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

[Kulapavana]

"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."

 

you folks are very flexible in the use of terms like "prominent", "directcurrent" and "primary". whatever works, eh? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

all it boils down to is that our sampradaya ends with Srila Prabhupada, isn't it?

 

and please do not forget: Srila Prabhupada's movement is always a PART of Lord Caitanya's tree, a PART of Srila T.Bhaktivinoda's movement, and a PART of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's movement. This is the way Srila Prabhupada HIMSELF saw his movement. We do have a past, and we do have a future - it all did not start and end with Srila Prabhupada.

 

and as to the noble desire to unify SP Movement: everybody tries to unify others under their own banner... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

right now PL philosophy simply created another division...

 

[vijay]

"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. "

 

Does that mean if devotee A learnt from srila prabhupada and srila prabhupada learnt from BST then A can be said to be a direct diciple of BST?

 

 

"Devotee A may have many Vaisnavas that he learns from, and thus he has many ""spiritual masters""."

 

These terms are like Kulapavana Prabhu said way too broad to have any discussion upon as they can be interpreted as anything. As you previously said this is someones experience and so I do not see a fault in its ambiguity.

 

Anyway thank you for your answers,

 

Haribol.

 

 

[theist]

Vijay:

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

 

 

In what sense do you mean diksa? As an act certifying that one has obtained a brahminical status that allows him to serve as pujari or as a process of receiving transcendental knowledge?

 

In the latter I fail to see how diksa is separte from siksa. In the former who cares as that is not accepting someone as his prominent link to Krsna's service.

 

Or does it refer to some intiation into a specific type of service as in majari-rasa? I am confused on this issue as I seem to hear the term used in a varity of ways without a consistent meaning.

 

[Kulapavana]

Guestji, I'm not saying that PL idea is ALL bad. in these arguments and answers there are always parts you do not address. you just address issues for which you have a good answer.

 

I simply do not see any reason to introduce such PL philosophy into our tradition. it is simply a more "palatable" version of the ritvik idea and it is supported by essentially the same devotees. and mind you, I DO think Iskcon needs to come clean on some matters, including the guru issue. I do agree that there is a problem in this department but PL philosophy is not the answer - the answer is in:

 

understanding and following our tradition, and not INVENTING a new concoction - it is the INVENTING that got us in trouble in the first place. you think this time it will be different?

[theist]

 

"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?"

 

 

I also find this curious. Is this meant to be just in ISKCON, or if one of these mahabhagavat disciples starts his own branch is he still expected to refer to Prabhupada as the PL?

 

This makes no sense to me in fact since Srila Prabhupada didn't follow this model with Bhaktisiddhanta isn't that really a backhanded insult to Srila Prabhupada by saying he was placing himself artifically before his guru?

 

This part makes no sense to me. Please explain further.

 

It appears to be just a variation on the same mistake ISKCON has been making all along, that of trying to make the whole parampara fit and be contained by one branch. It is as if a whole tree was supposed to be contained within one branch.

 

At some point it must be understood to be an impossible, silly and futile attempt.

 

And also I believe Krsna in the heart makes the connection between guru and disciple and provides the necessary faith that forms the relationship. And the fact is that may be with another mahabhagavat other than the person Srila Prabhupada.

 

Since I am accepting Srila Prabhupada as a pure soul free from mundane envy I can only imagine that Srila Prabhupada would be emmensly pleased to see his disciple in such a position something like a proud papa viewing a grown up son at the son's own wedding, having complete his education and establishing himself as a purified servant of the Lord and being used by the Lord to distribute his mercy. I thought that was the whole point in fact.

 

This whole thing is very personal and not exactly procedural in nature.

 

[theist]

everyone came to acknowledge Caitya-guru as the Prominent Link? At least everyone would be right.

[vijay]

Diksa has been difined in many ways, i've read prabhupada says the spirtual master who is your prominent siksa guru from him you should accept diksa, (the begining of a process, that connects you formally to the parampara).

 

Ive heard the example that its like a marriage, you may love someone and do all the things a husband and wife will do, but without that formal ceramany the marriage is not recognised. In the same way without diksa we are not connected to the parampara. (all though there are exceptions like gopis etc (-: ).

 

Anyway I dont know to be honest what diksa is even after all these years and probably never understand it, but its recomended by srila prabhupada and sastra and will try and get it from someone who i accept as a primary siksa guru as prabhupada recomends.

