Guest guest Posted June 22, 1999 Report Share Posted June 22, 1999 Living Guru, Christianity and Rtvikism ----- by Damana Krishna das and Vidvan Gauranga das The pro-rtviks claim that Prabhupada has stated that a Christian can go back to Godhead without having to accept a living guru. They then surmise that just like that, we can accept Prabhupada and go back to Godhead. In support of this doctrine, they quote the following segment of questions and answers at the end of a lecture in Seattle on October 2, 1968: Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to, without the help of a spiritual master, to reach the spiritual sky through believing in the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings? Prabhupada: I don't follow. Tamal Krsna: Can a Christian in this age, without a spiritual master, but by reading the Bible and following Jesus's words, reach the... Prabhupada: When you read Bible, you follow spiritual master. How can you say without? As soon as you read Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means you are following spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without spiritual master? Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living spiritual master. Prabhupada: Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible," when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. So any case, you have to follow a spiritual master. There cannot be the question without spiritual master. Is that clear? What we shall do is to closely examine this passage part by part. We shall also examine how the passage continues so that we can clarify what exactly Prabhupada is teaching here and determine if indeed Prabhupada is teaching that one does not require a living spiritual master or not. QUOTE Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to, without the help of a spiritual master, to reach the spiritual sky through believing in the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings? Prabhupada: I don't follow. Tamal Krsna: Can a Christian in this age, without a spiritual master, but by reading the Bible and following Jesus's words, reach the... ANALYSIS So the question is clear: if a Christian can simply by relying on the vani of Jesus Christ go back to Godhead. QUOTE Prabhupada: When you read Bible, you follow spiritual master. How can you say without? As soon as you read Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means you are following spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without spiritual master? ANALYSIS Prabhupada is equating reading the Bible with following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ which means that they are following the guru. So they are not not following the guru. So they will go back to Godhead. QUOTE Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living spiritual master. ANALYSIS Now the question is more focussed on whether the spiritual master has to be a living guru, a non-post-humous guru or not. QUOTE Prabhupada: Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible," when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. So any case, you have to follow a spiritual master. There cannot be the question without spiritual master. Is that clear? ANALYSIS Here the pro-rtviks catch up and say that in answer to the question about the necessity of a living guru, Prabhupada explains that the position of a spiritual master is transcendental to his presence or absence from the mundane vision. They support this with the statement, "Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept." And they point out further, "As you say that "by reading Bible," when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ." The pro-rtviks claim that this is similar to the post-samadhi rtvik system: Prabhupada is "represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of" Prabhupada. Then they quote, "So any case, you have to follow a spiritual master. There cannot be the question without spiritual master." And they explain that this means that such a "representational system" is a way to follow the spiritual master and that there cannot be a question of being without a spiritual master in this system. This is their argument. However, let us look at this closely. Prabhupada is saying here that reading the Bible means that we should follow Jesus Christ represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Jesus Christ. Now what type of representative is the priest/clergyman that Prabhupada is talking about? There are two possible choices: (1) The representative priest is like a rtvik. He is a formal priest just as they are in Christianity. They don't take responsibility for the spiritual life of the "disciple" nor does the (baptized or initiated) disciple agree to be bound by the instructions of the priest. There is no factual guru-disciple relationship between the "disciple"/follower and the priest here. Let's call this type of representative as a "Rtvik-representative". (2) The representative priest that Prabhupada is referring to is a guru. He is responsible to follow the Bible and take responsibility for the spiritual life of the "disciple" and the (baptized or initiated) disciple agrees to be bound by the instructions of the priest. There is a real guru-disciple relationship here. Let's call this type of representative as a "Guru-representative". Now let us examine the remaining of this conversation on this topic... Madhudvisa: I mean like we couldn't understand the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita without your help, without your presentation. Prabhupada: Similarly you have to understand Bible with the help of the priest in the church. Madhudvisa: Yes, but is he receiving a good interpretation from his disciplic succession or his bishop, because there seems to be some kind of a discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There's many different sects of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways. Prabhupada: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation in the Bible. Then there is no authority of Bible. If you interpret something... Just like "Call a spade a spade." So if you call something else that is a different thing. He's not spiritual master. Just like this is watch. Everybody has called it watch, and if I call it spectacle, then what is the value of my being spiritual master? I'm misleading. (laughter) It is watch, that I must say. So when there is misinterpretation, he's not a bona fide spiritual master. He's