13) "If we adopted the ritvik system, what would stop us taking initiation from any previous acarya, such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?"
Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorise a ritvik system to run "henceforward".
We must approach the current link:
"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession." (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)
It is self-evident that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore our current link, and is thus the correct person to approach for initiation.
14)"In order to be the current link you must be physically present."
Srila Prabhupada never states the above injunction.
So let us consider: Can a spiritual master be "current" if he is physically absent?
The term "current link" is only used in one passage in all of Srila Prabhupada's books; there is no reference to physical presence adjacent to the term. Were physical presence essential it would certainly have been mentioned.
The dictionary definitions of the word "current" do not refer to physical presence.
Dictionary definitions of the word "current" can be readily applied to a physically absent spiritual master and his books: "most recent", "commonly known, practised or accepted", "widespread", "circulating and valid at present". (Collins English Dictionary)
As far as we can see all the above definitions can be applied to Srila Prabhupada and his books.
The very purpose of approaching a "current link" can be fully satisfied by reading Srila Prabhupada's books:
"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession." (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)
Srila Prabhupada also uses the term "immediate acarya" as synonymous with "current link". The word "immediate" means:
"Without intervening medium", "closest or most direct in effect or relationship". (Collins English Dictionary)
These definitions lend validity to a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada without the need for intermediaries, again all regardless of physical presence/absence.
Since there are examples of disciples initiating when their guru was still on the planet, there would appear to be no direct relationship between current link status and physical presence/absence. In other words if it is possible to be the next current link even whilst your own guru is physically present, why should it not be possible for a departed acarya to remain the current link?
In conclusion, we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current link is based on physical or non-physical considerations.
15) "Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers all became initiating acaryas after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so what is wrong with Srila Prabhupada's disciples doing the same?"
In posing as initiating acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples acted in direct defiance of their spiritual master's final order (to form a GBC and await a self-effulgent acarya). Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned his Godbrothers for their insubordination, describing them as useless for preaching, what to speak of initiating:
"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)
"On the whole you may know that he (Bon Maharaja) is not a liberated person, and therefore he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special benediction from higher authorities." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)
"If everyone just initiates there will be contradictory result. As long as it goes on, there will be only failure." (Srila Prabhupada Phalgun Krishnan Pancami, verse 23, 1961)
We can see from recent experience what havoc just one of these personalities can cause to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We would suggest respect from as great a distance as possible. Certainly we cannot afford to use them as role models for how a disciple should carry on their spiritual master's mission. They destroyed their spiritual master's mission, and are more than capable of doing the same to ISKCON if we were to allow them.
With regards to the Gaudiya Matha's guru system, this may be the only historical precedent the M.A.S.S. can lay claim to, i.e. that it was also set up in direct defiance of clear orders from the Founder-acarya.
16) "When Srila Prabhupada said they should not be acaryas, he meant acarya with a big "A". That is, an acarya who heads up an institution."
Where does Srila Prabhupada ever differentiate between big "A" and small "a" initiating acaryas? Where does he ever talk about a specific breed of initiating acarya who can head up institutions, and indicate that there is an inferior species who, through some disablement, cannot?
17) "It is just common knowledge that there are three types of acarya. Everyone in ISKCON accepts that."
But this idea was never taught by Srila Prabhupada, it was introduced by Pradyumna dasa in a letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami dated 7/8/78. This letter was later re-printed in the paper Under My Order (Ravindra Svarupa dasa, 1985), and was used as one of the corner stones of that paper's thesis on how the guru system within ISKCON should be reformed. In turn it is this paper On My Order Understood (GBC, 1995), that forms the basis of GII's doctrine on initiation (as mentioned in the Introduction). This paper led to the transformation of the zonal acarya system into the present day M.A.S.S.:
"I have taken this definition of acarya from the letter of August 7th 1978, from Pradyumna to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. The reader should now turn to this letter (which I have appended) for careful study." (Under My Order, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, August 1985)
In his letter, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya may be taken in three senses:
1. One who practices what he preaches.
2. One who grants initiation to a disciple.
3. The spiritual head of an institution who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor.
We accept definition 1, since it was used by Srila Prabhupada. This definition would automatically apply to any effective preacher, be he siksa or diksa guru.