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

Diksa: ..."its recomended by srila prabhupada and sastra and will try and get it from someone who i accept as a primary siksa guru as prabhupada recomends"

 

yes, this is the process. dont be confused by recent inventions. why re-invent the wheel? for countless millenia people received the Vedas in this fashion and now someone claims they have found a better way...

[Guest guest]

theist Prabhu, thank you very much for your participation. You wrote:

 

"What if everyone came to acknowledge Caitya-guru as the Prominent Link? At least everyone would be right."

 

My understanding is that Krsna has created a two-center sysmtem consisting of guru and Krsna...and that guru center in this two-center system is in the category of jiva-tattva. Caitya-guru, or Paramatma would be in the category of Vishnu-tattva...although Paramatma would also play the role of a guru through the agency of buddhi, or the "form-direction of the Supersoul"...as I remember 'buddhi' (or intelligence) being referred to somewhere in SB Canto 2. In other words, I think that this refers to the form that the voice of Supersoul takes on as it comes in contact with material nature.

 

It seems to me that in the impure conditioned state the "form-direction of the Supersoul" is refracted through our particular makeup of modes of material nature, and is coloured by our material desires. Krsna gives us the intelligence to accomplish our various plans, wether for good or for ill...wether to come close to him or turn away.

 

So buddhi is said to be in the category of rajas, whereas the mind is said to be in sattva. At first it seems kind of weird since it is by the intelligence that we bring the mind under control and make it into a friend rather than an enemy.

 

If I remember correctly, based on SB Canto 2, it seems that even a person with impurities can experience the action of Supersoul or Caitya-guru, but that this communication will be 'coloured' or distorted. The pure message will come through to the extent that we ourselves are purified.

 

I've heard the spiritual master referred to as the external manifestation of the Supersoul because he is telling us from outside what God is telling us from within. He is a transparent medium. It would also seem that as we internalize the voice and instructions of the spiritual master, we also begin to hear his intructions as the voice of conscience...thus gradually purifying our intelligence.

 

Since there seems to be more than one person posting as 'guest'...my name is Alex (or Abhayasraya dasa), but I prefer to go by Alex.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

Thank you for your caring enough about the issue of guru-tattva to give me your feedback.

 

I want to touch on what you wrote in the order that is easiest for me. That is, I'll answer those questions first for which I feel I have something relevant that I can easily cut and paste. So, please bear with me if you are willing.

 

You wrote:

 

"all it boils down to is that our sampradaya ends with Srila Prabhupada, isn't it?"

 

I will paste something from the book that I feel relates to the above:

 

"Q: Prabhu, on page #9, you said that Srila Prabhupada will continue to serve as the prominent link at least for the duration of his movement. Are you saying this because there will be no others who can give more divya-jnana than Srila Prabhupada? Or is it because no one should take his place?

 

A: I'm saying that Srila Prabhupada will continue to be available to serve in this role as prominent link for the duration of his movement. We also acknowledge that some may not experience him in this capacity- they may experience one of Srila Prabhupada's followers in this capacity. That's okay. We accept that experience as legitimate. But in the next breath we express our opinion that the preferred model is for all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement to be connected directly and primarily with Srila Prabhupada. Ideally, in my opinion, no one should take Srila Prabhupada's place as serving as the primary link, even if there are Vaisnavas who may, theoretically, be as spiritually advanced as Srila Prabhupada. But we concede that others may give, to some members of the movement, more direct divya-jnana than Srila Prabhupada. Still, the experience of those who experience Srila Prabhupada in this capacity should be honored. Srila Prabhupada should never be excluded as a potential direct link for members of his movement at any time during his movement."

 

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"you folks are very flexible in the use of terms like "prominent", "directcurrent" and "primary". whatever works, eh?"

 

I am posting something that I feel relates to the above:

 

"Q: I understand that Srila Prabhupada is the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. And the giving of transcendental knowledge is the most important part of the initiation process. I also understand that the giving of transcendental knowledge is the essence of disciplic succession. Where I start getting confused is the part where you make the connection between Srila Prabhupada being the main giver of transcendental knowledge and being the direct link to the parampara. Does one necessarily lead to the other?

 

A: Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who is the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. If someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent, direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro.

 

I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the preceding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determinant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members of his movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above.

