Srila Prabhupada who arranged the conversation. He had >called in the GBC members from all over the world so they could ask any >last questions before he departed. The atmosphere was formal and serious. >The conversation was taped for future reference, and the results of the >conversation were recorded in the official GBC minutes book, with all the >GBCs present signing as witnesses. Still, the proxy-initiation adherents >say that the May 28th conversation has little relevance and that the word >"henceforward" in the following passage of the July 9th letter proves that >Srila Prabhupada intended to be the only initiating guru after his >departure. > >"In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada >recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada >has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send >recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven >representatives are nearest their temple." > The proxy-initiation adherents also maintain that the July 9th letter >stands on its own without any reference to anything that was ever said >previously. The Controversy Paper says: > >"Was this the normal way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions, >i.e., releasing incomplete and misleading written directives which could >only be properly understood by rummaging through old taped conversations?" > The GBCs do not think the July 9th letter is incomplete or misleading, >nor do they think that Srila Prabhupada's words are just "old taped >conversations." Would anyone say that the July 9th letter an old piece of >paper? True, the July 9th letter was published, but the May 28th >conversation was recorded to be published if need be. There is a link >between the July 9th letter and the May 28th conversation. The July 9th >letter, issued through the GBC, is a follow-up to the May 28th >conversation, as the present paper will show, and deals only with the >question of how to initiate during the last days of Srila Prabhupada's >presence. > >But it was not "the normal way in which Srila Prabhupada issued >instructions" to change what he had been saying for twelve years about >disciplic succession by inserting one adverb ("henceforward") in a >sentence. Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to read what he wrote and >listen to what he said, and he assumed that they would look at any new >developments in the light of what had gone before. What teacher would not >want that? Therefore, saying that the July 9th letter must be understood >with no link to past conversations goes against Srila Prabhupada's normal >way. The July 9th letter does not stand on its own any more than the >eighteenth chapter of Bhagavad-gita stands on its own: one must first >understand the previous seventeen. > >In another sense the July 9th letter does stand on its own. It is a clearly >worded letter stating procedures to be followed at a certain time. But the >proxy-initiation adherents have imposed their own definition on the word >"henceforward," and it has thus become necessary to look at the letter in >historical perspective and to look at the word "henceforward" in the >standard dictionaries and in Srila Prabhupada other letters and >conversations. This topic will be dealt with in another section of the >present paper. > >The July 9th letter is a temporary order, written by Tamal Krishna Maharaja >and signed by Srila Prabhupada. It is based on a conversation between Srila >Prabhupada and Tamal Krishna Maharaja held in a garden on July 8, 1977. A >transcript of the conversation is included as an appendix to the present >paper. The May 28th conversation is the final order about continuing the >disciplic succession, spoken directly by Srila Prabhupada. > > > >-\ - > > >Part 2: The May 28th Conversation >The conversation: > >Satsvarupa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, >particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know >how first and second initiation would be conducted. > ANALYSIS: > >Satsvarupa Maharaja's question can be taken as either one question or two. >There is no doubt that the question concerns initiations after the >departure of Srila Prabhupada, but it is not certain whether the question >also includes the subject of initiations during Srila Prabhupada's >presence. In either case, the main concern is initiations after the >departure of Srila Prabhupada. Therefore Satsvarupa Maharaja says >"particularly." > >The hesitant wording shows that Satsvarupa Maharaja is uneasy about >bringing up the subject of Srila Prabhupada's departure. The devotees were >hoping against hope that Srila Prabhupada would recover, and they did not >like to contemplate the idea that he might be leaving. > >Satsvarupa Maharaja says "our next question" because this question was one >of a list of questions that the GBC had brought before Srila