Amoghalila prabhu unjustly discredited

[Guest guest]

i disagree, the current is God,the devotee is

compared to a mirror, when it is clean God can reflect

through it cleanly.

 

the real guru knows the truth, ":from ME comes

Knowledge and rememberance, this is Krishna's message,

the real acharya knows that He is not speaking

He is not thinking,he is merely a vessel for God,

for Him to think that He is also the current of truth

would place him in the category of being under Maha Maya,

deluded by material conceptions.

 

the real acharya knows better, God is controlling everyone,

we are puppets, one and all.

[theist]

See, that position sounds like the disappearing or the absorbed acarya idea. I think some are more empowered and some less altough they may all be situated on the absolute plane. I really can't speak to Dhira Govinda's position as I'm not familiar with it yet. But he is correct in calling Prabhupada prominent. If he has a certain slant on that word that I'm unaware of that is then another thing.

 

Here is the dictionary meaning to prominent.

 

1 : standing out or projecting beyond a surface or line : PROTUBERANT

2 a : readily noticeable : CONSPICUOUS b : widely and popularly known : LEADING

synonym see NOTICEABLE

-

[theist]

Yes test the spirit. That means to test the words and teachings of the spirit. Against what? Against Prabhupada's books. What else to we have. We know that Prabhupada wouldn't spend so much time writing all those books just to contradict them in a conversation at the very end. Nor would he come back and channel some message that speaks against what he wrote.

 

It always comes back to his books.

 

Then the question arises "Are they still his books?"

 

His books. That's where the focus must be.

[Guest guest]

Theist prabhu, according to the Prominent Link book, it is perfectly Ok to put the picture of your initiating guru in the altar. It says that one can continue to formally worship the initiating guru. But at the same time, if a devotee (or devotees) choose to formally worship Srila Prabhupada exclusively, they should be allowed to do so (pg 121). The book says that it is up to each and everyone of us to determine who is the most important Vaisnava in our spiritual lives (pg 122). It also says that we all have the right to take guidance from a Vaisanva whom we respect, and admire. And if Srila Prabhupada is the person who is giving the primary guidance, then that should be respected also (pg 123). So, nothing will necessarily be taken away from our initiating gurus.

On page 158, it states that there might be some gurus who encourage their disciples to chant Srila Prabhupada's pranam mantras rather than their own. Other gurus train their disciples not to chant Srila Prabhupada's pranam mantras. It says that neither type of guru is considered superior or inferior to the other. So, it wouldn't be considered "unhumble" if a guru wants his picture in the altar.

Guest prabhu, on pg 63 of the Prominent Link it states that Srila Prabhupada can be considered the current link (it does not say that everyone has to be forced to interpret things this way) because all the literature that we read has been given by him. Everything that is taught to us is Srila Prabhupada's teachings (not that he is the originator of these teachings), and his teachings will always be the central spiritual philosophy for ISKCON. For generation after generation he will continue giving us his teachings (pg 63).

We have knowledge of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura through Srila Prabhupada. Without Srila Prabhupada we wouldn't have known that Srila Bhaktisiddanta Saravati existed. Because we are Srila Prabhupada's followers we do have a direct relationship with his guru and other great personalities from the past. Still, these relationships are not primarily direct because we have learned about them from Srila Prabhpada.

Meanwhile Srila Prabhupada is our direct giver of transcendental knowledge. According to the Prominent Link book, "Direct, current, and primary link to the parampara is defined as the Vaisnava through whom Sri Krsna is giving the most direct transcendental knowledge." For many, it is Srila Prabhupada who is doing this. (pg 64).

The book also states that some may say that they are connected to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saravati Thakura and not Srila Prabhupada, but nevertheless are part of Srila Prabhupa's movement. If that is the case, if you are a member of Srila Prabhupada's movement, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura will arrange you to connect to Srila Prabhupada. Of course if you belong to another movement altogether (not Srila Prabhupada's movement), then you are not necessarily part of Srila Prabhupada's institution (pg 64).

Isn't it funny or odd that the Ritviks are attached for minimizing the initiating gurus, but no one is ostracizing those who say that their initiating guru is more important then Srila Prabhupada (someone told me this) or that their only link is their initiating guru or that it was the initiating guru who made them Krsna Consciousness not Srila Prabhupada (a rather prominent grand disciple told me this) or that my ultimate surrender is my initiating guru and not Srila Prabhupa (someone told me this also) or that Srila Prabhupada is in the same level as any diksa guru (like it is being said in this threath).