 

You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the terminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current", if not the Vaisnavas listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list- namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

 

The Prominent Link asserts that the criteria for being on the list is to be the Vaisnava who primarily delivers direct transcendental knowledge to the initiate. A further assertion is that the members of the list, who meet this criteria, can naturally be termed the direct and current links to the parampara. For many members of his movement, including those for whom he did not perform a formal initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, and therefore it is right and natural to refer to him as the prominent and direct link to the parampara for those devotees. If there is an argument that being the prime deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge does not lead to being the direct link to the parampara, then I'm interested to hear that argument. What is the rationale of that argument? Even if some rationale can be conceived, what is the basis on which the argument that "the giver of direct transcendental knowledge is the direct link to the parampara" can be refuted, such that the idea is not even given legitimacy (perhaps alongside other conceptualizations) in Srila Prabhupada's organization?"

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

vijay Prabhu,

 

I think that the paragraph included at the end of this post also relates to the following questions of yours:

 

"Does that mean if devotee A learnt from srila prabhupada and srila prabhupada learnt from BST then A can be said to be a direct diciple of BST?"

 

"So even if bhaktisidhanta maharaj was the prominent link srila prabhupada even though a mahabhagvat should of accepted BST as the Prominent link?"

 

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

 

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

 

Here's the paragraph again:

 

"Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who is the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. If someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent, direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro."

 

Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

I also feel that the above paragraph relates to the following comment made by your good self:

 

"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? "

 

Alex

 

[Kulapavana]

my question:

 

Does our sampradaya end with Srila Prabhupada?:

 

 

your short version answer:

 

"...the preferred model is for all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement to be connected directly and primarily with Srila Prabhupada"

 

my even shorter translation of that answer: "preferably, yes"

 

anyway prabhu, thank you for your efforts. I appreciate all sincere devotees trying to solve problems facing our movement, even if I dont like their proposed solutions.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

Thank you for your comments. It has been enlivening for me to correspond with you. You wrote: "Does our sampradaya end with Srila Prabhupada?"

 

Once again, for the sake of saving time, I am posting a quote from the PL book:

 

"All of Srila Prabhupada’s followers have a mandate to give Krsna consciousness to others, and in this way to expand the sankirtana movement and continue the disciplic succession. We are all meant to be instruments in carrying on the parampara, and I am not advocating that the paramparä ends with Srila Prabhupada."

 

Your servant,

Alex

[Kulapavana]

"I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the preceding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number."

 

you are also making another big assumption here:

 

every rank and file devotee and bhakta is able to duplicate the direct transfer of transcendental knowledge you refer to in the above quote.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

You wrote: "every rank and file devotee and bhakta is able to duplicate the direct transfer of transcendental knowledge you refer to in the above quote."

 

Can you tell me more?

 

Your servant,

Alex

[theist]

 

If I remember correctly, based on SB Canto 2, it seems that even a person with impurities can experience the action of Supersoul or Caitya-guru, but that this communication will be 'coloured' or distorted. The pure message will come through to the extent that we ourselves are purified.

 

 

Yes I understand this but also see that it applies to the external manifestation as guru as well. Someone can be sitting front row/center for everyone of Prabhupada's lectures and still not understand what he is saying due to our mind's interference. This is why I have come to view initiation as a process that is grown into and not a one time event.

 

The present system of overtly or covertly pressuring someone into "accepting a spiritual master by formal intiation vows" to start getting the "real thing" has proven to be a collosal failure and destructive and disruptive. It seems like every year another big timer falls down publically after having been fallen down long before he is found out or admits it. So why not just scrape the whole ISKCON scheme of the week and concentrate on Prabhupada.

 

Afterall with all these intiating "spiritual masters" running about you would think one of them would be able to clarify to people what diksa means. But none of their own students seems to know but are sure they "have it".

 

Or like vijay don't know what it is but is pressed and willing to accept it from someone anyway. This is dangerous IMO.

[Guest guest]

"Yes I understand this but also see that it applies to the external manifestation as guru as well. Someone can be sitting front row/center for everyone of Prabhupada's lectures and still not understand what he is saying due to our mind's interference."

 

I agree.

 

"Or like vijay don't know what it is but is pressed and willing to accept it from someone anyway. This is dangerous IMO."

 

I feel the same way.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"you are also making another big assumption here:

 

every rank and file devotee and bhakta is able to duplicate the direct transfer of transcendental knowledge you refer to in the above quote."

 

It's not exactly my assumption...as I'm quoting someone else, but I'm open to the assumption. It seems to me that the following is relevant to the above:

 

"Q: In the PL model, how will the initiate know how to manage his devotional life?