Prabhupada at >Srila Prabhupada's request. > >******************************************* > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I >shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas. > ANALYSIS: > >What is an "officiating acarya"? An officiating acarya must be a certain >kind of acarya: an acarya who officiates. But he is an acarya. Srila >Prabhupada does not say "priest" or "proxy." He says "acarya." (The meaning >of "officiate" will be taken up later.) > >The word "recommend" is also important. Srila Prabhupada is not appointing >acaryas. The initiations must continue, and this can only be done through >Srila Prabhupada's disciples. There is no appointment of gurus or >successors, only a recommendation that certain disciples start the natural >process. But a recommendation from the spiritual master is as good as an >order, and the recommendation of certain devotees in the July 9th letter is >a follow-up to the order that Srila Prabhupada's disciples should take up >the work of spiritual master after his departure. > >Srila Prabhupada is promising to do something. He will do it in the July >9th letter, and one of the people that Srila Prabhupada is now speaking to >will write that letter. How, then, can the proxy-initiation adherents say >that the July 9th letter can be understood only without reference to this >conversation? Rather, the July 9th letter begins the process Srila >Prabhupada is describing here. > >******************************************** > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya? > Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes. > ANALYSIS: > >The term "ritvik acarya" is brought in here by Tamala Krsna Maharaja. The >word "ritvik" plays a large part in the arguments of the proxy-initiation >adherents, but their definition of the word is false. The Controversy Paper >says: > >"Ritviks, by definition, are not the initiators." > The definition of "ritvik" in the Sanskrit dictionaries and in Srila >Prabhupada's books is not "proxy" or "non-initiator" or anything of the >sort. The definition of "ritvik" is simply "priest," and a look at Srila >Prabhupada's books will show "ritvik" defined as "priest," or something >similar, again and again. In fact, in the next passage Srila Prabhupada >will say that the person called "ritvik" is the guru. Thus, Srila >Prabhupada does not give any weight to the idea that "ritvik" means >"proxy." Many times Srila Prabhupada himself performed the fire sacrifice, >and on those occasions, Srila Prabhupada acted both as ritvik (officiating >priest) and as initiating guru but not as proxy. > >Of course, a priest, may act as a proxy at times like anyone else, and in a >later conversation Srila Prabhupada directs Hamsaduta to act as a proxy >ritvik. But one cannot disregard all the other examples of Srila >Prabhupada's use of the word and say that ritvik can be used only in this >sense. In the present conversation, Srila Prabhupada does not refer to >proxy initiations at all, not even in connection with the word "ritvik." >(The Sanskrit-dictionary definition of "ritvik" and some examples of Srila >Prabhupada's usage of the word are included as an appendix to the present >paper.) > >Tamal Krsna Maharaja, however, does seem to think that "ritvik" means >"proxy," and his question shows that the GBCs were ready to accept whatever >Srila Prabhupada said, even if he told them to become proxies after his >leaving. In fact, it is they, not Srila Prabhupada, who bring up the idea >of proxy initiation. This refutes the charge that those devotees who >accepted the responsibility of guru were eagerly waiting in the wings or >usurped the position. > >The proxy-initiation adherents say that Srila Prabhupada should stop >speaking at this point, although he does not. The Controversy Paper says: > >"Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly >revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. >The problem with that proposition is that, in issuing instructions like >this, Srila Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question >posed by Satsvarupa Maharaja if the following conditions were satisfied. >"a) That somebody took it upon themselves (sic) to ask more questions. & >"b) That by sheer serendipity they would happen upon the right questions to >get the proper answer to Satsvarupa's original question." > In other words, the proxy-initiation adherents say that the >conversation continues because the GBCs are trying to prompt Srila >Prabhupada into giving them the answer they want. But Tamal Krishna >Maharaja has already shown the willingness of the GBCs to accept any answer >Srila Prabhupada gave. > >The questions continue because the disciples want clarification of their >guru's words. And at the end of the discussion, when the GBCs are ready to >move on to another topic, Srila