Moving on to definition 2: Pradyumna explains that this type of acarya can initiate disciples and be referred to as acaryadeva, but only by his disciples:
"Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acaryadeva", etc - by his disciples only. Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples." (Pradyumna 7/8/78)
This is a concoction. Nowhere does Srila Prabhupada ever describe an initiating guru whose absolute nature must only be recognised by his disciples, but not by the world at large, or even other Vaisnavas in the same line. Let us see how Srila Prabhupada defines the word acaryadeva. The following are excerpts from Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-Puja offering printed in The Science of Self Realisation (SSR) chapter 2 where he uses the term in relation to his own spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta:
"The guru, or acaryadeva, as we learn from bona fide scriptures, delivers the message of the absolute world,..."
"...when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva, or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application."
"The acaryadeva for whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the Jagad-Guru, or the guru of all of us..." (Srila Prabhupada, SSR, chapter 2)
Srila Prabhupada's use and definition of the word acaryadeva is diametrically opposed to that of Pradyumna. Implicit in what Pradyumna says is that the term acaryadeva can be falsely applied to persons who are not actually on that highly elevated platform. Thus, he relativises the absolute position of the diksa guru.
The term acaryadeva can only be applied to someone who is factually "the guru of all of us"; someone who should be worshipped by the entire world:
"...he is known to be the direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as acaryadeva." (C.c. Adi, 1.46)
In definition 3, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya indicates the head of an institution, and that this meaning is very specific:
"It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. [...] This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradaya." (Pradyumna's letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, 7/8/78)
We certainly agree that to initiate one must first be authorised by the predecessor acarya (a point which is not even mentioned in the elaboration of definition 2):
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)
However, what this has got to do with taking over the "seat of the spiritual institution" is rather baffling, since Srila Prabhupada is the acarya of an entirely separate institution from that of his Guru Maharaja. According to Pradyumna's philosophy therefore, Srila Prabhupada might only come in as a definition 2 acarya. Whatever "strict tradition" Pradyumna is referring to, it was certainly never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, and thus we can safely discard it. Further down the page, we see exactly from where Pradyumna's insidious ideas originated:
"Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya, he usually, out of humility, takes only a thin cloth asana, not anything higher." (Pradyumna's letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, 7/8/78)
None of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were authorised acaryas. One would think that genuine humility should translate into giving up one's unauthorised activity, whatever it may be, recognising Srila Prabhupada's pre-eminent position, and then surrendering to the true Jagad-Guru. Unfortunately, few members of the Gaudiya Matha have ever done this. The fact that Pradyumna cites these personalities as bona fide examples means he is once more denigrating the position of the true acaryadeva.
"Regarding Bhakti Puri, Tirtha Maharaja, they are my Godbrothers and should be shown respect. But you should not have any intimate connection with them as they have gone against the orders of my Guru Maharaja." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Pradyumna, 17/2/68)
It is a shame Pradyumna prabhu ignored this direct instruction from his Guru Maharaja, and quite remarkable that his deviant views were allowed to shape ISKCON's current guru "siddhanta".
Thus, when Srila Prabhupada said none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be become acarya, whether he meant definitions 1 or 3 acarya is irrelevant. If they were not qualified for definition 1 then that meant they did not teach by example, which would automatically disqualify them from definition 3, and hence from initiating altogether. And if they were not qualified as per definition 3, then they were not authorised, and hence once more they could not initiate.
In Conclusion
All preachers should aspire to become a definition 1 acarya, or siksa guru.
The elaboration of definition 2 by Pradyumna Dasa is completely bogus. It is forbidden for anyone, disciple or not, to regard the bona fide guru, or acaryadeva, as an ordinary man. And if he is, in fact, an ordinary man then he cannot initiate anyone and be referred to as acaryadeva. Furthermore there is no mention of the need to receive specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya in disciplic succession, without which no one can initiate.
Definition 3 is the only type of acarya who may initiate; i.e. one who has been authorised by his own sampradaya acarya- spiritual master. Having been so authorised he may or may not head up an institution, that is irrelevant.