not spiritual master, what is called a bona fide. If I want to teach you how to see this watch I can say that "This is called watch and this is called hand and this is called time indication, this is, this called..," so that is nice. And if I say that "Everybody says it is watch, I say it is spectacle," then what kind of a spiritual master I am? Reject him immediately. That intelligence you must have, who is a pseudo spiritual master or real spiritual master. Otherwise you'll be cheated. And that is being done. Everyone is interpreting in his own way. The Bhagavad-gita, there are thousands of editions, and they have tried to interpret in their own way, all nonsense. They should be all thrown away. Simply you have to read Bhagavad-gita as it is. Then you'll understand. There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, then there is no authority. Lawbook. Do you mean to say in the court if you say before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," will it be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You have no right." Then what is the authority of this lawbook. If everyone comes, "I interpret in this way." And interpretation when required? When a thing is not understood. If I say, "It is watch," and everyone understands that "This is watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting that this is spectacle? If anyone can understand the clear passage... Just like in the Bible, "God said, 'Let there be creation' and there was creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation? So unnecessary interpretation is not required and that is not bona fide, and those who are interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration. God said, "Let there be creation." So there was creation. Simple thing. Where is the question if interpretation? What can be the interpretation here? Suggest that this can be interpretation. Am I right? In the beginning of the Bible it is said like that? God said "Let there be creation" and there was creation. So what is your interpretation. Tell me what is your interpretation. Is there any possibility of interpretation? Can any one of you suggest? Then where is the opportunity of interpretation? One can explain. That is different thing, but the fact that God created, that will remain. That you cannot change. Now how that creative process took place, that is explained in Bhagavatam: First of all, there was sky, then there was sound, then there was this, that. This is the process of creation, that is another thing. But the fact, the primary fact that God created, that will remain at any circumstances. Not the rascal scientist says "Oh, there was a chunk and it is split up and there was these planets. Perhaps this and likely this," all this nonsense. They'll simply interpret, "likely," "perhaps." That is not science, "likely,perhaps." Why perhaps? Here is clear statement, "God created." That's all. Finish. Yes. Now we shall quote and analyze this. QUOTE Madhudvisa: I mean like we couldn't understand the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita without your help, without your presentation. ANALYSIS Now, Madhudvisa Prabhu clarifies his question: Just like he can't understand the teachings of the Gita without Prabhupada's help, without his presentation, without the "help" of Christ's representative, a Christian wouldn't be able to follow the Bible. Let us note the following: 1. The expression "I mean like..." signifies that Madhudvisa Prabhu is comparing the Christian's situation with the priest with his situation with Prabhupada. This is very important to consider. 2. What was the type of help that Prabhupada was providing? Was Prabhupada helping as a "rtvik-representative" (of whoever)? Or was Prabhupada helping his disciples as a "Guru-representative"? It is obvious that Prabhupada was a "guru-representative". 3. What was Prabhupada's type of "presentation" of the Bhagavad-gita? Was he presenting it like a "rtvik-representative", merely giving sermons officially and formally in a religious institution like a church? Or was he taking personal responsibility over his disciples' lives like a "Guru-representative" teaching the Bhagavad-gita by example and precept at all times, formally and informally, in all circumstances? Again it is obvious that Prabhupada was a "guru-representative" in this regard. 4. What was the type of relationship between a follower of Prabhupada and Prabhupada himself at the time of this conversation which Madhudvisa Prabhu is referring to here? Was it like that of a "rtvik-representative" where an initiated disciple of Prabhupada was not at all bound to the instructions of Prabhupada? Or was it like that of a "guru-representative" where an initiated disciple of Prabhupada was bound to fulfill the instructions of Prabhupada? Obviously it was a relationship like that of a "guru-representative". Let us now examine what Prabhupada is saying in regard to this statement of Madhudvisa Prabhu on how to relate to the "priest in the Church". QUOTE Prabhupada: Similarly you have to understand Bible with the help of the priest in the church. ANALYSIS IT IS GREATLY SIGNIFICANT THAT PRABHUPADA USES THE EXPRESSION "SIMILARLY you have to..." This usage of words proves that: 1. Prabhupada accepts Madhudvisa Prabhu's comparison of the Christian's situation with the priest with his situation with Prabhupada. 2. The type of help that "the priest in the church" should provide to the Christian has to be the same type of help that Prabhupada was providing his disciples: as a "Guru-representative", taking responsibility for the spiritual life of the Christian and not merely as a formal priest not interested in anything but to conduct a baptism ceremony on behalf of Jesus Christ just as Prabhupada was not interested merely to conduct an initiation ceremony on behalf of Lord Caitanya (or whoever). He has to be a "guru-representative" and not a "rtvik-representative". This is the type of help that the priest in the Church should provide to the Christian, in Prabhupada's view. 3. The type of "presentation" of the Bible "the priest in the church" should provide has to be the same type of presentation Prabhupada was providing to his disciples: as a "guru-representative". Just as Prabhupada was taking personal responsibility over his disciples' lives like a "Guru-representative" teaching the Bhagavad-gita by example and precept at all times, formally and informally, in all circumstances, the "priest in the church" should take personal responsibility over the Christians' lives (those whom he baptizes and teaches the Bible) as a "Guru-representative", teaching the Bible by example and precept at all times, formally and informally, in all circumstances. Unlike Prabhupada, he should not merely give sermons officially and formally in a religious institution like a church as a "rtvik-representative". This is what "similarly you have to..." implies, in Prabhupada's view, regarding the type of presentation of the Bible the church priest has to provide, similar to Prabhupada as a "guru-representative" of Jesus Christ. 