Prabhupada himself continues the >discussion, offering final and definitive statements on this question. > >The Controversy Paper says that something is wrong if "the full answer is >only properly revealed, piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the >conversation." But how else is knowledge revealed? Is everything revealed >in Bhagavad-gita 2.11? Or is "the full answer ... only properly revealed, >piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation"? Indeed, it >is the duty of the disciple to ask the guru for clarification, and no one >can blame him. The proxy-initiation adherents thus go against Srila >Prabhupada's teachings: "Not only should one hear submissively from the >spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in >submission and service and inquiries." (BG 4.34, purport) > >How casually the proxy-initiation adherents play with the words of Srila >Prabhupada! They say that the word "henceforward" in the July 9th letter is >of the utmost importance but the words of this conversation should never >have been spoken, or are at best an "old taped conversation." > >Srila Prabhupada condemned such picking and choosing of the words one likes >and dislikes. Srila Prabhupada's words are the same as scripture, and to >reject this conversation is the same as rejecting a chapter of >Bhagavad-gita. > >************************************************ > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the >initiation and the... > Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru. > ANALYSIS: > >The Controversy Paper says: > >"Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Srila Prabhupada >says 'he is guru,' he is really talking about the ritviks themselves. This >is clearly absurd since Srila Prabhupada has only just defined the word >ritvik as 'officiating acarya.' Literally a priest who conducts some type >of religious or ceremonial function." > The word "acarya" does not mean "priest," so "officiating acarya" >cannot literally mean "officiating priest." Nor is the word "officiate" >limited to the meaning of performing a ceremony. According to the American >Heritage Dictionary, "officiate" can also mean "to perform the duties and >functions of an office or a position of authority." Literally speaking, >then, "officiating acarya" can only mean "someone who performs the >functions of an acarya." > >The Controversy Paper mentions the word "ritvik" here, so let us see what >the conversation would look like if "ritvik" were the same as "proxy." The >conversation would run like this: > >"Tamala Krsna: Is that called proxy-acarya? > "Prabhupada: Proxy, yes. > "Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives >the initiation and the... > "Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru." > In this case, the conversation would make no sense. How can the proxy >be the guru? One may say, of course, that the proxy and the person who >gives the initiation are not the same, but Satsvarupa Maharaja is referring >to them as the same person. The proxy-initiation adherents would have to >say, then, that Srila Prabhupada either is not answering the question or >does not understand it. > >The Controversy Paper thus suggests a contradiction- the proxy would be the >guru- but tries to save itself by giving Srila Prabhupada a habit he did >not have: The paper says that when Srila Prabhupada uses the word "he" he >is talking about himself (and that to think otherwise is "clearly absurd"). > >The paper says: > >"When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his >position as acarya, Srila Prabhupada would invariably refer to himself in >the third person." > The proxy-initiation adherents are saying here that when Srila >Prabhupada would speak of himself, he would not say "I," as other people >do, but would say "he," and that this was his invariable way of speaking. >In other words, they say that when Srila Prabhupada would want to say "I am >your guru," he would invariably say, "He is your guru," and leave the >bewildered disciple to guess what he meant. > >But Srila Prabhupada spoke in such a way rarely if at all. When he spoke >about the spiritual master in general, he would use the third person, and >when he spoke about himself, he would use the first person, the same as >everyone else. One has only to look through Srila Prabhupada's letters and >conversations on the Folio for proof. Thus the proxy-initiation adherents >say that Srila Prabhupada spoke clearly and directly about important issues >(we all agree), but go on to say that when Srila Prabhupada says "he" he >means "I." > >But their argument is too easy. They take any word they want, give it any >meaning they want, and make Srila Prabhupada appear to say anything they >want. So "he" means "I." Why not "black" means "white"? How about, "When >Srila Prabhupada says 'Krishna,' he