Better yet, let us not ostracize those who say Srila Prabhupada is primary guru nor those who say that "my ultimate point of surrender is my initiating guru, not Srila Prabhupada." Let us not ostracize either group.

There is a danger in quoting from a book such as the Prominent Link because things can be taken out of content. I apologize for doing this. I believe in the Prominent Link concepts but because of my very limited knowledge I may not able to explain it fully. But the author is more than glad to discuss the book. I encourage you, if you have any questions to write to him. That is if you have genuine desire to discuss things and not just win a fight or prove that "I am right and you are wrong."

[theist]

>>Theist prabhu, according to the Prominent Link book, it is perfectly Ok to put the picture of your initiating guru in the altar. <<

 

I was speaking of the main temple altar. Not sure if DG is. If so i would disagree with this because ISKCON is Prabhupada's institution and the common guru for all members of that instituiton. Perhaps in slightly different capacities. What to speak of Prabhupada's disciples who come to visit the temple. But admittedly I am speculating and going on feelings not really knowing the ettiqute.

 

I do know that when one or another of Prabhupada's disciples have their picture on the main altar, other's may tend to feel alienated as they don't have a guru/student relationship with that person whereas all have that with Srila Prabhupada in one form or another and to one degree or another.

 

I must admit I am not understanding why or on what grounds people are opposing Dhira Govinda's views.

[Guest guest]

From my understanding, the reason why devotees are opposing Dhira Govinda is because he says if a grand disciple of Srila Prabhupada wants to worship Srila Prabhupada exclusively, he should be allowed to do so by the ISKCON institution (not that he should do that in hidding). He also says that Srila Prabhupada is the direct and current link to the paramapara by virtue of being the main giver of transcendental knowledge. According to the Prominent Link book (direct from Srila Prabhupada's teachings), the transmission of transcendental knowledge is the true essence of diksa. Many give diksa (transcendental knowledge), but Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of diksa (transcendental knowledge).

The Prominent Link also states that Srila Prabhupada has the capacity and potency to take one back to Godhead (including a grand disciple). So, Srila Prabhupupada in the "essential" and "transcendental" sense of the word is the diksa guru. Of course in the formal sense, the initiating guru is the diksa guru. If a devotee wants to surrender fully to his initiating guru, that is OK. Just as it is OK if a grand disciple decides to surrender fully to Srila Prabhupada (and not his initiating guru).

In other words, the Prominent Link book is asking for tolerance and acceptance of those grand disciples who considered Srila Prabhupada their main guru.

The book also says that it is OK if an initiating guru is the most important person in ones spiritual life. But at the same time it is also OK to consider Srila Prabhupada the most important person in ones spiritual life and to see him as the primary guru. It is also Ok to see him as the person who is personally guiding you and who can take you back to Godhead. Both models should be allowed to live in peace, side by side.

[Guest guest]

To all grand disciples:

1.Could it be that Srila Prabhupada cannot be your primary spiritual guide?

2. If your spiritual master is not a liberated soul, do you believe that Srila Prabhupada does not have the potency to take you back to Godhead? If your guru cannot take you back to Godhead, can Srila Prabhupada do it?

3. Could it be that Srila Prabhupada cannot be the person who you fully surrender to? Ultimately, God is the one to receive our absolute surredender, but between gurus, can't Srila Prabhupa be the one to receive our absolute surrenderd ? I mean, if our Sampradaya has so many examples where disciples have fully surrendered to another devotee who did not initiate them, why can't devotees do that with Srila Prabhupada in the ISKCON institution?

4. If your spiritual master is not a liberated soul, can you worship and offer bhoga to Srila Prabhupa instead?

 

If the asnwer is "yes" to any of them, then please fight for that right!

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

If gurus are falling left and right, is it wrong to ask the remaining initiating gurus to please let their disciples put only Srila Prabhupada in their altars?

 

 

The same was occuring in the Gaudiya Matha after Bhaktisiddhanta's departure. So the same question could have been asked of Srila Prabhupada as well. Should he have had us keep Bhaktisiddhanta's picture on the altar instead of his own?

 

 

A humble guru would deferred that worship to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

By this logic a humble Prabhupada would have deferred worship to Bhaktisiddhanta, yet he taught us how to worship him and by so doing all the previous acharyas.