4. The type of relationship between a Christian who is baptized by the church priest and the priest should also be similar to how it was between a follower of Prabhupada and Prabhupada himself at the time of this conversation which Madhudvisa Prabhu. Just as an initiated disciple of Prabhupada agreed to be bound by the instructions of Prabhupada because Prabhupada is presenting to him the Bhagavad-gita as it is, a Christian who undergoes baptism from a Christian priest should agree to be bound by the instructions of the priest because he is presenting to him the Bible as it is. [Prabhupada will preach a little further down the necessity of a priest to present the Bible as it is.] So again, in Prabhupada's view, "similarly you have to..." implies that there should be a similar guru-disciple relationship here between "the priest in the church" and the Christian. 5. One last point is that Prabhupada says here "Similarly YOU HAVE TO". It is obvious that in this sentence, Prabhupada is talking to Madhudvisa Prabhu as if he is talking to a Christian. By using the imperative, Prabhupada indicates that Christians should function the same way as Prabhupada's disciples were functioning in relation to him. In other words, they have to be real disciples of such a bona fide "guru-representative" of Christ, agreeing to be bound by the instructions of their "spiritual master" just as Prabhupada's disciples were bound by the instructions of Prabhupada. QUOTE Madhudvisa: Yes, but is he receiving a good interpretation from his disciplic succession or his bishop, because there seems to be some kind of a discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There's many different sects of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways. ANALYSIS Now Madhudvisa Prabhu says "Yes" further confirming that both himself and Prabhupada are referring to the same type of guru-disciple relationships: as how it was in ISKCON and as how it was in the church. Please also note the expression "from his disciplic succession or his bishop." This reconfirms it. QUOTE Prabhupada: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation in the Bible. Then there is no authority of Bible. If you interpret something... Just like "Call a spade a spade." So if you call something else that is a different thing. He's not spiritual master. Just like this is watch. Everybody has called it watch, and if I call it spectacle, then what is the value of my being spiritual master? I'm misleading. (laughter) It is watch, that I must say. So when there is misinterpretation, he's not a bona fide spiritual master. He's not spiritual master, what is called a bona fide. If I want to teach you how to see this watch I can say that "This is called watch and this is called hand and this is called time indication, this is, this called..," so that is nice. And if I say that "Everybody says it is watch, I say it is spectacle," then what kind of a spiritual master I am? Reject him immediately. That intelligence you must have, who is a pseudo spiritual master or real spiritual master. ANALYSIS Here Prabhupada refers to the "priest in the Church" using the words "spiritual master". Please note that Prabhupada is talking of Bible; so he is talking of the church priest here. It is not that he is merely propounding the general principle of the fundamental necessity of a spiritual master to present the scriptures as they are, without interpretation. His talk of the Bible and his warning that the Bible should not be interpreted shows that he is still talking of Christianity. So the "spiritual master" in this context is none other than the same "priest in the church". Again by using the term "spiritual master", Prabhupada reveals that the priest in the church is a "guru-representative" and not merely an official formal "rtvik-representative". Then Prabhupada gives an example to help Madhudvisa Prabhu understand how a bona fide spiritual master teaches. In the example, he refers to himself: "If I want to teach you how to see this watch I can say that "This is called watch and this is called hand and this is called time indication, this is, this called..," so that is nice. And if I say that "Everybody says it is watch, I say it is spectacle," then what kind of a spiritual master I am?" Then he adds, "Reject him immediately." This shows that again he is comparing the church priest to a bona fide spiritual master such as himself. So the church priest's functions, in Prabhupada's view, is the same as a bona fide spiritual master such as himself. This is another proof that the type of representative the church priest should be for the Christian is a full-fledged "guru-representative" just as Prabhupada himself was. If he wasn't bona fide, Prabhupada says, "Reject him immediately." The rest of passage merely elaborates on this point of how to present information from the scriptures as it is without misinterpreting. CONCLUSION Thus we have shown the falsity of the pro-rtviks' claim that Prabhupada has stated that a Christian can go back to Godhead without having to accept a living guru (and that therefore we can also accept Prabhupada as our guru and that we don't need a "living guru") based on this conversation. In this conversation, Prabhupada teaches that the living church priest has to be a bona fide spiritual master just as Prabhupada was himself was a bona fide spiritual master. And just as his disciples were bound to follow his instructions, Christians have to be bound to follow the instructions of a bona fide spiritual master church priest who derives his authority from strictly following the Bible as it is. This conversation, thus does not support rtvikism. It rather teaches that one requires a living spiritual master, a living real "guru-representative" of Christ and not merely someone who performs priestly duties like a rtvik. 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.