means 'Darwin' "? Who can say where it >would end? > >In fact, Srila Prabhupada uses the word "I" to refer to himself in this >very conversation, so according to the proxy-initiation adherents' theory, >Srila Prabhupada would sometimes say "I" and sometimes "he" when speaking >of himself, even at the same time. If the proxy-initiation adherents think >Srila Prabhupada's use of language is so imprecise and confusing, how can >they attach so much importance to one single word in the July 9th letter? > >To further test the proxy-initiation adherents' premise, let us take this >segment of the conversation and substitute "I" for "he," as well as "proxy" >for "acarya": > >"Tamala Krsna: Is that called proxy-acarya? > "Prabhupada: Proxy, yes. > "Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives >the initiation and the... > "Prabhupada: I'm guru. I'm guru." > It would seem, then, that Srila Prabhupada is not answering the >question at all. He would simply be declaring himself guru and giving no >information about "that person who gives the initiation." The >proxy-initiation adherents may argue that the "person who gives the >initiation" is really Srila Prabhupada, but then Srila Prabhupada would >simply be saying that he is the guru of the people he initiates, something >Satsvarupa Maharaja already knows. > >When Satsvarupa Maharaja says "that person who gives the initiation," he is >speaking not about Srila Prabhupada but about the person who will perform >the ceremony or take charge of the new disciple after Srila Prabhupada's >departure. That is the whole point of the conversation. Are we to think >that Srila Prabhupada does not understand what anyone is talking about >here? > >Srila Prabhupada did not call the GBCs to his side just to tell them that >he is the guru of the people he initiates. He called them in to answer >their questions about what to do after his departure. The proxy-initiation >adherents' version that Srila Prabhupada says "he" when he means "I" turns >the conversation into nonsense. This point will become more obvious later >on. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada's words- "He's guru"- literally say >that his disciples will be gurus after his departure. > >********************************************** > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf. > Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should >not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be >actually guru, but by my order. > ANALYSIS: > >Satsvarupa Maharaja says "on your behalf, " again suggesting the >possibility of proxy initiation and the willingness of the GBCs to accept >whatever Srila Prabhupada would say. Satsvarupa Maharaja is certainly not >prompting Srila Prabhupada or trying to trick Srila Prabhupada into giving >one answer or another. But Srila Prabhupada answers here that "on my >behalf" does not mean acting as a post-samadhi proxy but means becoming an >actual guru. And in the garden conversation of July 8th, 1977, Srila >Prabhupada says that proxy initiation is a formality to be observed during >his presence: > >"Tamala Krsna: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesa Maharaja, he >should send the person's name to us here and I'll enter it in the book. >Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this? > Prabhupada: India, I am here." > The statement "India, I am here" shows that Srila Prabhupada is >talking about a system for use during his physical presence. One may argue >that there is no order for the disciples to stop the proxy initiation and >become initiating gurus after Srila Prabhupada's departure, but that order >had already been given on May 28. In other words, in the May 28th >conversation Srila Prabhupada orders his disciples to take up the work of >initiating guru, and in the July 9th letter, based on the July 8th garden >conversation, Srila Prabhupada describes proxy initiation as a system to be >followed during his physical presence. > >When Srila Prabhupada says "on my behalf, on my order...," the >proxy-initiation adherents say that he is speaking of an order to come in >the future, that if this statement itself were the order, then Srila >Prabhupada would have said something like, "Now I am giving the order." > >Why? > >"Be guru, but by my order" is in the present tense, with no indication of >future. The "but" does not indicate future, since "but" can be used in any >tense: "I am a guru, but only by the order of Srila Prabhupada," or "I >became a guru, but only by the order of Srila Prabhupada." It is >unreasonable to impose an idea of future tense on a statement that is in >the present. When Lord Caitanya said, "On My order, become a spiritual >master," He did not have to repeat Himself and say, "Now I am giving the >order." The words "on My order" themselves point to the order. > >Here, Srila