Within ISKCON all devotees are instructed to become definition 1 acaryas, teaching through example, or siksa gurus. A good start on the path to becoming this type of acarya is to begin strictly following the orders of the spiritual master.
18) "It seems a small point, so how could these ideas regarding the acarya have had any noticeable adverse effect on ISKCON?"
In fact, the relativisation of the initiating diksa guru has led to all kinds of confusion within ISKCON. Some ISKCON gurus claim they are taking their disciples back to Godhead by acting as current links to Srila Prabhupada who is the Founder-Acarya; and some say they are simply introducing disciples to Srila Prabhupada who is the actual current link who is taking them back to Godhead (almost ritvik philosophy). Some gurus say Srila Prabhupada is still the current acarya, others say that he is not; whilst a couple have claimed themselves to be the sole successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada. Some ISKCON gurus still believe Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successor acaryas (a myth which was recently reported as fact in the LA Times); others that he appointed 11 ritviks who were to turn into small "a" acaryas immediately on his departure; others that it was not just the 11 who should have turned into small "a" acaryas on departure, but all Srila Prabhupada's disciples (except the women it seems).
If we return once more to GII, we can see that the GBC is highly ambivalent towards the gurus it "authorises".
Whilst acknowledging the rubber-stamping of sampradaya acaryas is bogus (GII, point 6, p.15), the GBC nevertheless, in effect, performs precisely this function every Gaura-Purnima at Mayapur, year after year. We now have close to a hundred initiating gurus, all anointed with the "no objection" stamp of approval. All these gurus are being worshipped as "saksad hari" ("as good as God") in accordance with the GBC's own directives for disciples (GII, point 8, p.15).
These initiating acaryas are heralded as "current links" to a disciplic succession of maha-bhagavatas stretching back thousands of years to the Supreme Lord Himself:
"Devotees should take shelter of the representatives of Srila Prabhupada who are the "current link" in the disciplic succession." (GII, p. 34)
At the same time however the aspiring disciple is sternly warned that ISKCON approval..."...is not automatically to be taken as a statement about the degree of God-realisation of the approved guru." (GII, section 2.2, p.9)
Elsewhere we are further cautioned:
"When a devotee is allowed to carry out the "order" of Srila Prabhupada to expand the disciplic succession by initiating new disciples it is not to be taken as a certification or endorsement of his being an "uttama adhikari", "pure devotee", or to having achieved any specific state of realisation." (GII, p.15)
These gurus are not to be worshipped by everyone in the temple, but only by their own disciples in a separate place. (GII, p.7) - (Pradyumna's acaryadeva definition).
We have shown that the only type of bona fide diksa guru is an authorised maha-bhagavata; (we have also shown that the actual "order" was for ritviks and siksa gurus). Thus, to describe anyone as a "current link" or "initiator guru", is synonymous with claiming he is a large "A" or definition 3 acarya, an "uttama adhikari" or a "pure devotee".
We would venture that it is infelicitous to approve, or "not object" to, the creation of diksa gurus, and simultaneously disavow any blame or responsibility should they deviate. This is what's termed "living in denial" according to modern psychological parlance. We are sure Srila Prabhupada did not intend ISKCON to be a type of lottery, or Russian roulette, where the stake is someone's spiritual life. Perhaps the GBC should refrain from further rubber stamping until they can stand one hundred percent behind those they approve. After all, every one of us stands one hundred percent behind Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide spiritual master; so such consensual recognition of personal qualification is not impossible.
GBC guru ambivalence was recently summed up quite succinctly by Jayadvaita Swami:
"The word appointed is never used. But there are "candidates for initiating guru", votes are taken, and those who make it through the procedures become "ISKCON-approved" or "ISKCON-authorised" gurus. To boost your confidence: On one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorised 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-authorised 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." ("Where the ritvik People are Right", Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)
When we look at the appalling track record of gurus in ISKCON it is hardly surprising that such mistrust should exist. To quote once more from Jayadvaita Swami's paper:
FACT: ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere Godbrothers and Godsisters.
FACT: ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification.
FACT: ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well.
