'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' is now available online

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna.

 

For anyone who might be interested, H.G. Dhira Govinda Prabhu's book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' is now available online at:

 

http://www.yedaveda.org/

 

Cheers.

[Guest guest]

A cool article from the www.yedaveda.org site:

____________

 

"Guru" in the Singular and Clarity about "Fall Down"

 

We need a guru in whom we have absolute faith and whom we are willing to follow unconditionally in order to spiritually progress to the realm of pure devotion to Sri Krsna. This statement is made with reference to the point that each of us has many gurus, with "gurus" used in the sense of "teacher", or "person who inspires and guides us". We have many gurus, and it is understood that we generally don't consider these many gurus to be on the absolute platform. That is fine, realistic, to be expected. That said, we need one guru, or at least one guru, who is on that absolute platform and in whom our trust is implicit and absolute. Sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada agree that Srila Prabhupada exists on that absolute platform and is fully qualified as a shelter for the unconditional surrender of conditioned souls. As we assert in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, when a person contacts Srila Prabhupada's movement, that person has found a guru, in the sense of finding a Vaisnava who is completely worthy of their absolute faith. In that sense, the person no longer needs to seek a guru, because s/he has found one. Of course, that person will naturally have so many other devotees guide, instruct and mentor him/her during their spiritual lives. Although the person may consider one or more of these other devotees to be on the absolute platform, it is not necessary that s/he considers as such, or that those guides and mentors be on that platform, because Srila Prabhupada is perfectly serving in that capacity for the aspiring devotee. Thus, to reiterate, Srila Prabhupada flawlessly fills the role of guru, in the singular sense of the term, for all who contact his movement.

 

There is a game going on in the ISKCON organization. The game sounds something like "Now that you've been in the movement for six months, or twenty years, or whatever, you should find a guru." In the context of the presentation in the paragraph above, the absurdity of that game should be apparent. To justify the game the leadership of the ISKCON organization needs to dance in amusing ways. Essentially they seem to need to passively convince that Srila Prabhupada is not available to play that role. For example, they may say that one needs a living guru, implying that Srila Prabhupada is not living, despite so much evidence to the contrary. Or they may say that one needs a guru who is physically present on this planet, or something to that effect. Then one may wonder about the situation of those who received formal initiation from a devotee, such as Gaura Govinda Maharaja, who is no longer physically present on the planet. Do those initiates need to search for a guru, with "guru" used in the singular sense? If so, then supposing they find a guru in whom they have absolute faith, and that guru passes away the next day. Does the initiate then need to search for another guru, and then yet another when that one passes away? It may be asserted that the initiate doesn't need to search for another guru, because his guru who has physically departed continues to live in sound and instruction. Then, one may reflect that if this guru who has departed continues to live, inspire and serve as a guru, then it would seem that Srila Prabhupada could also do that. Thus, in looking for a guru in the absolute position, there seems to be no basis for searching for a Vaisnava other than Srila Prabhupada. Of course, at all stages of our devotional lives we seek devotees who will guide and inspire us, though, it seems to me, there is no reason, at any stage of our devotional lives after we've encountered Srila Prabhupada's vani, to search for a guru in the absolute position.

 

So, members of ISKCON leadership tend to obscure the issue by asserting things like "Srila Prabhupada can be the siksa guru, but not the diksa guru", and various similar statements. Essentially, they're attempting to assert that Srila Prabhupada is not available to be the guru in the absolute position. Herein we won't enter into the discussion of the meaning of "diksa". That is addressed to some extent, though by no means fully, in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL). Even if we consider "diksa" in terms of the formal ceremony of initiation, as ISKCON leadership is often inclined to do, our parampara teaches that the guru in the absolute position, who is the reservoir of implicit faith for the disciple, is not intrinsically the devotee who conducts the ceremony of initiation. This is clearly evident from the list of the parampara found at the end of the BG Introduction. This is separate though related to the discussion about the essence of the process of diksa being in no way dependent on the formal ceremony of initiation.

 

From what I am able to perceive, the position of the ISKCON leadership is that Srila Prabhupada, for some reason that I've not yet comprehended, is not available to be that guru in the absolute position, and thus a person who contacts Srila Prabhupada's movement must search for a guru from amongst members of the list of gurus approved by ISKCON leadership. Apart from the difficulties of establishing Srila Prabhupada's unavailability, this stance also encounters serious problems in relation to the concept of "fall down".