Prabhupada says "on my order" as a clarification of "on my >behalf:" > >"So on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, >but by my order." > One becomes a spiritual master on behalf of his own spiritual master, >on the order of his spiritual master, carrying on the disciplic succession. >Srila Prabhupada is telling his disciples to become spiritual masters, but >as his servant, in the same way that Srila Prabhupada himself became a >spiritual master on behalf of His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta >Sarasvati Thakura. > >Srila Prabhupada says, "In my presence one should not become guru." Some >may argue that because Srila Prabhupada is present in his books, the order >is that no one may initiate for ten thousand years. But Satsvarupa >Maharaja's opening question says "initiations in the future, particularly >at that time when you're no longer with us." Satsvarupa Maharaja is clearly >talking about Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. If Srila Prabhupada's >answer "in my presence" is about the presence of his books, Srila >Prabhupada is either ignoring the question or playing a trick on the GBC, >two unlikely possibilities. > >******************************************** > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples. > Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who? > ANALYSIS: > >Satsvarupa Maharaja again suggests the possibility of proxy initiation. >Srila Prabhupada could say yes, but he does not. On the contrary, Srila >Prabhupada suggests that the question does not make sense. Therefore, Tamal >Krishna Maharaja will ask for clarification. > >******************************************* > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're >officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, >whose disciple are they? > Prabhupada: They're his disciple. > Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple. > Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple. > ANALYSIS: > >Again, Srila Prabhupada does not take the word "ritvik" to mean "proxy." In >fact, the word "ritvik" seems to have no bearing on the conversation at >all. Srila Prabhupada says that those who are initiated by the ritvik >acaryas become the granddisciples of Srila Prabhupada. They become the >disciples of the ritvik acaryas. The passage is clear, logical, easy to >understand, and in line with our teachings. And Srila Prabhupada says that >the new initiate is the disciple of the ritvik. > >Again, let us substitute "proxy" for "ritvik": > >"Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these proxy-acaryas, they're >officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, >whose disciple are they? > "Prabhupada: They're his disciple. > "Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple. > "Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple." > Again, the passage would contradict itself. If the new initiate is the >disciple of the proxy, then the proxy is not a proxy. And again, the >proxy-initiation adherents try to resolve their contradiction by putting a >twist on the passage. They read the passage differently, maybe because of a >lack of clarity in the recording. They read it as: > >"Prabhupada: Who is initiating. His granddisciple." ("He is granddisciple" >becomes "His granddisciple.") > The Controversy Paper says: > >"In his question Tamal Krsna is asking about ritvik acaryas, not diksa >gurus. Therefore we know, even before Prabhupada answers, that any >disciples referred to can only belong to the initiator, Srila Prabhupada. >As we have shown, this is the very definition of ritvik, he acts on someone >else's behalf." > The above paragraph has two faults. First, it assumes that Srila >Prabhupada is the initiator without Srila Prabhupada's having said so. >Nowhere in this conversation does Srila Prabhupada say that he will >continue to be the initiator after his departure. Second, their "very >definition of ritvik" is wrong again. "Ritvik" means "priest," and a priest >is not obliged to act on someone else's behalf. The yajna brahmanas of >Vrndavana were ritviks and were acting on their own behalf. One may argue >that their yajna was not an initiation, but still they were acting on their >own behalf, as opposed to the Controversy Paper's "very definition of >ritvik." > >The Controversy Paper continues: > >"Line 19-20. Tamal Krsna repeats the answer, and Srila Prabhupada >continues: 'who is initiating. His grand disciple.' We have chosen the >transcript version 'His grand disciple' over the version 'he is grand >disciple' since it most closely resembles the tape, and seems to flow best >with what is being said." > But Srila Prabhupada may have said "He's grand disciple," in which >case, "His grand disciple" would not resemble the tape more closely. The >Controversy Paper continues: > >"We have established