Krishna Kirti on VNN...

[Guest guest]

Proxy Gurus: Institutionalized Deviance

 

In the beginning of the article Who Is The Real Follower, Who Is The Thief?

by Anuttama das, Anuttama Prabhu makes a classical error in reasoning-he

assumes that that which is yet to be proven is aximotically true:

 

In his article, "Follower of His Example" (VNN), Sri Antardwipa Das suggests

that Adridharan and Madhu Pandit Prabhus step out of ISKCON if they are

"unhappy" with the system of initiations currently practised in ISKCON.

Apart from the fact that Antardwipa fills his article with baseless

strawmen-like accusations against Madhu and Adri, he also reveals his

complete ignorance on the real problem at hand. While the whole world is

debating on the issue of post-samadhi initiations within ISKCON, Antardwipa

prabhu seems to be just waking up from a long slumber.

 

Is Antardwipa aware that Srila Prabhupada set up a specific system of

initiating devotees with the help of representatives on July 9th, 1977?

 

This is begging the question: The debate was precisely about whether or not

Srila Prabhupada would posthumously accept disciples. This is what Anuttama

Prabhu is trying to prove, but he is using it as an assumption: "Is

Antardwipa aware that Srila Prabhupada set up a specific system of

initiating devotees. . . " Assuming that which you are trying to prove is

circular logic. "My conclusion is right because my conclusion is right."

 

Let's examine this with a neutral disposition:

a. Srila Prabhupada did not give any instruction (known to us at present) to

stop that system of initiation upon his departure.

 

But he gave instructions that they should become guru, and accept their own

disciples.

 

"I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title

of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue

through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta WILL BE

ALLOWED TO INITIATE DISCIPLES. Maybe by 1975 all of my disciples will be

allowed to initiate and increase the number of generations. That is my

program." (Srila Pabhupada 3rd Dec 1968)

 

"Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me,

all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers,

they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making,

initiating, THEY ARE BEING TRAINED TO BECOME FUTURE SPIRITUAL MASTERS."

(Srila Prabhupada Detroit, July 18, 1971)

 

On 28 May 1977 Srila Prabhupada was aksed directly: IN YOUR ABSENCE Srila

Prabhupada what is the procedure for first, second and sannyasa initiations?

And what is the relationship of the person who gives this initiation to the

person he gives it to? Srila Prabhupada asnwered: "HE IS GRAND-DISCIPLE HE

BECOMES DISCIPLE OF MY DISCIPLE. THAT'S IT"

 

....EVEN IF I DIE, my movement will not stop. I am very much hopeful, yes.

All these nice boys and girls who have taken so seriously... YOU WILL HAVE

TO BECOME SPIRITUAL MASTER... YOU...ALL MY DISCIPLES..." Srila Prabhupada

London, 22 Aug 73

 

So, what do all these quotes mean?

 

The first quote is refering to his disciples initiating by a certain time

and accepting disciples. In this passage, Srila Prabhupada did not say

"accepting disciples on his behalf." Furthermore, there is no distinction

made by Srila Prabhupada of his disciples accepting disciples either in his

presence or after his passing away. In both cases, in this passage, they

are accepting their own disciples.

 

"All of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many godbrothers,

they are all acting." from the second quote--how are we supposed to

understand this? How will Srila Prabhupada's disciples act as he is acting

if they are forbidden to take disciples? The ritviks equivocate following

in the footsteps of acharyas as imitating acharyas. They cannot distinguish

between the two. If Prabhupada was accepting that his godbrothers were also

accepting disciples and this was bona fide, and his godbrothers weren't the

dig-vijaya acarya Srila Prabhupada was, then how do we think that Prabhupada

is treating his disciples any differently? Again, the claims of the ritviks

are speculative.

 

b. Nor do we have any instruction (known to us at present) to continue that

system after his departure.

 

The order is there to accept disciples. This is a standing order, just as

Srila Sarasvati Thakura's order for Srila Prabhupada to be a diksa guru was

a standing order:

 

"Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya guru haya tara sarva-desa,

tara ei desa. He's asking everyone to become a spiritual master. So how

everyone can become a spiritual master? A spiritual master must have

sufficient knowledge, so many other qualifications. No. Even without any

qualifications, one can become a spiritual master. How? Now the process is,

Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya: "On My order." That is the crucial

point. One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is not

spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he's

spiritual master. Amara ajnaya. Just like in our case. Our superior

authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach

this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have

tried it. That's all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only

qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior

authority. That's all. This is the secret of success." (3/8/73, London)

 

Please note that Srila Prabhupada also speaks about the specific instruction

from his spiritual master for him to become a spiritual master: "Just like

in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me

that 'You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me,

in English.' So we have tried it. That's all."

 

And "that's all". There was no specific order from Sarasvati Thakura to be

a diksa guru. Why then do the ritviks insist that the order to be a diksa

guru is different from the order to preach? The only order was to preach,

and on THAT order Srila Prabhupada also accepted disciples.