 

In the organization "fall down" connotes an obvious deviance from the regulative principles. This understanding of the term possesses value in our dealings and relationships with each other. However, if we are speaking of a guru who is the primary link to the parampara for disciples, who is the reservoir of absolute trust, and who is the point of absolute surrender for the disciple, then "fall down" has a meaning more profound. In the 12th Chapter of Bhagavad-gita, for example, Sri Krsna describes one who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, and happiness and distress, and who is free from false ego, etc. From that perspective, "fall down" indicates any departure from pure goodness. That is the standard of "fall down" if we're speaking about primary, current, and direct links to the disciplic succession such as Srila Prabhupada, Srila Rupa Goswami, and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur. When "guru fall downs" are spoken about in ISKCON, that tends to focus on the person being caught in blatant violations of regulative principles. But that is not the standard to be applied if we're discussing gurus in the absolute position.

 

Sometimes the dance takes the form of stating "Well, he/I is/am not claiming to be absolute or infallible. He/I/We is/am/are simply doing our best..." We need to recognize the smokescreen surrounding the humble-sounding tap dance. A person aspiring to advance in spiritual life needs a guru who is the direct link to the parampara who is qualified to receive unconditional surrender. For the disciples of ISKCON gurus let us ask "Who is that guru in the absolute position?" If it is the Vaisnava who performed the formal initiation ceremony, then let that be clearly stated. And if so, then that conductor of the ceremony should be held to the standard of "fall down" that is there for the pillars of the parampara such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, and Srila Prabhupada. If out of sincere or a show of humility they claim that they are not the direct link to the parampara who is the point of ultimate surrender, then let us ask, who is? Is it Srila Prabhupada? If so, then let's celebrate that and state it clearly. But they won't state it clearly, and least not consistently, or in writing, as far as my experience goes. Rather, the tendency of ISKCON leadership is to claim, albeit implicitly and with humble-sounding words, that the ISKCON gurus are the point of ultimate surrender for the disciple, while at the same time wanting to hold themselves to a shallow understanding of "fall down". If they are gurus in the sense that we each have so many gurus, then that conception of fall down has its place. If they are saying that they are the primary links to the parampara, as listed at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is, then the standard of fall down is any deviation from pure goodness, including any personal ambition, any personally motivated thoughts or behavior, any tinge of attraction for profit, adoration, or distinction, etc. If they are saying that they are not the primary links, then let's openly ask who is the primary link, the guru in the absolute position, for the initiate.

 

At some level members of ISKCON leadership know that the standard for fall down for a guru at the level that they are claiming is the highest standard. For example, in the "Qualifications of the Candidate" section of a fairly recent nominating letter for someone to be an authorized ISKCON initiating guru, one of the qualifications is stated as:

 

"He is free from kamini-kancana, pratistha, nisiddhacara, kuti-nati, puja, and labha."

 

How such a thing is determined by the GBC is not clear for me. That such a statement is asserted indicates that they know, at some level, that they are claiming, despite humble-sounding smokescreens to the contrary, to be gurus at that absolute level.

 

Another dilemma of the system being promoted by the ISKCON leadership is the fact that if there is any fall down of any sort then that is a clear indication that the system is not authorized. For example in Nectar of Devotion Srila Prabhupada writes "...if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples. His is not a very high grade of devotional service. If a person is carried away by such achievements, then his devotional service becomes slackened. One should therefore strictly adhere to the principles of disciplic succession." Because at some level they know this, fall downs of gurus, even blatant ones, are routinely covered up and denied, unless and until it becomes futile to do so. They know that the fact that any one of them has deviated, even slightly from pure goodness, what to speak of blatantly from even ordinary standards, indicates that the guru system they are promoting and following, and which serves them personally, is not authorized. In recent months this has been taken to a new level. Now, there are gurus whose fall downs are blatant and exposed. Still, they remain ISKCON gurus. The reasoning behind this, as far as I am able to perceive, is simply that declaring them no longer ISKCON gurus will cause too much damage to the organization. Thus, as in many other instances, so-called philosophy is determined based on supposed needs for organizational preservation. For the guru who has blatantly fallen and been exposed (I state this explicitly because many have blatantly fallen and have not yet been widely exposed), he is still holding that position which implies absoluteness. So, for the disciples of that guru, should they consider this person to be the point of ultimate surrender? Should they consider Srila Prabhupada to be that guru in the absolute position? If Srila Prabhupada is available to them in that capacity, or to anyone in that capacity, then it seems he is available to everyone in that capacity- at least everyone who sincerely devotes their life to him and his mission.