that in speaking in the third person Srila Prabhupada >must be speaking of himself." > They have established no such thing. They have proposed it, but the >Folio proves the contrary. Again, Srila Prabhupada would speak of himself >in the first person, like everyone else. > >The Controversy Paper continues: > >"To help us understand more clearly what Srila Prabhupada is saying, let us >replace third person with first person statements, shown in brackets, for >lines 17-20." > Two faults here: First, it is only an assumption, that Srila >Prabhupada is speaking about himself in the third person. Second, by >inserting words in brackets one could make Srila Prabhupada appear to speak >any words one might want, even Mayavada philosophy. The Controversy Paper >continues: > >"TKG. .... Whose disciples are they? > "S. Prabhupada. They are (my) disciples. > "TKG. They are (your) disciples. > "S. Prabhupada. (I am) initiating. (My) grand disciple." > Why not "[He is] initiating. [My] grand disciple." Who can say which >brackets are better? > >Because the proxy-initiation adherents read "he is" as "his," they insist >that "initiating" and "grand disciple" must both be preceded by pronouns in >the same person ("I am initiating my granddisciple" or "He is initiating >his granddisciple"). Thus they assume that the new initiate is the >granddisciple of the initiator And since the new initiate cannot be the >granddisciple of the ritvik, he must be the granddisciple of Srila >Prabhupada, and therefore Srila Prabhupada is the initiator. > >But their logic goes in circles because they assume beforehand that their >parenthetical insertions are correct: The insertions are correct because >this is what Srila Prabhupada must have meant, and Srila Prabhupada must >have meant this because of the inserted words. Here is the "classic >circular argument" the proxy-initiation adherents mention in one of their >papers: it is their own argument. > >The proxy-initiation adherents would have Srila Prabhupada say, "I am >initiating my granddisciple." Thus they admit that even according to their >own view the new initiate is a granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada as opposed >to the direct disciples initiated during Srila Prabhupada's physical >presence. There would still be a one-generation difference between those >initiated during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence and those initiated >later. But how can some be direct disciples and others be granddisciples if >the initiator is the same and pre-samadhi or post-samadhi makes no >difference? > >And why the obscure language? If Srila Prabhupada were speaking about >himself as the initiator, why would he say "who" instead of "I"? "Who" >(meaning "he who") refers to a general principle, not a particular person. >Again, Srila Prabhupada's habit was to say "I" when speaking of himself. >Why a sudden departure from his usual way of speaking and from clear >language? The reading "He is granddisciple" requires no interpretation or >stretching of the imagination. It is straightforward and logical, in line >with Srila Prabhupada's usual way of speaking. > >But whatever the reading, whatever the insertion, the fact remains that the >new disciple is the granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada and cannot be the >Godbrother or Godsister of the pre-samadhi disciples. No amount of >word-twisting can change it: > >"Prabhupada: They're his disciple. > "Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple. > "Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple." > ************************************************* > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Satsvarupa: Yes. > Tamala Krsna: That's clear. > ANALYSIS: > >This passage does not give any information. > >************************************************ > >The May 28th conversation continues: > >Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer... > Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. >That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it. > ANALYSIS: > >Satsvarupa Maharaja is ready to move on to another question, but Srila >Prabhupada continues the discussion. Although the proxy-initiation >adherents say that Srila Prabhupada should have stopped speaking at the >beginning of the discussion, Srila Prabhupada himself wants to continue. > >Then Srila Prabhupada says: > >"When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru." > Taken out of context, the sentence could seemingly point to a future >order, but in the context of the conversation it could only be a >re-statement of the order given above by Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise, why >would Srila Prabhupada say "That's all"? > >The comment "That's all" implies that the instruction is complete, that >there is no more to add. Srila