--- THE FINAL ORDER ---
Also refer to the new paper: The Final Order Still Stands!
![[Home]](../gif/home.gif)
Whilst researching a recent paper on 'Insider and Outsider Perceptions of Srila Prabhupada', I found myself trying briefly to do justice to the different views held by devotees concerning disciplic succession and the role of gurus following Prabhupada's disappearance in 1977. Naturally, I had been aware before this of the periods of crisis surrounding the fall of individual gurus and the waves of shock and sadness experienced by their initiated disciples, godbrothers and godsisters. I had hoped like many, that guru-reforms in the late-1980s would solve ISKCON's leadership and initiation difficulties. Looking again at the issue when preparing the paper, I read some of the arguments for and against the present system, as well as the work of other scholars on questions of guru and succession. It was clearly still a live issue. In the very latest scholarship on 'The Parampara Institution' in volume 5 of Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Jan Brzezinski discusses various aspects of this, stressing the importance of qualified, charismatic leadership in the future of ISKCON. His is just one view, but it is indicative of the power of this subject to motivate interest inside and outside the Movement.
Late in 1996 I was asked to read The Final Order, to give my opinions and to discuss the questions posed within it. Reading it, I was left in doubt that this was a matter of very great significance to ISKCON and about which many devotees felt deeply. It seemed to me that it raised important theological questions concerning spiritual authority and its transmission, the relationship of the disciple and Krishna's representative, the guru, and the proper objects of devotional worship. As an outsider, I am quite unable to judge the matter (and unable to weigh the evidence presented here against the evidence for the present acharya system). However, I am able to commend what is presented here as a serious attempt to argue the case that Srila Prabhupada established a system of ritvik gurus whom he intended would initiate disciples on his behalf. I hope it will be read carefully and discussed widely, not because I support or condemn its position, but because the profound issues it raises demand consideration at all levels. Every devotee has a real stake in the matter.
No doubt it is unwise for an outsider to involve herself by writing such a foreword, but my motives remain my interest in the movement and goodwill to all its devotees.
Kim Knott, February 1997
This paper was presented to a select committee of the GBC in October 1996.
(This draft contains some minor ammendments)
"The GBC approves of the paper entitled 'On My Order Understood' which
establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada's desire for
continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace.
[See Part II:GBC Position Papers in this volume.]" (GII,
p.1)
In GII it is the GBC's clearly stated intention to remove incoherence
and contradiction from ISKCON's codes and laws surrounding gurus, disciples and
guru tattva in general, thus establishing a final
siddhanta: We sincerely pray that this paper is in pursuance
of those very same aims.
In the interest of ever greater consistency and philosophical chastity, we feel
there are still one or two discrepancies, not fully addressed in GII,
that might benefit from further investigation and discussion. Although some of
the issues thrown up in confronting these discrepancies may seem quite radical,
even painful to deal with, we feel that tackling them now will greatly minimise
future confusion and potential deviation. It is not unprecedented that guru
systems in ISKCON have come under quite radical review. In the past, symbols
have been removed, ceremonies curtailed and paradigms shifted - all without too
much long term disruption.
In the whole scheme of things ISKCON is undoubtedly the most important Society
on the planet. It is therefore imperative that constant vigilance is maintained
in ensuring it does not stray even one millionth of a hair`s breadth from the
managerial and philosophical parameters set out by our Founder-Acarya.
Srila Prabhupada constantly stressed that we must not change, invent or
speculate; but simply carry on expanding that which he so carefully and
painstakingly established. What better time to closely scrutinise the way we
are carrying on Srila Prabhupada's mission than this, his Centennial year?
It is our strong conviction that the present guru system within ISKCON should
be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the
matter; his final order on initiation, issued on July 9th, 1977
(please see appendices, p56). Sometimes people question the stress
placed on this letter over and above other letters or teachings. In our defence
we shall simply repeat an axiom the GBC itself uses in the GII
handbook:
"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance."