 

 

Does anyone doubt that Srila Prabhupada has the potency to take one back to Godhead (even the ones that he did not formally initiate)?

 

 

Same can be asked of Bhaktisiddhanta or any other liberated soul.

 

There is little consistent logic in these lines of thinking.

[Guest guest]

exactly, these concepts are all based on ignorance of guru tattva, taking the form over the substance as real,

and focusing on bodily conceptions of Sri Guru.

 

by their concept the spiritual master is reduced

to something you use for liberation, rather then

the messenger and medium of God giving instruction

and guidance for our personal development of

realization of God within and without.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

EDITORIAL May 15, 2003   VNN8070   Related VNN Stories

 

Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?

 

BY HANSADUTTA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, May 15 (VNN) — Reading Jayadvaita's article really irritated me. What is his point? That Hayagriva was not qualified as an editor? That Srila Prabhupada was indifferent, stupid or lazy in copying others translations? Or, that because Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were not physically side by side for two years, there was some discrepancy in Hayagriva's work, or, that Srila Prabhupada was unaware of what Hayagriva was doing, and now (in Srila Prabhupada's absence) had to be corrected by Jayadvaita Swami?

 

Is this his attempt to justify his envious infintile clerk like editing of Prabhupada's Gita? What really is his point? What exactly is Jayadvaita Swami trying to say? He is an office clerk at best, but factually his meddling in the re-editing of Srila Prabhupada's works is a sinister, diabolical attempt to undermine the efforts of the Sampradaya Acharya. He is a putana attempting to usurp the pulpit of the institution in the absence of the self realized soul, Srila Prabhupada.

 

I was one BBT trustee along with Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan when I went to Srila Prabhupada and suggested we reprint his Original Bhagavatams for the pleasure of his devotees who liked the old Indian version... Before finishing my proposal, Srila Prabhupada admonished me saying, "no--whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books." This was quite some time after the publication of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita. He went on to say "whatever he (Hayagriva) has done is perfect, do not touch it, I have full faith in him."

 

What more can be said about this matter? ISKCON spent hundreds and thousands of dollars fighting in the court with me (Hansadutta) to support Jayadvaita's bogus position, of re-editing Srila Prabhupada's books . ISKCON was claiming Srila Prabhupada never was the proprietor of the copyrights, he was in fact a hired hand, supplied with pen paper and office space by ISKCON, and therefore the copyrights belonged to ISKCON. They claimed there never was a BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada, that Hansadutta was never a trustee of any BBT. But the court did not uphold their point of view, and subsequently ISKCON and their lying, cheating gundas and editors had to make a settlement to escape disaster.

 

Factually the copyright claimed by ISKCON or BBT-international (a bogus shadow organization of the original BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada) has been legally lost to the public domain, and anyone and everyone who likes can print Srila Prabhupada's books freely. It is being done as we speak and no one will dare to challenge anyone who chooses to print Prabhupada's books, because ISKCON knows if they go to court they cannot prevail. Fearing a legal ruling that the copyrights are in the public domain they will not prosecute anyone for copyright infringement. Besides that, they have no more money to fight in the court. Let everyone print the books of Srila Prabhupada to their hearts content, rest assured ISKCON will not take any action, because they have long ago lost their claim to legal copyright protection. I should know, I was in the eye of the hurricane.

 

Your servant,

 

Hansadutta

[Guest guest]

Appendix C (from Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link)

 

Caitanya-Caritamrta, Page 1, & Conflict Resolution in ISKCON

 

Below is an exchange of correspondence, referred to in the caitanya-caritamrta-Page 1 section of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, between Dhira Govinda dasa and a BBT representative. The topic is a change that was made on the first page of the most recent edition of Sri-Caintanya-caritmarita. Following the correspondence I make some comments.

 

Dec. 19, 1999

 

Dear.....Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Below is the letter I sent to....with the BBT question that he has referred to you. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

Dhira Govinda dasa

 

December 13, 1999

 

Dear ....,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I have a BBT-related question.

On my Prabhupada Vedabase, which I obtained from the BBT archives in 1996, a paragraph from the introduction to Chapter One of the Caintanya-caritamrta reads:

“The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila Narattama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble self.”