Prabhupada is summing it up, not reversing >it. One may say that the word "when" indicates a future order, but "when" >does not necessarily indicate future any more than "but." ("When I see a >sunrise, I think of Krsna.") > >Then Srila Prabhupada says, "He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's >it," another simple restatement of what has already been said. This final >statement is clear and needs no elaboration: "disciple of my disciple." > >Again, let us test the proxy-initiation adherents' theory by substituting >"I" for "he": > >"Prabhupada: When I order, 'You become guru,' I become regular guru. That's >all." > Thus, the proxy-initiation adherents' theory about "he" and "I" would >ultimately reduce the conversation to nonsense. > >In short, Srila Prabhupada has stated the principles of post-samadhi >initiations, and he will confirm his order by naming some people to begin >the process. This conversation is Srila Prabhupada's last official response >to the question, How will initiations go on after your departure? Srila >Prabhupada answers with terms such as regular guru, disciple of my >disciple, and granddisciple. > >There is nothing in this conversation to indicate that people initiated >after the departure of Srila Prabhupada would be the disciples of anyone >other than the person who gives the initiation, call him ritvik or not. The >new initiates will be the granddisciples of Srila Prabhupada. Thus we find >in this discussion an affirmation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings of the >previous twelve years, in harmony with the Vedic tradition. > > > >-\ - > > > > >Part 3: An Analysis of the Word "Henceforward" >The proxy-initiation adherents base their theory of post-samadhi proxy >initiation on the word "henceforward" in the following passage of the July >9th letter: > >"In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada >recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada >has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send >recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven >representatives are nearest their temple." > The standard dictionaries define "henceforward" as "starting from >now." The word "henceforward" signals that a process must begin >immediately, but it offers no precision as to when the process, once begun, >must stop. In fact, no standard dictionary defines "henceforward" as >"starting from now and continuing forever." > >The following are some examples of Srila Prabhupada's using "henceforward" >in a non-eternal aspect: > >" As I told you, that 2,500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago Vyasadeva wrote >about Lord Buddha's appearance. Still, there is appearance of Kalki from >this time, henceforward, after 400,000's of years Kalki will appear." > (From Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1971, 710816SB.LON) > "Regarding printing 20,000 copies of Back To Godhead, I have appealed >to 4 centers, namely New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London to >contribute $750 monthly. I have got confirmation from Los Angeles, so I >shall be glad to hear from New York also whether this center is going to >hand over to me $750 per month. I have no objection if this $750 is >collected in the way of advertisements from New York, but charges will be >increased because we are going to print 20,000 copies henceforward." > (Letter to: Rayarama : 69-02-20 Los Angeles) > " I have again begun speaking on the tapes and very soon you will get >transcribed copies of my dictaphoning for being edited and laid out for >printing, chapter-wise, the fourth canto. Let the second and third cantos >be finished quickly so that the fourth canto can be started. Henceforward I >shall be supplying material for all cantos and you must do the rest; >editing, layout, printing, etc." > (Letter to: Candanacarya: 71-03-23 Bombay ) > In each of these cases the period beginning with "henceforward" will >have an end, whether or not specifically stated by Srila Prabhupada. Thus, >"henceforward" does not necessarily mean "continuing forever," either in >the dictionary or in Srila Prabhupada's usage. > >One cannot say, then, that the "henceforward" in the July 9th letter >necessarily means that the proxy initiations must continue after Srila >Prabhupada's departure, especially in the light of the May 28th >conversation. > >It is unreasonable to impose one's own definition on a word and then use >that imposed definition as proof of what Srila Prabhupada must have wanted. >The July 9th letter in itself neither confirms nor denies the possibility >of Srila Prabhupada's disciples becoming initiating gurus, but taken in the >context of the May 28th conversation, the July 9th letter can only be the >recommendation of proxies who would later start the process of post-samadhi >initiation by