(GII, p.25)
Since the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation
within ISKCON, addressed as it was to the entire Movement, it must be viewed in
a category of its own. It will be shown that the full acceptance and
implementation of this order does not in any way clash with the teachings of
Srila Prabhupada.
We have no interest in conspiracy theories, nor do we intend to dredge up the
gory details of unfortunate individuals' spiritual difficulties. What is done
is done. We can certainly learn from previous mistakes, but we would rather
help pave the way for a positive future of re-unification and forgiveness, than
dwell too long on past scandal. As far as the authors are concerned, the vast
majority of devotees in ISKCON are sincerely striving to please Srila
Prabhupada; thus we consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately
disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our
Founder-Acarya. Nevertheless, somehow or other, it does seem as though
certain aberrations of epistemology and managerial detail have found their way
into general ISKCON currency over the last nineteen years. In identifying these
grey areas we pray we may be of some assistance in rooting out unnecessary
obstructions to our devotional service to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna.
In this booklet we shall be presenting as evidence signed documentation, issued
personally by Srila Prabhupada, and conversation transcripts, all of which are
accepted as authentic by the GBC. We shall then look carefully at both the
content and the context of these materials to see if they should be taken
literally, or whether modifying instructions exist which might reasonably alter
their meaning or applicability. We shall also discuss all relevant
philosophical issues raised in connection with this evidence, and answer all of
the most common objections raised against a literal acceptance of the July 9th
initiation policy document. And finally we shall look at how the 'officiating
acarya system', as outlined in the July 9th order, might be implemented
with the minimum disturbance.
We shall base all our arguments solely on the philosophy and
instructions given by Srila Prabhupada in his books, letters, lectures and
conversations. We humbly beg the mercy of all Vaisnavas that we may not
cause offence to anyone or in any way disrupt the vital mission of His Divine
Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
It would certainly have been entirely out of character for Srila Prabhupada to
leave an important issue, such as the future of initiation in his cherished
society, up in the air, ambiguous, or in any way open to debate or speculation.
This is particularly so in light of what happened to his own spiritual master's
mission, which, as he would often point out, was destroyed largely through the
operation of an unauthorised guru system. Bearing this in mind, let us begin
with facts that no-one disputes:
On July 9th 1977, four months before his physical departure, Srila
Prabhupada set up a system of initiations employing the use of ritviks, or
representatives of the acarya. Srila Prabhupada instructed that this
'officiating acarya' system was to be instituted immediately, and run from that
time onwards, or 'henceforward' - (please see Appendices). This management
directive, which was sent to all Governing Body Commissioners and Temple
Presidents of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, instructed
that from that time on new disciples would be given spiritual names and have
their beads and gayatri mantras from the 11 named ritviks. The ritviks were to
act on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, new initiates all becoming disciples of Srila
Prabhupada.. Srila Prabhupada thus handed over to the ritviks total power of
attorney over who could receive initiation, he made it clear that from that
time onwards he was no longer to be consulted. (for details of a ritvik's
duties, please see the section entitled 'What is a Ritvik? in Appendices)
Immediately after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, on
November 14th 1977, the GBC suspended this ritvik system. By Gaura Purnima
1978, the 11 ritviks had assumed the roles of zonal acarya diksa gurus,
initiating disciples on their own behalf. Their mandate for doing so was an
alleged order from Srila Prabhupada that they alone were to
succeed him as initiating acaryas. Some years later this zonal acarya system
was itself challenged and replaced, not by the restoration of the ritvik
system, but by the addition of dozens more gurus, along with an elaborate
system of checks and balances to deal with those that deviated; the rationale
for this change being that the order to become guru was not, as we had first
been told, only applicable to the 11, but was a general instruction for
anyone who strictly followed, and received a two-thirds
majority vote from the GBC body.
As mentioned above, the July 9th letter was sent to all GBCs and Temple
Presidents, and remains to this day the only signed instruction on the
future of initiation Srila Prabhupada ever issued to the whole Society.