In the recent edition of Caintanya-caritamrta (9-volume edition) the passage reads:

“The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa kaviraja Govami was Srila Narottama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Vivanatha Cakravarti as his servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, teh divine master of our humble self.”

On the Vedabase edition, which I asssume is the original version dating back to the 1970’s, it is stated that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji....”

I’m curious about the reason for the change. Did the original editors make a mistake- e.g. not properly hearing Srila Prabhupada’s voice on tape? Or is it assumed that Srila Prabhupada made a historical mistake when he stated that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and the 9-volume editors corrected this mistake? Or for some other reason?

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

Dhira Govinda dasa

 

[end of letter written by Dhira Govinda dasa]

 

Haribol Dhira Govinda Prabhu

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Thank you for your inquiry concerning the Caitanya-caritamrta changes. I agonized over this one for some time, consulting several senior devotees before making this change. Here was my thinking: First of all, there is no tape of this passage. Rather, it derives from an excerpt of the CC Srila Prabhupada published in March of 1960 in the BTG. Here is how the passage read there (from the latest VedaBase):

Viswanath Chakrabarty accepted Jagannath Das Babajee from who Srila Bhaktivinode Thakore was initiated and Srila Gour Kishore Das Babajee the spiritual master of Om Vishnupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupad-the Divine spiritual Master of our humble self.

Notice that while Srila Prabhupada does say that Bhaktivinode Thakura was initiated by Jagannatha das Babaji, he doesn’t say that Gaura Kishora das Babaji was initiated by Bhaktivinode, which was added in the 1975 edition of the CC. Historically, neither is accurate if we accept the usual sense in which Srila Prabhupada used the word “initiated.” So just on the grounds of bringing the new edition closer to the original words Srila Prabhupada wrote, no longer having Bhaktivinode initiating Gaura-kisora is justified. But we are still left with Jagannatha das initiating Bhaktivinode.

Before we proceed, I tracked down the source upon which Srila Prabhupada based this passage in his BTG and CC, an tht is the song by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati called “Sri Guru-parampara”. You’ll find it in the latest edition of the Songs of the Vaisnava Acaryas, and it is included in the supplementary literature on the latest Vedabase. The actual relationship among all the principals is illuminated there.

The final bit of research that went into my decision was finding support for Srila Prabhupada’s strict use of the word “initiated”. I found this at Adi 11.13:

Among his many disciples, Sriman Srinavasa acarya was the most famous and the most dear, but it doubtful that he was his initiated disciple.

This indicated that in this very book (CC) Srila Prabhupada reserved the phrase “initiated disciple” for a formal initiation, and that he felt that the word “disciple” is perfectly appropriate for someone who receives siksa but not diksa from a superior.

So now we have these considerations:

On the side of not changing the books unless absolutely necessary in the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode.

On the side of changing we have this:

How the parampara is listed and perceived is very significant for all devotees. Many devotees know, and soon all devotees will know, that Jagannatha das Babaji did not initiate Bhaktivinode Thakur in any way that is normally undestood from Srila Prabhupada’s books, other statements, or practice.

Removing the idea that Bhaktivinode initiated Gaura-kisora (a removal supported by the ms) but leaving the other “initiated” will seem to be a gross oversight, since neither initiation is historically accurate.

Leaving on or both “initiated”s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases “direct disciple” and even “accepted [as his disciple]” indicate formal initiations as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth. (Narottama may have “accepted” Visvanatha as his servitor, but it wasn’t on the physical plane, since there is a gap between their lifetimes; likewise between Visvanath and Jagannatha das).

This last was the weighties argument, in my view, for changing the passage.

So, after weighing these arguments carfully and cunsulting with several learned Godbrothers (who came out in favor of change, but not unanimously) and agonizing for several days, I decided to remove the “initiated”s.

 

Hoping this meets you well, I remain

Your servant,

 

[end of letter written by the BBT representative]

 

Of concern is that the explanation for deleting the word “initiated” seems to be largely based on the understanding of the word “initiated”, “as we know it in ISKCON”. Perhaps when Srila Prabhupada used the word “initiated”, he did so deliberately, and the meaning of the term as it has come to be understood in ISKCON is faulty. That is, instead of making changes in this passage based on what we think Srila Prabhupada may have meant, it may be fruitful to consider that the current conception in the organization of the word “initiated” is not perfectly consistent with Srila Prabhupada’s understanding of the concept.