 

Anuttama Prabhu then asks a sober question: "So how do we decide what to

do?" Answer: By accepting guru-sadhu-shastra:

 

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya

aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly

people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the

sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak

according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if

a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly

person. The sastra is the center for all.

(Madhya 20.352 purport)

 

And also

 

tac chraddhanadana munayao jnana-vairagya yuktaya

pasyanty atmani catmanam bhaktya sruta-grhitaya

 

The seriously inquisitive student or sage, well equipped with knowledge and

detachment, realizes that Absolute Truth by rendering devotional service in

terms of what he has heard from the Vedanta-sruti. (SB 1.2.12)

 

A sincere devotee must, therefore, be prepared to hear the Vedic literature

like the Upanisads, Vedanta and other literatures left by the previous

authorities or Gosvamis, for the benefit of his progress. Without hearing

such literatures, one cannot make actual progress. And without hearing and

following the instructions, the show of devotional service becomes worthless

and therefore a sort of disturbance in the path of devotional service.

Unless, therefore, devotional service is established on the principles of

sruti, smrti, purana or pancaratra authorities, the make-show of devotional

service should at once be rejected. (from SB 1.2.12 purport)

 

Although Srila Prabhupada himself has used the word ritvik, the proxy guru

system extrapolated from this word by Adridharan Prabhu, Krishnakant Desai,

et. all, has NO basis in shastra. We, therefore, cannot accept their

explanations.

 

It goes without saying that in the absence of an explicit instruction from

Srila Prabhupada directing either way, if anyone has to stop the system

personally set up by him and appoint himself or other ISKCON devotees as

"as-good-as-God" diksha gurus, then he must provide sufficient justification

for doing so. Can anyone doubt this?

 

Justification is provided. The ritviks will not accept the quotes

above--that is their problem, they are selective in their evidence. The

guru is as good as God acaryam mam vijaniyan . . ., but the guru IS NOT GOD.

So many times Srila Prabhupada instructed us on this point. And even when

there was some attempt by some of his sannyasa disciples to declare him God,

Srila Prabhupada clipped their wings-he wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Similarly the words of guru are NOT directly sastra. Shastra is that which

is given by the Supreme Lord: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat pranitam. Since

Vyasa is an incarnation of Vishnu, whatever he has written is sastra. But

this is what the ritviks claim:

 

Since Prabhupada, of course, is such a bona fide guru, a fact that is not

disputed by anyone in ISKCON. Thus we know that when we follow the orders

of Srila Prabhupada, the bona fide guru, sastra and sadhu will automatically

be satisfied.

(Shastric Basis for Srila Prabhupada's Continued Diksa Status)

 

Here, they wrongly equivocate the words of Srila Prabhupada (guru) with the

words of Vyasa. Prabhupada is a bonafide guru because his words are based

on sastra-sastra is the basis. That is why Srila Prabhupada stressed so

much on quoting sastra:

 

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya

aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly

people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the

sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak

according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if

a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly

person. The sastra is the center for all.

(Madhya 20.352 purport)

 

Not only do the ritviks wrongly equivocate Srila Prabhupada's words with

sastra, but they disobey Srila Prabhupada's order when they suggest that

only quoting Srila Prabhupada (guru) is sufficient. Sufficient it is not.

Again, Srila Prabhupada's words may be pure, but our understanding of it is

subject to fault-the ritviks INTERPRETATION of Srila Prabhupada's words are

certainly no exception. Therefore also quoting from sadhu and sastra is a

necessity in order to arrive at a proper understaning.

 

Compare a philosophical statement to a "point", and an interpretation of

that idea to a "line". Through that point (philosophical statement) a

virtually unlimited number of lines (interpretations) can be drawn. But if

you add a second point, and your line has to be drawn through both of them

(i.e. agree with both statements without contradicting either), then how

many interpretations can you have? And if you add more points, the proper

understanding becomes all the more clearer. Srila Prabhupada himself in his

books frequently quoted from sastra, sadhu (previous acaryas) and his guru.

Since we are his spiritual descendents, it is therefore our duty to follow

in his footsteps and do likewise-it is Srila Prabhupada's instruction AND

his example. Following Srila Prabhupada's example and instruction, in this

regard, would necessarily mean rejecting the ritvik interpretation that it

is not necessary to refer to sadhu and sastra.

 

Please note, that during the course of the ritvik debate on CHAKRA,

Adridharan Prabhu has quoted at length from Srila Prabhupada, but he has

failed to quote from sastra or sadhu-even that which Srila Prabhupada has

quoted. Simply on the consideration that he has not offered sufficient

evidence to support his point (remember, the criteria is sadhu-shastra-guru

vakya-the words of saintly persons, scripture, and guru-not some legalistic

wrangling), Adridharan Prabhu automatically lost the debate, even if he and

his followers disagree.

 

Back to Anuttama Prabhu's article:

 

The oft-repeated justifications for this change, given by its supporters,

are a plethora of explanations of " the law of disciplic succession", "one

must have a living guru", "this is unprecedented" and so on & so forth...