FACT: ..... (...etc, etc... )
(Where the ritvik People are Right, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)
Newcomers to ISKCON are told that the onus is on them to carefully examine ISKCON gurus on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions, to make sure for themselves that they are qualified to initiate. However, should such a prospective disciple come to the conclusion that none of the "physically present" gurus on offer are up to standard, and that he wishes instead to repose his faith in Srila Prabhupada as his diksa guru, he is ruthlessly hounded from the Society. Is this really fair? After all, he is only doing what the GBC has told him to do. Should he be punished for not coming to the "right" conclusion, especially since there is such clear and unequivocal evidence that this choice is precisely what Srila Prabhupada wanted all along?
Is it reasonable to expect someone to have unflinching faith in a current ISKCON guru, when he sees that the GBC themselves have felt it necessary to construct a rigorous penal system just to keep them in line? A penal system which itself is never once mentioned in the very books and instructions the prospective disciple is being asked to base his decision on. A clearer case of self-referential incoherence it would be hard to find.
It would be safer for all concerned if we just follow Srila Prabhupada's clear order to keep him as the only initiator within ISKCON. Who could object to that?
19) "According to the ISKCON Journal 1990, some of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were actually acaryas."
Who said this?
The same person who said there was no such word as "ritvik" in the Vaisnava dictionary (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23), even though the term is used repeatedly in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and in the July 9th letter which Srila Prabhupada personally signed.
The same person who implied that Srila Prabhupada was not specifically authorised to initiate:
"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has not said or given any document that Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada) will be guru." (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23)
The same person who said that Tirtha, Madhava and Sridhar Maharaja were bona fide acaryas, even though Srila Prabhupada had said none of them were qualified:
"But there is a system in our sampradaya. So Tirtha Maharaja, Madhava Maharaja, Sridhar Maharaja, our Gurudev, Swamiji - Swamiji Bhaktivedanta Swami - they all became acaryas." (ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23)
Contrast the above with what Srila Prabhupada thought of one of these "acaryas":
"Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much antagonistic to our Society and he has no clear conception of devotional service. He is contaminated." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Sukadeva, 14/11/73)
and with what he said of the rest:
"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)
The same person who recently claimed that Srila Prabhupada had not given everything, and that it was time for a rasika guru to gain higher knowledge.
20) "Srila Prabhupada spoke well of his Godbrothers sometimes."
It is true that on occasion Srila Prabhupada dealt with his Godbrothers diplomatically, referring to Sridhar Maharaja as his siksa guru etc. Srila Prabhupada was also a warm person who had genuine care and affection for his Godbrothers, always trying to find ways of engaging them in the Sankirtan Movement. We must realise however that had these been genuine acaryadevas, Srila Prabhupada would never have spoken ill of them, not even once. To speak of bona fide diksa gurus as disobedient, envious snakes, dogs, pigs, wasps etc., would itself have been a serious offence, and thus not something Srila Prabhupada would have done. To illustrate the way in which Srila Prabhupada viewed his Godbrothers, we shall offer excerpts below from a room conversation in which Bhavananda is reading a pamphlet put out by Tirtha Maharaja's matha:
Bhavananda: " It starts off in big print, "Acaryadeva Tridandi Swami Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja. All learned men are aware that in the dark ages of India when the Hindu religion was in great danger..."
Srila Prabhupada: (laughs)...This is nonsense.
It is obvious what type of "acaryadeva" Srila Prabhupada considers Tirtha Maharaja (the same Tirtha who is hailed as a bona fide acarya in the 1990 ISKCON Journal mentioned earlier). Later on the pamphlet describes how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was so fortunate to have a wonderful personality to carry on the mission.
Bhavananda: "...In proper time, he (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) got a great personality who readily shouldered the..."
Srila Prabhupada: "Just see now. "He got a great personality". He is that personality. He'll also prove that. ..(later)...No one accepts him...Where is his greatness? Who knows him? Just see. So he is making a plan to declare himself a great personality...(Tirtha Maharaja) is very envious about us...These rascals they may create some trouble." (Room Conversation, 19/1/76, Mayapur)
Bona fide acaryas c
Comments