 

A: Srila Prabhupada is his main guide, as his primary guru. Also, there are the sadhus in Srila Prabhupada’s movement from whom the initiate will naturally accept guidance. The initiate can choose where in Srila Prabhupada’s movement he wants to serve. He is then expected to cooperatively and submissively serve within the authority structure established by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Consider the situation in the mid-1970s, when Srila Prabhupada was physically present. A devotee who joined at that time accepted Srila Prabhupada as his spiritual master and link to the parampara, though he did not expect to receive personal training from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s assistants personally guided and instructed the new devotee. Upon joining ISKCON the devotee chose where in Srila Prabhupada’s organization to serve. Once choosing, he was expected to cooperate with the authority structure that Srila Prabhupada set up in that particular temple and to appropriately respect and serve all the devotees with whom he associated. Many of these devotees actively assisted him in spiritual life. In a sense they were his gurus, though he understood that Srila Prabhupada was his connection to the paramparä and primary guru. Perhaps one of Srila Prabhupada’s assistants served as a primary assistant for the new devotee, though it was understood that Srila Prabhupada, and not the primary assistant, was the point of absolute surrender. In fact, the devotee may have had different primary assistants throughout his devotional career, though Srila Prabhupada as the main guru and primary deliverer of divya-jïäna was constant.

 

With the PL model the management would be handled as described above. Many devotees and groups of devotees have commented over the years how the present system, with the devotee who performs the initiation ceremony intrinsically involved in the managerial mix, has caused much disturbance. The PL model proposes that we return to the system of management that was in effect when Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet. A devotee will naturally consult senior devotees whom he respects when making important decisions such as which temple to serve in and what service to perform. In the PL model there is no managerial control explicitly or implicitly assumed by the Vaisnava conducting the initiation ceremony over the Vaisnava being formally initiated, though there may be a managerial relationship, depending on the volition of the involved parties.

 

The PL model encourages devotees to serve and accept guidance and shelter from Vaisnavas who are physically present. These Vaisnavas to whom the devotee subordinates himself, and with whom the devotee develops close relationships, are spiritual teachers, though none of them replace Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession.

 

This paper describes devotees who genuinely experience Srila Prabhupada as the direct, current, and prominent link to the paramparä, by dint of Srila Prabhupada being the primary Vaisnava who gives direct transcendental knowledge. Of course this can be misused by someone claiming "I'm directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, so I don't listen to anything anyone else says," and as an excuse for arrogance. If someone is actually connected with Srila Prabhupada then he won't exhibit such behavior. Srila Prabhupada wants us to serve submissively under the hierarchical structure that he created, in loving cooperation with his followers. This doesn't conflict with Srila Prabhupada being the direct link to the parampara for the members of his movement."

 

[Kulapavana]

to assume that every rank and file devotee and bhakta today is able to duplicate the direct transfer of transcendental knowledge as was SOMETIMES (and only in exceptional situations) done in our sampradaya in the past is indeed a BIG assumption.

 

in almost all cases in our sampradaya the transfer of knowledge was through physical, direct association. let alone the fact that individuals in question were already vastly advanced Vaishnavas and not some complete neophytes from a mleccha background.

 

the often quoted by you PL folks example of disciples receiving almost no direct physical contact with Srila Prabhupada is rather an exception to the Vedic (and Vaishnava) tradition and it CERTAINLY contributed to the problem on hand, but there was NO real alternative to it at the time. making such an exception into a RULE seems down right foolish.

[Guest guest]

theist Prabhu,

 

I still owe you a response to your post from 01/04/05 01:31 PM. Before that though, I wanted to post something from the PL book that I found pretty cool:

 

"In the mid-90s, I had a powerful experience while living near Udupi, South India, the seat of the Madhva-sampradaya. For centuries, gurus and disciples have been carrying on Madhva's teachings, and it was very clear to me that everyone there identifies himself--mainly, primarily, directly, and foundationally--as a Madhvaite. His commanding image, sitting in his famous çuddha-dvaita pose, is displayed and worshiped both inside and outside the temple, the seat from which he spoke is preserved in a sacred room and daily offered puja, and his life and teachings are continually recited by the sannyasis at "Shri Krishna Mutt."