One possible way that this could be true is by referring to one of the definitions that Srila Prabhupada often gave for diksa, or initiation. Namely, Srila Prabhupada frequently equated diksa with the process of imparting transcendental knwoledge, or divya-jnana. In the purport of Madhya-lila, 15;108, Srila Prabhupada quotes Srila Jiva Goswami as follows. “Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa.” Also, in the purport to Madhya-lila 4:112, Srila Prabhupada writes “Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.” In a lecture on July 29, 1968, Srila Prabhupada said “This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This is called diksa. The Sankrit term is called diksa. Diksa means...Di, divya-jnanam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa. Iksa means darsana, to see, or ksapayati, explain. This is called diksa.” This is similarly confirmed in several lectures and conversations (e.g., June 17, 1976 initiation lecture; July 11, 1976 lecture; February 22, 1973 lecture; December 29, 1973 lecture; January 27, 1977 conversation).

Perhaps Srila Prabhupada was referring to diksa, or initiation, in the sense of “transmitting transcendental knowledge” When he used the word “initiated” to describe the relationship between Srila Jagannatha Dasa Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. The ISKCON Governing Body Commission has asserted that Srila Prabhupada is the “preeminent siksa guru” for all ISKCON members and tha “ISKCON members shall be trained to place their faith, trust and allegiance first and foremost in the Founder-Acarya who is the preeminent siksa guru for every member of ISKCON.” The Vaisnava who is the preeminent instructor, or siksa guru, and who, more than any other Vaisnava, is worthy of faith, trust and allegiance, may also considered to be the diksa guru, at least in a trancendental sense, though not necessarily in a formal sense.

In expounding these thoughts my hope is that, with a clearer, deeper, and perhaps synthetic understanding of initiation, or diksa, our Vaisnava society mahy be able to bridge some gaps and sesolve some divisive conflicts. This paper makes no pretense to resolve issues, though I believe that the points described herein are important for discussion. Srila Prabhupada wrote (CC Adi 1:35 purport) “A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden.” We know that Vipina Vihari Goswami initiated Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, but Srila Prabhupada wrote, in the original version of Caitanya-Caritamrita, that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Perhaps changing Srila Prabhuda’s words is the appropriate solution to resolve this, though perhaps it may also be fruitful to consider other solutions by looking more closely at various definitions of “diksa” and “initiation.” Hare Krsna.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Look, prabhus, I love my guru!

I trust him, I think that he is the most gentle soul I have ever met, he has integrity, always truthful, a great Vainava gentleman, caring, kind, all that I could possibly want from a guru. I will always serve him faithfully and will do whatever I can to help him with whatever project he is involved with. I will listen to his wise council and follow his instructions. Nevertheless, I have no desire to put his picture in my altar nor offer my bhoga to him. Even if he is a pure devotee and has the capacity to take me back to Godhead, I will worship Srila Prabhupada first and foremost as my primary guru.

That doesn't make my relationship with my guru any less special. He still means a great deal to me. He means the world to me. And I love him with all of my heart. I will always love him.

So why is the GBC saying that people like myself are ritviks? Who do they think they are to legislate how I should worship my guru! How dare they! I will worship my guru as a pleased. Don't I have at least that right?

My guru will never come before Srila Prabhupada. He can never replace Srila Prabhupada. Now if they insist on calling me a deviant, that's their problem!

[Guest guest]

Reply to Sastric Advisory Committee

by Dhira Govinda das

Posted May 25, 2003

(April 16, 2003)

Dear Yogindra Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your phone call earlier today. It has inspired me to begin to address the GBC's Sastric Advisory Committee's (SAC) paper on Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, at least a month or three before I was planning to do so.

Concerning the SAC's paper, I didn't find very much there that is not clearly, and sometimes repeatedly, addressed in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL), and especially the second printing of PL, which includes the Prologue to the Second Printing of PL. I believe that if one carefully reads PL and the Prologue, as well as the accompanying articles in the second printing, then most if not all of the points in the SAC paper are solidly addressed.