Commenting on the July 9th order, Jayadvaita Swami recently wrote:
"Its authority is beyond question [...] Clearly, this letter establishes
a ritvik-guru system." (Jayadvaita Swami 'Where the Ritvik People
are Wrong' 1996)
The source of the controversy arises from two modifications which were
subsequently superimposed over this otherwise clear and authoritative
directive
· Modification a) : That the appointment of
representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be
terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
· [[Mu]]odification b) : Having ceased their
representational function, the ritviks would automatically become
diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not
Srila Prabhupada's
The reforms to the zonal acarya system, which took place around 1987,
kept intact these two assumptions. The same assumptions, in fact, that
underpinned the very system it replaced. We refer to a) and b)
above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9th
letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent
to this order.
The GBC's paper, GII, clearly upholds the above mentioned
modifications:
"When Srila Prabhupada was asked who would initiate after his physical
departure he stated he would "recommend" and give his "order" to some of his
disciples who would initiate on his behalf during his lifetime and afterwards
as "regular gurus", whose disciples would be Srila Prabhupada's
grand-disciples." (GII, p.14)
Over the years increasing numbers of devotees have began questioning the
legitimacy of these basic assumptions. For many, they have never been properly
substantiated, and hence an uneasy sense of doubt and mistrust has grown both
within and outside the Society. At present, books, papers, E-Mailouts and
Internet Web Sites offer almost daily updates on ISKCON and its allegedly
deviant guru system. Anything which can bring about some sort of resolution to
this controversy has got to be positive for anyone who truly cares about Srila
Prabhupada's Movement.
One point everyone is agreed on is that Srila Prabhupada is the ultimate
authority for all members of ISKCON, so whatever his intended order was, it is
our duty to carry it out. Another point of agreement is that the only
signed policy statement on the future of initiation, which was sent to all the
Society's leaders, was the July 9th order.
It is significant to note that in GII the existence of the July
9th letter is not even acknowledged, even though this is the only place
where the original eleven 'acaryas' are actually mentioned. This
omission is puzzling, especially given that GII is supposed to offer the
'final siddhanta' on the entire issue.
Let us then look closely at the July 9th order to see if there is indeed
anything that supports assumptions a) and b) above:
The Order Itself :
As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik
system should be followed 'henceforward'. The specific word used,
'henceforward', only has one meaning, viz. 'from now onwards'. This is
both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the
meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. Unlike other words, the word
henceforward is unambiguous since it only possesses one dictionary definition.
On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used
the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the possibility that the word could
mean anything other than 'from now onwards'. 'From now onwards' does not mean
'from now onwards until I depart'. It simply means 'from now onwards'. There is
no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila
Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only
be operational during his presence. Furthermore the argument that
the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - henceforward - is
untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has
changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before
his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it. Without such a
counter instruction, this letter would still remain intact as Srila
Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation.
Supporting Instructions :
There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his
secretary, in the days following the July 9th letter, which clearly indicate
that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation:
In these documents we find words such as 'continue' and 'future' which along
with the word 'henceforward' all point to the permanancy of the ritvik
system. There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even hints that
this system was to terminate on his departure.
Subsequent Instructions :
Once the ritvik system was up and running, Srila
Prabhupada never issued a subsequent order to stop it, nor did he ever state
that it should be disbanded on his departure. Perhaps aware that such a thing
may mistakenly or otherwise occur, he
put in the beginning of his final will that the system of management in
place within ISKCON must continue and could not be changed - an
instruction left intact by a codicil added just nine days before his
departure. Surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to disband the
ritvik system had that been his intention (please see
Appendices). That the use of ritviks to give initiates' names was a
system of management can be illustrated by the following:
In 1975 one of the preliminary GBC resolutions sanctioned that the 'GBC
would have sole responsibility for managerial affairs'. Below are some of
the 'managerial' issues the GBC dealt with that year:
"In order to receive first initiation, one must have been a full
time member for six months. For second initiation
there should be at least another one year after the first
initiation." (Resolution No. 9, March 25th, 1975)
"Method of initiating Sannyasis." (Resolution No. 2,
March 27th, 1975)
These resolutions were personally approved by Srila Prabhupada.