 

It is commonly known throughout the movement that many in the position of "absolute guru" are blatantly fallen, though this has not yet been revealed, and thus they continue in their posts as "ISKCON guru". And each of us can determine for ourselves what percentage of "ISKCON gurus" are fallen with reference to the standard of being free from any tinges of the modes of material nature. This presentation is not about finding fault in those who are assuming the position of "ISKCON gurus". Rather, I present this to generate deliberation about why someone who contacts Srila Prabhupada's movement should need in any way to take chances about the devotee they choose to be the guru who is the direct link to the parampara. It is 100% sure that Srila Prabhupada is qualified for this role. And, I and many others assert, he is fully available for that service. So, by connecting with Srila Prabhupada as the infallible guru, all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement for all generations are fully secure in their link to the disciplic succession. Even if there were some doubt that even one of the ISKCON gurus were influenced by some tinge of the lower modes, it would seem to me that it would not be responsible to set up a system where the potential initiate needs to take any chances whatsoever, considering that Srila Prabhupada is available to be the primary and current link to the parampara. Beyond that, and as described in PL, even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model. Srila Prabhupada is available to serve as the guru, in the singular sense. Therefore, why would anyone, especially an advanced Vaisnava, want to try to fill a position that is already filled by Srila Prabhupada?

 

[Guest guest]

This proposal sounds exactly like a copy of the cardenals, the Popes, The churchinism, The vatican, simply terrible future for any alive organization. Sorry is my humble opinion.

[vijay]

http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/sastric.response.to.prominent.link/index.html

[Guest guest]

http://www.yedaveda.org/pl-response_to_the_sac.htm

[vijay]

"Conclusion

 

When a person contacts Srila Prabhupada's movement, he has found a spiritual master. He doesn't need to continue looking for a guru, in the sense of the guru who is his primary link to the parampara and main inspiration in spiritual life. By establishing a connection with Srila Prabhupada he has linked with a bona fide spiritual master on the absolute platform in whom he can place unconditional faith and to whom he can securely and completely surrender and render service. "

 

Can we do the same if we come in contact with bhaktisidhanta saraswati thakurs books?

 

 

[Kulapavana]

on the pretense of glorification for Srila Prabhupada they are trying to change the way disciplic succession is passing down to our times.

 

nothing more, nothing less.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Isms. ? You know well about Varna is it because of this?

 

Anyway just wondering, I hope to resolve this issue once and for all on this here thread.!

[Guest guest]

Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"This proposal sounds exactly like a copy of the cardenals, the Popes, The churchinism, The vatican, simply terrible future for any alive organization. Sorry is my humble opinion."

 

Thank you for sharing this with me...but I'm not sure that I follow. Could you please tell me more?

[Guest guest]

vijay Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"Can we do the same if we come in contact with bhaktisidhanta saraswati thakurs books?"

 

My understanding is that the Prominent Link concept simply asserts that Srila Prabhupada is qualified and available to act in the role of "guru in the singular", for anyone who contacts his movement. It disagrees with the idea that Srila Prabhupada is not available or not qualified to occupy that position.

 

It does not seek to prove or disprove who else is qualified or unqualified to fill this role. Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link simply acknowledges that Srila Prabhupada is available.

 

 

[vijay]

Haribol, thanks for the clarification prabhu but still confused,

 

"It does not seek to prove or disprove who else is qualified or unqualified to fill this role. Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link simply acknowledges that Srila Prabhupada is available."

 

The question still remains, is srila bhaktisidhanta saraswati still accesable in the same way? or is it just srila prabhupada?

 

[Guest guest]

vijay Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"The question still remains, is srila bhaktisidhanta saraswati still accesable in the same way? or is it just srila prabhupada?"

 

Yes, I guess the question still does remain. That's a good point. I looked back over the book Srila Perabhupada: The Prominent Link, and found the following in the 'Questions and Answers' section:

 

"Q: Srila Prabhupada is not physically present and the PL model claims that he can be the direct link to the parampara. Would it be acceptable, then, if a devotee accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura as the direct link to the parampara?