This somewhat reminds me of when I set about to respond to the GBC's Preliminary Statement on the PL. This preliminary paper from the GBC implied, amongst other things, that PL is not supportive of the concept of serving the servant of the Vaisnavas. So, in the Prologue I pointed out that the principles of serving, honoring, and glorifying Vaisnavas, including the initiator, are presented about twenty times in the short PL essay. The Prologue states "Still, some readers perceived that this point was not sufficiently emphasized in the essay, or even that the PL model is opposed to these principles. Herein we reiterate the essentiality for devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement to submissively and cooperatively serve other devotees, and to learn from and take shelter in senior and advanced devotees. These principles are completely consistent with accepting Srila Prabhupada as the prominent link to the disciplic succession."

Similarly, in many places the SAC paper implies that PL is somehow opposed to principles such as honoring and respecting the Vaisnava who conducted one's initiation. The SAC paper states that the initiator should be allowed the honor of being considered one's guru. Yes, this is stated clearly in PL. The SAC paper states that ISKCON gurus deserve "the respect of his disciples", apparently implying that PL opposes this idea. In reality, as a reader of PL can easily ascertain, PL fully supports the idea. It would be easy enough to crush the concepts in PL if PL advocated things like disrespecting our gurus and neglecting to serve the servants of Srila Prabhupada. But PL doesn't advocate such things, and thus the task is not so easy.

The SAC rhetorically asks "If we think Srila Prabhupada cannot empower his disciples despite their imperfections, how strong is our faith in him?"

Yes, Srila Prabhupada clearly is empowering his followers in many wonderful ways. So we are in agreement with the SAC. How this question relates to anything in PL is unclear to me.

The SAC paper states "As Krsnadas Kaviraj has indicated in his mangalacarana verse vande gurun--'I offer respect to my gurus'--a devotee can have more than one Vaisnava guru, and he can and should worship them all."

The above point is clearly stated in PL, and to indicate otherwise is misleading. Additionally, in my personal correspondence with the SAC I reiterated the point, as in statements such as "I, and probably each of us, have many gurus, in the sense of devotees who have inspired and guided us in Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada is not my only guru, although, as described in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, if I had to identify one person as my main spiritual master, that would certainly be Srila Prabhupada."

The SAC writes "Whatever may have been the actual relationship between Srila Bhaktivinoda and his diksa-guru (and we hear different stories about this from different sources), it is known that Srila Bhaktivinoda never behaved disrespectfully toward him." This seems to imply that PL advocates disrespectful behavior towards one's diksa-guru, which it clearly does not do. In fact, it advocates the opposite, many times. Similarly, the SAC paper states "the diksa-guru takes special trouble and risk for his disciples. For disciples not to honor him for this is indecent." The PL fully encourages honoring one's diksa guru for the great trouble and risk he takes for his disciples. The great sacrifices made by these initiators are emphasized in the "Responsibility" section of PL, and to imply that PL doesn't emphasize, what to speak of even endorse, this important point, is misleading.

In the SAC paper it is written "There are no two kinds of diksa, one 'transcendental' and the other a mere formality. Diksa is always transcendental, except when the rituals are followed simply for show, like a marriage undergone just to acquire a visa."

It's encouraging to see that the SAC is in agreement with PL, which states:

"Does the PL model assert that the formal initiation ceremony is unimportant, or unnecessary?"

"The process of initiation is given to us by Sri Krsna. Thus, all components of that process contain potency and are transcendental. The most essential part of the process is the transmission of divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is performing the most important part of the initiation process."

Thus, the SAC and PL both agree that the formal ceremony component of the initiation process is transcendental. There is no need to indicate or imply that the PL implies otherwise, because the PL is very clear on this point.

To repeat, I believe that a careful reading of PL and the Prologue and the other pieces in the second printing effectively address most of the contents of the SAC paper. If there is something specifically in the SAC paper that you'd like me to address, I'll be glad to do so. I humbly request that you read the second printing of PL to be clear on what it actually says, so as to avoid assuming, based on the SAC paper or other sources, that PL states things that it doesn't actually state. Below I'll address a few points that are presented by the SAC.

Consider the section of the SAC paper from "The author here attempts to identify the essence of initiation as the transmission of spiritual knowledge rather than..." to "...which Srila Rupa Gosvami has stipulated as one of the required elements of vaidhi sadhana-bhakti." As a general principle, we reference Srila Prabhupada to understand acaryas such as Srila Sanatana Goswami and Srila Jiva Goswami, not vice versa. In Srila Prabhupada's purports he clearly states "Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa" (Madhya-lila 15:108), and "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination" (Madhya-lila, 4:111). There are many other similar quotes, as cited in PL and the Prologue to the Second Printing of PL. For me, Srila Prabhupada's meaning is clear. I suggest that the SAC's jumping over Srila Prabhupada with their linguistic analysis of the Goswami's literature contorts and distorts Srila Prabhupada's clear meaning, and also runs counter to the hermeneutic principles cited in the SAC paper itself:

"In his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.4.1), Srila Prabhupada gives some guidelines for one presenting conclusions to the society of devotees according to one's realization: 'The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it.'"