 

Many of these sannyasis are "bala-sannyasis"; that is, based on strong sannyasa-yogas appearing in their horoscope, they were awarded sannyasa as boys and groomed to be spiritual leaders in the sampradaya as they grew up. In recent times, though, some of these bala-sannyasis have fallen from the standard and gotten married. Our ISKCON history, of course, has many similar examples with adult converts. But so powerful and pernicious is the influence of the modern age that even saintly persons born and bred in Vedic culture may sometimes come to disappoint their disciples. Yet because the disciples, Madhvaites in this case, are absolutely grounded in the life and teachings of their founder-acarya, they don't feel devastated and betrayed, their faith in guru and Krsna remains solid, and they don't sue their mathas for millions of dollars or write books like Betrayal of the Spirit.

 

Observing how absolute faith in the life and teachings of Madhva had kept the relationships between gurus and disciples vital, intimate, and dynamic, and kept that sampradaya cohesive and alive for some 800 years now, I couldn't help but think of our Society, struggling to understand and apply guru-tattva globally, and how to realize enough of Prabhupada's ideal of love and trust to continue as a united Hare Krsna movement. What Prabhupada inherited was timeless, but what he gave us was, in many ways, unprecedented. For example, where in Vedic history do we find the sacred and sovereign guru-disciple relationship deferring to a higher principle of cooperating within a worldwide spiritual movement? To become a servant of the servant in Prabhupada's ISKCON is possible when all gurus and disciples accept the founder-acarya as the prominent link to the parampara and cooperate to perpetuate his mission.

 

How do we accept His Divine Grace as our prominent link?

When I first read Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, I thought Dhéra Govinda was dissembling when he asked that the thesis of his booklet-that our founder-acarya can be anyone's sole object of absolute surrender-be validated by the GBC and thereby allowed to comfortably coexist with other understandings and applications of guru-tattva. What he really wanted, it seemed to me, was to get his foot in the door, then gradually go for domination. One tyranny of thought would replace another-same old same old. But rereading Prabhupada's purport to CC Madhya 23.105, I've come to think that Dhéra Govinda understands very well our founder-äcärya's spirit of unity in diversity: "What is possible in one country may not be possible in another...A Vaisnava is immediately purified, provided he follows the rules and regulations of his bona fide spiritual master. It is not necessary that the rules and regulations in India be exactly the same as in Europe, America, and other Western countries. ...We should not follow regulative principles without an effect, nor should we fail to accept the regulative principles. What is required is a special technique according to country, time, and candidate."

For me, Dhira Govinda Prabhu's booklet, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, is a direct descendant of Ravindra-svarüpa Prabhu's 1984 paper Ending the Fratricidal War, the landmark essay that precipitated the first wave of guru reform in ISKCON. A later forefather was Dhruva Mahäräja Prabhu's 1994 booklet siksa/diksa, a sweet breeze after the Vedic Village vitriol that showed up unsolicited in many of our mailboxes in the late 80s and early 90s. Yet there was some gold even in that filthy place, as acknowledged by Jayädvaita Maharaja in "Where the Ritvik People are Right."

In that 1996 essay, which also pointed out where the ritviks were wrong, Maharaja wrote: "On the one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorized ISKCON guru and worship him like God. On the other, it has an elaborate system of laws to invoke from time to time when your ISKCON authorized guru falls down. One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC. Some devotees have no problem with any of this. They have their guru. They trust him. They are making advancement. They are happy. But others can only lament the passing of the days when Srila Prabhupada was the only guru and the position of guru was sure. Merely to 'smash' the theories of the post-samadhi rttvik people, then, will not make such theories go away. We must honestly face the underlying issues. Who is a bona fide spiritual master? What qualifications must he have? Are the gurus in ISKCON factually qualified-all of them, some of them, or any of them? If all or any of them are less than fully fit, what implications does this have for their disciples and for ISKCON? In ISKCON today, how can one be sure that the spiritual master to whom one is surrendering is genuine and infallible? Above all, how can every member of ISKCON be connected with Srila Prabhupada as his disciple, his follower, in a true and legitimate sense? The spiritual leaders of ISKCON ought to recognize the importance of these questions and deal with them honestly, openly, sincerely, and deeply."

 

Bravo, Maharaja. Your challenge rings truer than ever. And bravo, Dhiraa Govinda Prabhu, for "honestly, openly, sincerely, and deeply" trying to help us meet that challenge.