 

A: In the verse yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah, Sri Krsna specifies a two-center system, with the Lord as one center and the spiritual master as the other center. The spiritual master center must be the current link to the parampara. We maintain that Srila Prabhupada is the current link and suggest that he can remain in that role for the duration of his movement. As described at the end of the Scenarios section, Srila Prabhupada’s followers know Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura and the other personalities who constitute the parampara primarily through Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s followers, however, notwithstanding when they joined his movement, are expected and encouraged to develop a primarily direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada. This direct relationship is naturally enhanced by the guidance and realizations provided by Srila Prabhupada’s followers.

 

All members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement do have direct relationships with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and other transcendental personalities. These relationships, however, are not primarily direct, but are primarily through Srila Prabhupada.

 

“Direct, current, and primary link to the paramparä" is defined as the Vaisnava through whom Sri Krsna is giving the most direct transcendental knowledge. For many devotees, regardless of who performed the initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada fulfills the definition of direct, current and primary link. It is important for the institution to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is playing this role, and will continue to play it for many, perhaps even most, members of his movement, for the lifetime of his movement.

 

What if someone claims "By the definition given above, the direct link for me is Srila Rupa Goswami [or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura]"? The view of the PL model is that if someone did originally connect with the sankirtana movement through the books of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Goswami, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Goswami would arrange to connect that person to Çréla Prabhupäda, because Çréla Prabhupäda is the current link for the present time. Still, we are open to hear and observe the experiences of others, and adjust our perspective accordingly. If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.

 

Srila Prabhupada’s organization is for those who are directly connected with the parampara through Srila Prabhupada. Someone may be primarily linked to the parampara through someone else, and that is appreciated. However, that linkage is not necessarily part of Srila Prabhupada’s institution. For example, if someone is in the line of the Sri-sampradaya, Srila Prabhupada’s followers honor that, while recognizing that it’s not in Srila Prabhupada’s line.

 

http://www.yedaveda.org/pl-questions_and_answers.htm

[gHari]

<blockquote>If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.</blockquote>

[theist]

I have noticed that in the org. ISKCON speaks of this book sometimes gets a bad rap. The reason given is that Srila Prabhupada is no longer on the planet.

 

But I have also noticed that everytime one of the ISKCON gurus quits or falls down or otherwise renounces his disciples they always direct the people to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and others in ISKCON for siksa. It's like now suddenly Srila Prabhupada is available afterall.

[Guest guest]

gHari Prabhu,

 

You wrote: "Who is this Pompous "WE""

 

I'm assuming that here 'we' refers to two or more people (one of which is the author of the PL book) who accept the following statement:

 

"If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims."

 

From what I understand, the author of PL discussed guru-tattva with many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement before writing the book. There were devotees who agreed with him, and my guess is that there were devotees who agreed with the above quoted statement.

 

I guess that the 'we' is meant to reflect the author's experience that the principles in PL are shared by many, many persons in Srila Prabhupada's movement. It is not clear to me that the use of 'we' in this case is pompous.

 

[Guest guest]

"But I have also noticed that everytime one of the ISKCON gurus quits or falls down or otherwise renounces his disciples they always direct the people to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and others in ISKCON for siksa. It's like now suddenly Srila Prabhupada is available afterall."

 

The truth is the truth.

[vijay]

In the post it says "Beyond that, and as described in PL, even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model. Srila Prabhupada is available to serve as the guru, in the singular sense. Therefore, why would anyone, especially an advanced Vaisnava, want to try to fill a position that is already filled by Srila Prabhupada?"

 

So even if bhaktisidhanta maharaj was the prominent link srila prabhupada even though a mahabhagvat should of accepted BST as the Prominent link? Or if srila prabhupada (hypothetical)decides to come in the linage of iskcon again he should accept the founder acarya prabhupada?

 

"even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model."

 

How does he come to this conclusion unless he understands the thoughts of a mahabhagvat?

 

[vijay]

"But I have also noticed that everytime one of the ISKCON gurus quits or falls down or otherwise renounces his disciples they always direct the people to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and others in ISKCON for siksa. It's like now suddenly Srila Prabhupada is available afterall. "

 

Prabhupada is always available for siksa, no? aswell as other devotees, i thought the dispute is whether he's available for diksa.

[Kulapavana]

Poster: Pankaja_Dasa

Re: and why is this

"Isms. ? You know well about Varna is it because of this?

Anyway just wondering, I hope to resolve this issue once and for all on this here thread.!"

 

our tradition has ALWAYS been a succession of living spiritual masters. not all our gurus have had the same stature as Srila Prabhupada, but they WERE an essential part of our tradition. why change now? just because some of new gurus proved to be unqualified? such is life. you try to solve one problem by throwing away an essential part of our tradition. fix the original problem - dont make a new one instead.