 

Definitely, there is precedent for the necessity of accepting a living

guru-even if all we are accepting is guru's instructions and not sadhu or

sastra:

 

We see, Krsna was present before Arjuna, but nobody was present before

Brahma. Therefore it is said, tene brahma hrda adi-kavaye, hrda: "through

the heart." Because Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, He is

the spiritual master, caitya-guru. So in order to help us, He comes out as

PHYSICAL SPIRITUAL MASTER. And therefore saksad-dharitvena sama... Spiritual

master is representative of Krsna. Krsna sends some sincere devotee to act

on His behalf, and therefore he is spiritual master. (Lecture SB 1.2.4, May

28, 1974) [emphasis provided]

 

Therefore God is called caittya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart.

And the PHYSICAL SPIRITUAL MASTER is God's mercy. If God sees that you are

sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He

will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of

spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.

(Conversation, May 23, Rome, 1974) [emphasis provided]

 

Yet, as everyone witnessed in the recently concluded debate on CHAKRA, all

these arguments to justify the changes were filled with contradictions in

themselves and self-defeating. And it became obvious to anyone who followed

the debate closely with a neutral stand, that finally the GBC were never

providing any proof to justify the change under scrutiny, but were just

stating & re-stating the very claims they had been asked to prove. If Srila

Prabhupada's instructions are so clear to appoint oneself as the next guru,

then why all the "hand-waving" we saw in the debate? And the debate was

prematurely terminated when the GBC representative seeing that he had got

himself into a "spaghetti-like" sticky mess of contradicting statements

excused himself to spend time with his son from the gurukula. And it strikes

us why none of Antardwipa's "highly qualified disciples of Srila Prabhupada"

could step in to save the situation.

 

Let us give this argument the best possible benefit of the doubt. Herein,

the author suggests that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the issue are

not clear: "If Srila Prabhupada's instructions as so clear to appoint ones'

self as the next guru. . ." There are certainly statements made by Srila

Prabhupada that would suggest that this is indeed true (cf. Letter Dec 3rd,

1968; Conversation July 18th, 1971; Conversation May 28th, 1977-as quoted

above), which means that even if the ritviks claim that their way is the

only way, the presence of contradictory instructions only proves that no one

can claim to have the perfect understanding based only on Srila Prabhupada's

instructions. Because there are apparently contradictory statements, that

means Srila Prabhupada's instructions have to be interpreted, and that

interpretation has to come from some source other than his instructions.

That is not to say that Srila Prabhupada's words are wrong or faulty, but

our understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying is certainly subject to

such fault. Unfortunately, the ritviks equivocate their INTERPRETAION of

Srila Prabhupada's words with Srila Prabhupada's understanding of his own

words.

 

That is why, to understand this issue properly, sadhu (the teachings of

previous acaryas), and especially sastra (scripture written by Vyasa, or

scriptures approved by Vyasa's writings like Ramayana, etc.) must be

consulted. Again, this goes back to Prabhupada's quoting Narottama das

Thakura's statement of sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya cittete kariya aikya. One

must understand a subject by the words of guru, sadhu, and sastra, not

simply guru, guru, and guru.

 

So the point being made is: If you cannot provide a proper justification for

the change, then please follow the only system of initiation that Srila

Prabhupada personally set up. You will get "full-points" for simply

following the guru's instruction, even if it appears to you to be against

sastra or whatever. Please don't speculate, concoct, invent and destroy the

whole movement. Otherwise, you are not only a thief, but also a betrayer of

your own guru.

 

And because the ritviks do not accept evidence from sadhu and sastra, their

INTERPRETATION of Srila Prabhupada's words is speculative and therefore

unacceptable.

 

And don't tread the path laid by the "qualified disciples" - removing

sincere & honest devotees -- the real followers, from Prabhupada's home, it

will serve you no good purpose. Gone are the days when you could manipulate

the devotees, beat them up, remove them from temples and brainwash them.

 

It seems here the ritviks cannot distinguish between qualified disciples and

so-called "qualified disciples". That would explain the ritvik position,

which assumes no one is qualified, or ever will be qualified. Because they

cannot understand what is wrong and what is right, they make a blanket

statement that everyone is bad. The Ritviks' Solution? Institutionalize

deviance. Since no one is qualified or ever will be qualified, make them

priests, but waive their qualifications so they can accept disciples without

having to strictly follow rules or take responsibility for their disciples'

spiritual development. Nice solution: the Ritviks have invented a class of

guru that has neither qualifications nor responsibilities. The very abuses,

falldowns, disqualifications, etc., the ritviks have been speaking out

against are, instead, plunged by the ritviks to even lower levels of

deviance by institutionalizing them.

 

Yes, unfortunately, there have been abuses, there have been falldowns among

the leadership, but making falldown and irresponsibility something official

is one of the craziest so-called solutions imaginable. How could you

possibly remove a guru who is fallen, when it is officially recognized that

a fallen guru-by definition-is bona fide?

 

The real solution to our problems is to cent percent apply the teachings of

the Vedas, and saintly persons, as taught to us by Srila Prabhupada: "The

sastra is the center of all".

 

Hare Krishna

 

Your fallen servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

krishna.kirti.hdg (AT) bbt (DOT) se