Apart from the SAC's attempts to screw out meanings from Srila Prabhupada's purports wherein His Divine Grace clearly defines diksa without need of SAC's linguistic analysis, is the point that whatever definition of diksa we use, including the SAC's, the principles of PL stand. This is clearly explained in the second printing of PL on page 37, in the section entitled "The Process of Initiation."

In the SAC paper it is stated "He is alive in his instructions, in his murti,..." I believe that we should all commend the SAC for this conclusive realization. I state this in relation to an excerpt, included below, from a member of the SAC, presented during the correspondence between the SAC and myself:

[From PL, quoted by the SAC member in his correspondence] "Just as Sri Krsna, Srimati Radharani, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are non-different from Their Deity forms, and are fully capable to act and relate in Their Deity forms, the murtis and pictures of the parampara acaryas, such as Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, can similarly act non-differently from the acaryas. Obviously this requires special empowerment from the Supreme Lord. Ordinary persons, or even aspiring Vaisnavas, are not able to reciprocate in their picture form in the way that the great acaryas do (p. 49 second printing; p. 25 first printing).

[From the member of the SAC]- "This is a novel theory, or at least one I am not familiar with, that the murtis and pictures of specially empowered acaryas, are equally potent to the murtis of the Supreme Lord and His internal potency, while the images of less empowered Vaisnavas are impotent. The arca murti of the Personality of Godhead is a special incarnation, nondifferent from His original self, and manifests all His potencies to those who worship the Him with love. The murti or picture of one's guru is recognized as the proper place to make offerings in worship, but as far as I know the Vaisnava Sastras do not identify the guru's image as the same kind of arca-murti.

"I also have to ask why this special focus on the deity form of the guru? Yes, Srila Prabhupada did instruct us to install his murtis in our temples, even in his presence, but still he considered puja to his murti not as essential as worshiping him by understanding and carrying out his instructions. Maybe here this is an unconscious intention to deify Prabhupada, to turn him into an icon to be kissed for good luck, to kick him upstairs and deemphasize the necessity of understanding what he is actually teaching us, similar to the way he was once crowned and sceptered in New Vrindavan."

So, to me it seems that there is some basic doubt on the part of the SAC, or at least one of its members, as to Srila Prabhupada's full presence in his murti form. This presence is a "novel theory" for the SAC member. Ultimately, perhaps by a majority vote or some other method, the SAC arrived at the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada is present in his murti form. I am glad for that, but the doubt expressed by a scholarly SAC member above is disturbing, as even many new bhaktas, or perhaps even a pious, meat-eating Catholic, would seem to possess a firmer conviction and clearer philosophical understanding about the pure devotee's presence in his murti form than does the SAC member. There are many, many other points in the SAC's correspondence with me that leave me similarly unsettled.

Concerning that correspondence, please understand the following history. As the GBC requested me to do, I contacted the SAC Chairman a few days after the GBC meetings in 2002. The Chairman and I had a nice, personal discussion in Vrndavana at that time. He said that the SAC would contact me when they were ready to discuss PL in detail. That took a few months, and in July, 2002, the SAC and I began email correspondence. We corresponded for over three months. One evening, after finishing the day's Vaisnava Life Skills teaching in Radhadesa (Belgium) in early November, 2002, a member of the GBC phoned me. He had heard that I was about to publish a second printing of PL. He asked whether it would be acceptable for me if I included the full correspondence between the SAC and I in that second printing. He was under the impression that the SAC would likely agree to this. I readily agreed, though I cautioned him that I was doubtful that the SAC would agree. When I returned to Alachua a few days later I received correspondence from this GBC member and the SAC Chairman, confirming that the SAC wanted to keep our correspondence confidential and did not want it available to the devotee public. Please know that I am eager for that correspondence to be made available, and for anything I've written therein to be scrutinized.