 

did Srila Prabhupada establish such a change? no, he told his disciples to become qualified gurus. if you think Prabhupada was so great then just follow his instructions.

 

[Kulapavana]

Guest: "The Prominent Link simply acknowledges that Srila Prabhupada is available."

 

So is Srila Vyasadeva... Do you understand the meaning of the word "Vyasasan"? if not, look it up... Did Srila Prabhupada istruct us to take shelter of the great Vyasa as our one and only guru?

[Guest guest]

vijay Prabhu...thank you for your interest. You wrote:

 

"Prabhupada is always available for siksa, no? aswell as other devotees, i thought the dispute is whether he's available for diksa."

 

Here's an excerpt that I like, it's from a correspondence between two devotees about guru-tattva. It seems to me to be relevant to what you wrote above:

 

"I don't view the term "siksa guru" as inherently depreciative. It's a glorious thing, to be a siksa guru. But, as you indicate, labels such as "siksa guru" and "diksa guru" have become politicized, with this process of politicization not necessarily reflecting the

balanced perspective presented by Srila Prabhupada and sastra. Because of the institutional filters that many devotees have acquired around these terms, to describe Srila Prabhupada as the prominent siksa guru may tend to minimize him from his actual position and relationship with the members of his movement. The conception may be there, that "he's just my siksa guru, but my diksa guru, and the guru who is most important to me, is..." So, it's not that the term is intrinsically minimizing, but the relationship to the term of many ISKCON devotees may be so. It has been and is known that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's siksa guru. Still, there are many in the movement who barely acknowledge Srila Prabhupada's vyasa-puja, while

celebrating in a big way the vyasa-puja celebration of their "real guru" (that is, the devotee who performed their initiation ceremony). This is described in the PL chapter Terms of Relegation. Clearly, whatever labels that the GBC has applied to Srila Prabhupada have not been sufficient to substantially change the consciousness, to actually convey the realization that Srila Prabhupada is the main

spiritual master, the main link to the parampara- actually the most important person in the lives of all persons in his movement. Thus, at this point in history I'm hesitant to apply terms, although those terms are true, such as "prominent siksa guru" to Srila Prabhupada, because they tend to take away, in a practical sense, from the fullness and importance of his role."

 

[Kulapavana]

the "Prominent Link" people imply that since some gurus are obviously unqualified - in fact, NO ONE is qualified, and no one WILL EVER BE qualified to be a guru. this is both absurd and potentially offensive.

 

on his death bed Srila Bhaktisidhanta was somewhat dissatisfied with his disciples. did he "stop the sampradaya"? and if he did, what would that make Srila Prabhupada? do Prominent Link people know the future? LOL!

[vijay]

Thanks for the article

 

"So, it's not that the term is intrinsically minimizing, but the relationship to the term of many ISKCON devotees may be so. It has been and is known that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's siksa guru. Still, there are many in the movement who barely acknowledge Srila Prabhupada's vyasa-puja, while

celebrating in a big way the vyasa-puja celebration of their "real guru" (that is, the devotee who performed their initiation ceremony). "

 

So shouldnt the emphasis be on educating devotees on the qualifications of guru and guru tattva rather than playing with terms like diksa and siksa? im also not sure if i agree with his stance on guru tatva, could you if possible clarify the below questions. Thank you.

 

In the post it says "Beyond that, and as described in PL, even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model. Srila Prabhupada is available to serve as the guru, in the singular sense. Therefore, why would anyone, especially an advanced Vaisnava, want to try to fill a position that is already filled by Srila Prabhupada?"

 

So even if bhaktisidhanta maharaj was the prominent link srila prabhupada even though a mahabhagvat should of accepted BST as the Prominent link? Or if srila prabhupada (hypothetical)decides to come in the linage of iskcon again he should accept the founder acarya prabhupada?

 

"even if all who serve in the capacity of ISKCON initiating guru were to be mahabhagavatas, my conviction is that they would embrace the PL model."

 

How does he come to this conclusion unless he understands the thoughts of mahabhagvats now and in the future?