Srila Prabhupada's disciples. > >Prabhupada: "When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes regular guru. >That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it." > > >-\ - > > > > >Appendices > > a.. Appendix A: The Conversation of May 28th, 1977 > > b.. Appendix B: The Garden Conversation of July 8th, 1977 > c.. Appendix C: The Letter of July 9th, 1977 > d.. Appendix D: Definition of "Ritvik" > e.. Appendix E: Reply to the Comments of Krsna Kant Prabhu > > >-\ - > > >index1.htmlBack to the index > > > De: Adridharan das <Adri > Para: govinda <govinda > Fecha: Jueves 23 de Marzo de 2000 2:25 AM > Asunto: Fw: IRM Newsletters > > > > Dear prabhu, > > Thank you for your message. I am very sorry to hear of your >horrible mistreatment at the hands of one of ISKCON's unauthorised diksa >gurus. It is stories like this that help inspire us to go on with our >mission to put Srila Prabhupada's initiation system back in place. Thank >you for your honesty and candour. > very best wishes > Adri > > - > Radha-Govinda Mandir > Adri > Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:15 PM > RE: IRM Newsletters > > > My dear Adri: > Please, accept my humble pranams. Yes, sorry for my strongs words, >but please fall dow to your lotus feets. Stop this adversity against to >your godbrothers. It is not the Prabhupada desire. Please I beg you don't >follow with this antiguruparampara philosophy. You are swimming in very >dangerus waters. Letme advised to you, I have many complains of some >sannyasis GBC members, I passed very bitter experiences even with my Guru >by his havy character and injust punishment. But it is not reason for >change in very radical way the vaisnava philosophy and become one >apasiddhanta. If you want spans the Prabhupada money sending some thing of >India, please I beg you send me Sandalwood, oil and firts class incesiese >for arcana, Lord Sri Krsna will be very thanks with you. Because here in >west is full in speculations. > Thanks very much. > Hare Krsna. > > De: Adri <Adri > Para: govinda <govinda > Fecha: Lunes 20 de Marzo de 2000 1:47 AM > Asunto: Fw: IRM Newsletters > > > > Dear Prabhu, > PAMHO, AGTSP, > > Thank you very much for your message. It is always >wonderful to get feedback from all the devotees around the world. You >mention you are not sure about our newsletter. Do you want us to stop >sending them to you? Looking forward to hearing from you. > Your humble servant > Adridharan das > > - > Radha-Govinda Mandir > Adri > Friday, March 17, 2000 10:56 PM > RE: IRM Newsletters > > > Adri: > Namaste: Prabhupada ki jay. Sorry, but I am in agreement >with you, that the presents sanyasis that are given diksa, they need shall >more humbles and more tolerants, some of there already are, and they don't >imitate to Prabhupada and be harsh, rude and chastising his disciples. >Although you are very nonsee, stubborn I don't know about your stupid >newsletter. > HKD: > > De: Adri <Adri > Para: Undisclosed-Recipient:; ><Undisclosed-Recipient:;> > Fecha: Viernes 17 de Marzo de 2000 4:45 AM > Asunto: IRM Newsletters > > > > Newsletter of the Iskcon Revival Movement (IRM) > Message from Adridharana Dasa, Temple President ISKCON >Calcutta: > > Dear Prabhus, > > Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to >Srila Prabhupada. > Welcome to the our newsletter, which deals with the >attempt to restore the > ORIGNAL Hare Krishna Movement, which has been in >continual disarray > since the physical departure of our beloved founder, >His Divine Grace, A.C. > Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada, in 1977. Below please >find a list of all our > previous newsletters. Our next one will be sent out to >you shortly. > Issues 1-11 are available simply by clicking onto our >website at: > > http://www.come.to/irm. > > Alternatively you can receive any of the newsletters >by writing to me > > adri > > Hope you enjoy them. > Thank you. > Your Servant, > Adridharan das > > No 1. Invitation to Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja > No 2. GBC Lose First Round of Court Case > No 3. The Story VNN Refused to Publish > No 4. Poison Theorists Accuse Adri of Complicity > No 5. Iskcon Continues to Promote Child Abusers > No 6. Invitation to Malaysia > No 7. United World Body Formed > No 8 Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory? > No 9. PADA Attacks IRM Position > No 10. PADA Continues to Present False Evidence > No 11. GBC Funded Video says Ritvik Spiritual > No 12. Child Rapist Selected by Gurus to Defend their >Legitimacy > No. 13. GBC Facing Perjury Charge in Calcutta High >Court > No. 14. Sahajiyism Makes Comeback in ISKCON > > If you do not want to keep receiving this Newsetter >please return with "" in the subject box > and we will remove you from the mailing list. > > > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.