The SAC wrote "Since this is the formal pancaratrika method, the guru who is given the offering first is normally the pancaratrika diksa-guru. There may be exceptions; the guru-parampara given to us by Srila Prabhupada for worship in ISKCON, for example, includes Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Siksa-guru, Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, rather than his diksa-guru. Nonetheless, offering puja first to one's diksa-guru is the norm practiced in all Vaisnava sampradayas. Whatever may have been the actual relationship between Srila Bhaktivinoda and his diksa-guru (and we hear different stories about this from different sources), it is known that Srila Bhaktivinoda never behaved disrespectfully toward him."

In addition to implying that PL advocates disrespectful behavior towards diksa-gurus, the SAC seems to imply that siksa links in the parampara are an exception. From my understanding, from the time of Lord Caitanya more than half of the links, as delineated by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, are siksa links. Thus, the "standard" parampara system as put forward by the GBC's SAC is apparently not so standard, and this, I believe, is an important consideration in discussions about guru-tattva.

With regard to the PL section "Srila Prabhupada is Qualified to be Worshipped", in connection with the passage concerning Srila Sukadeva Goswami (p. 47 second printing, p. 22 first printing), the SAC writes: "...we do not make formal offerings to Sukadeva in our regular puja because he is not in the line of initiators of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. The diksa-guru of a properly initiated devotee in ISKCON, however, is the immediate link in the diksa-parampara for his disciple." The SAC seems to imply that being in the line of initiators in the diksa-parampara is the criteria for being formally worshipped in ISKCON. Clearly this is not the case, as can be concluded by the altar pictures that Srila Prabhupada gave us, which does not define a diksa-parampara. The criteria is transmission of transcendental knowledge, and not formal initiation. This is explained extensively in PL. The Sukadeva Goswami example in PL is provided to illustrate that the fact that we don't worship a particular Vaisnava does not indicate in any way that we are neglecting or disrespectful towards that Vaisnava.

The SAC wrote:

"Dhira Govinda Prabhu himself is in the position of having received his initiations after Srila Prabhupada's departure. When asked by a SAC member to identify his one diksa-guru, Dhira Govinda Prabhu said that if he were to answer according to the PL understanding, he would have to say that Srila Prabhupada was his one diksa-guru."

This does not represent me accurately. What I wrote to the SAC was:"If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the first intiation ceremony, then my initiator is Bhagavan Prabhu. If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the second initiation ceremony, then my initiator is Danavir Maharaja. If initiator is defined in terms of the prime giver of transcendental knowledge (as Srila Prabhupada uses the term on the first page of the Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta), then my initiator is Srila Prabhupada. Whatever definition you are comfortable with, that's okay with me (not that acceptance by me need be relevant for any of the recipients of this posting). As described on page 7 [page 37 of second printing] of PL, the assertions in the essay are not dependent on this discussion of terminology, which isn't to say that this discussion of terminology isn't important (it is important)."

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, and perhaps I missed something, the SAC paper doesn't address the issue of the philosophical change to Srila Prabhupada's books on the first page of Sri-Caitanya-Caritamrta. Srila Prabhupada used the word "initiated" to describe some parampara relationships where no formal initiation ceremony took place. In the new version of CC, the BBT deleted Srila Prabhupada's words "initiated". I corresponded with the BBT about this. The BBT representative wrote that the weightiest argument for changing Srila Prabhupada's books in this way was that Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "initiated" is not consistent with our current understanding of the term in ISKCON today. So, Srila Prabhupada's books are being changed, including changes with important philosophical imports, because Srila Prabhupada's words are not consistent with the GBC's current understanding. It seems that the SAC paper, which purportedly addresses the points in PL, avoids this point. There is a section in PL devoted to this book change, and if you'd like the full correspondence between the BBT and myself on this topic, I'll be glad to send you a longer article that I wrote about this issue.

My unhumble conviction, worthless as it may be, is that Srila Prabhupada would not only want you to continue to take a stand to facilitate his followers to participate in and benefit from Vaisnava Life Skills/Personal Transformation courses, but he would also want you to express outrage, in a gentlemanly but firm way, that his books are being changed because his words don't conform with the GBC's agenda.

So, Yogindra Prabhu, thank you again for inspiring me to write this. Perhaps in the months to come I'll write a more formal response to the SAC paper. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any points. I hope you are well. Hare Krsna.

Your servant,

Dhira Govinda dasa