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu. Thank you for your feedback. You wrote:

 

"the "Prominent Link" people imply that since some gurus are obviously unqualified - in fact, NO ONE is qualified, and no one WILL EVER BE qualified to be a guru. this is both absurd and potentially offensive. "

 

I do not get the impression that the Prominent Link people imply that since some gurus are unqualified - in fact, NO ONE is qualified, and no one WILL EVER BE qualified to be guru. I would like to share the following with you:

 

 

"Q: I want Srila Prabhupada to be the direct link only because I am sick and tired of guru fall downs.

 

A: It's really not a matter of wanting or not wanting Srila Prabhupada to be the direct link. The Prominent Link primarily describes an experience that many devotees are having in relationship to Srila Prabhupada. The fact that that experience can exist is supported by sastra and logic, but apart from any arguments or wants or desires, the experience is a reality. This is one reason why the ideas in The Prominent Link are so difficult to refute, or even to attempt to refute- because the essay primarily describes an experience, and that is difficult to counter.

 

If there were 1,000 mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement performing initiation ceremonies, the principles of The Prominent Link still stand. They are not dependent on the advancement or lack of it of any of the members of Srila Prabhupada's movement. Let's say that those 1,000 mahabhagavatas had thousands of disciples who experience them as the primary deliverers of transcendental knowledge, and thus the direct links to the parampara. Let's say there are a few others, or millions of others, who experience Srila Prabhupada in that capacity. I think that the reality for those few or millions ought to be legitimized in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

 

Further, apart from the accommodation described in the above paragraph, the mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement might act to connect the members of his movement directly with Srila Prabhupada. That is, the pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement may naturally opt to establish Srila Prabhupada as the direct link for all members of his movement. But even if not, then Srila Prabhupada should still be recognized as serving in this role for those who genuinely experience him in that relationship.

 

It is not a strong position to base one's conviction of Srila Prabhupada as the direct link on the fact that some in the role of initiating guru have had difficulties. A devotee may say that that argument is negated because his guru and so many others in the movement are pure devotees, and they'll never fall down, and newcomers should simply take primary direct shelter of them as the links to Srila Prabhupada. Some may say that they are naive and gullible, but these devotees may retort that persons like you are simply cynical and jaded. It's important to realize that the principles of The Prominent Link stand, regardless of the purity or lack of it of anyone in Srila Prabhupada's movement. The fact that many devotees in leadership positions have had spiritual difficulties adds to and supports the argument that Srila Prabhupada should be established and promoted as the direct link, for the unification of Srila Prabhupada's movement and for the protection of all participants in his society. But even if these reasons of unification and protection weren't there, the experience of Srila Prabhupada as the current and primary link to the parampara is valid in itself and must be recognized."

http://www.yedaveda.org/pl-letters_of_clarification_and_exp.htm

 

vijay Prabhu,

 

I owe you a response. I just want to prepare and email off the intructions to the substitute teacher who is filling in for me at work today today. I have about an hour to do this. I want to give you the best answer that I can. Thanks for your patience with me.

 

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"our tradition has ALWAYS been a succession of living spiritual masters. not all our gurus have had the same stature as Srila Prabhupada, but they WERE an essential part of our tradition. why change now? just because some of new gurus proved to be unqualified? such is life. you try to solve one problem by throwing away an essential part of our tradition. fix the original problem - dont make a new one instead.

 

did Srila Prabhupada establish such a change? no, he told his disciples to become qualified gurus. if you think Prabhupada was so great then just follow his instructions."

 

Thank you for what you have written. I think that the following seems related to what you wrote above:

 

"Q: I thought that disciplic succession has to be an ongoing process, from guru to disciple and so on without any interruptions. Srila Prabhupada is passing on transcendental knowledge to his disciples and his disciples are passing that transcendental knowledge to their own disciples.

 

A: Yes, Srila Prabhupada taught and is teaching, and those who learn from him teach others, and in this way the disciplic succession continues. This is explained in The Prominent Link, in places such as page 48, in the Questions and Answers section. Devotee A learns from Devotee B, who learned directly from Srila Prabhupada. Thus it can rightly be said that Devotee A is a disciple of the disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Devotee A also learns directly from Srila Prabhupada, and thus Devotee A can also be said to be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada directly, because Srila Prabhupada is directly giving him transcendental knowledge. Devotee A may have many Vaisnavas that he learns from, and thus he has many spiritual masters. So who, for Devotee A, is his prominent link to the parampara? It is, from what I understand, the Vaisnava from whom he receives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If that Vaisnava is Srila Prabhupada, then Srila Prabhupada should be recognized as the prominent link to the parampara for Devotee A."