 

The challenge of understanding ISKCON Founder-acarya Srila Prabhupada's relationship with everyone in his movement starts with looking deeply into our own heart. If the 25 years since Prabhupada's passing has taught me anything about my own relationship with His Divine Grace, it is this: that my core identity is not so much as his "initiated disciple" as it is his "instructed follower"; because "He lives forever by his divine instructions, and the follower lives with him." And that that core identity is and must be available to everyone in ISKCON, especially if we hope to find enough unity in diversity to sustain and invigorate the Hare Krishna movement in the generations, and millenia, to come. And finally, that the best advice I can offer to myself or any putative guru descending from Srila Prabhupada is this: "Ne'er a pretender nor a proxy be/All masters and disciples--seize his feet!"

 

As I write, it's been many months since you signed as contributors to the GBC's Preliminary Response to Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Perhaps your thoughts, like mine, have evolved over time regarding Dhira Govinda's presentation. I am aware that the GBC's Sastric Advisory Committee has been in dialogue with him about the ideas in Prominent Link and at least one of you is on that committee. You are all wise and sincere servants of Srila Prabhupada, as are the devotees who contributed the realizations presented in Prominent Link. I have every hope that we are at last ready to resolve the "mother of all issues" in ISKCON-or at least to celebrate our unity in diversity-for it is within the well-rounded saìga of faithful devotees that Srila Prabhupada's full mercy appears.

 

Hope you are all well and thank you for reading. Hare Krishna.

 

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,

Suresvara dasa."

 

 

 

Your servant,

Alex

 

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

You wrote:

 

"in almost all cases in our sampradaya the transfer of knowledge was through physical, direct association. let alone the fact that individuals in question were already vastly advanced Vaishnavas and not some complete neophytes from a mleccha background."

 

I think that the following quote relates to what you have further clarified above:

 

"The PL model encourages devotees to serve and accept guidance and shelter from Vaisnavas who are physically present. These Vaisnavas to whom the devotee subordinates himself, and with whom the devotee develops close relationships, are spiritual teachers, though none of them replace Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession."

 

Your servant,

Alex

[Kulapavana]

I have personaly known Suresvara Prabhu for many years and respect him greatly, but I would be careful when using Madhvaites as an example or precedent in this (PL or ritvik) case. They see their disciplic succession quite differently than us. They place much more emphasis on diksa in their lineage and do not even consider us a part of the Madhva line, largely because of the guru issues.

[Kulapavana]

"The PL model encourages devotees to serve and accept guidance and shelter from Vaisnavas who are physically present. These Vaisnavas to whom the devotee subordinates himself, and with whom the devotee develops close relationships, are spiritual teachers, though none of them replace Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession."

 

it is beyond me then why we should go through all this exercise of PL? no respectable devotee is going to minimize the position of Srila Prabhupada as a prominent acharya in the disciplic succession in our times, so why bother with PL?

 

do you think the theoretical implementation of the PL idea in 1977 would have prevented the abuses and deviations of the past? like these guys did not know they were screwing up Prabhupada's mission? if so, you are either very naive or very ignorant.

 

[Guest guest]

Prabhu, you wrote:

 

"I would be careful when using Madhvaites as an example or precedent in this (PL or ritvik) case. They see their disciplic succession quite differently than us. They place much more emphasis on diksa in their lineage and do not even consider us a part of the Madhva line, largely because of the guru issues."

 

I read with interest the article by B.G. Narasingha Maharaja, that appeared on VNN, about his views on the terms upakaaraka-guru and uddhaaraka-guru:

 

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9901/ET05-2792.html

 

I don't know enough about the Sri and Madhva lineages to comment on what you've written, or on what Maharaja has written in his article.

 

I've got an initiated Sri Vaisnava friend from India who I would like to ask about all this this for the sake of learning something more. I find the topic very interesting and would be glad to hear more about it from you.

 

Even though we accept that Srila Prabhupada is passing on unchanged the teachings of those who came before him, my understanding is that when looking at the Gaudiya-Vaisnava tradition, at the acaryas, at the writings of the Goswamis, or at other Vaisnava traditons...we do so through Srila Prabhupada. We understand them through Srila Prabhupada, and not the other way around.

 

I don't know if Suresvara Prabhu was advocating using the Madhvaites as an authoritative source of knowledge on how to understand Srila Prabhupada's wishes for how his movement should go on. I just posted it because I thought it was cool. I thought it was interesting, though not conclusive, for me to at least carefully consider what are the views of guru-tattva in these two other lines. Something for me to think about.

 

Your servant,

Alex