They demonstrate conclusively that the methodology for conducting initiations
was deemed a system of management. If the whole methodology for
conducting initiations is considered a system of management by Srila
Prabhupada, then one element of initiation, viz. the use of ritviks
to give spiritual names, has to fall under the same terms of
reference.
Thus changing the ritvik system of initiation was in direct violation
of Srila Prabhupada's final will.
Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's will which indicates the intended
longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive
directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from
amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples:
"...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the
remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated
disciple,..."
(Srila Prabhupada 's Declaration of Will, June 4th,
1977)
This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation
remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool
of potential directors would eventually dry up.
Furthermore, every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of initiations after July 9th he
simply reconfirmed the ritvik system. He never gave any hint that the
system should stop on his departure or that there were gurus, waiting in the
sidelines, ready to take on the role of diksa. Thus, at least as far as
direct evidence is concerned, there appears to be nothing to support
assumptions a) and b) referred to above. As stated, these
assumptions - that the ritvik system should have stopped at departure,
and that the ritviks must then become diksa gurus - form the very
basis of ISKCON's current guru system. If they prove to be invalid then there
will certainly need to be a radical re-think by the GBC.
The above sets the scene. The instruction itself, supporting
instructions and subsequent instructions only support the continuation of the
ritvik system. It is admitted by all concerned that Srila Prabhupada did
not give any order to terminate the ritvik system on his
physical departure. It is further accepted by all concerned that Srila
Prabhupada did set up the ritvik system to operate from
July 9th onwards. Thus we have a situation whereby the acarya:
"...the process is that you cannot change the order of
the spiritual master."
(SP C.c. Lecture, 21/12/73, Los Angeles)
A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct order from
the guru, especially when he has been told to continue following it. That is
axiomatic - this is what the word 'disciple' means:
"When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the
spiritual master.
(SP Bg. Lecture, 11/2/75, Mexico)
Since there is no direct evidence stating that the
ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical
departure, the case for abandoning it could therefore only be based on
indirect evidence. Indirect evidence may arise out of special
circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. These extenuating
circumstances, should they exist, may be used to provide grounds for
interpreting the literal instruction. We will now examine the circumstances
surrounding the July 9th order, to see if such modifying circumstances might
indeed have been present, and whether there is inferentially anything to
support assumptions a) and b) .
There is nothing in the letter that says the instruction was only meant for
whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information
given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila
Prabhupada's departure. It is significant to note that within the July
9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila
Prabhupada's disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current
guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it
clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one
could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila
Prabhupada's ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction
was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have
been an issue.
For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on
beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one
had ever questioned who such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning
of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are
'representatives' of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter
contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly
something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become
fully-fledged diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada's emphasis on disciple
ownership would therefore have been completely redundant were the system to
operate only in his presence, especially since as long as he was present he
could personally ensure that no one claimed false ownership of the disciples.
As mentioned above, this point is hammered home three times in a letter
which itself was quite short and to the point:
"So as soon as one thing is three times stressed,
that means final."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los
Angeles)
The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were
to be sent 'to Srila Prabhupada' - Could this indicate that the system was only
to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have
argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the
ritvik system must therefore be invalid.
The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to
Srila Prabhupada, ie., so they could be included in his "Initiated
Disciples" book. We know from the July 7th conversation (please see
Appendices) that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new
names into this book, it was done by his secretary. This procedure could easily
have continued after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. Nowhere in the
final order does it state that if the "Initiated Disciples" book becomes
physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.
The next point is that the procedure of sending the names of newly initiated
disciples to Srila Prabhupada in any case relates to a
post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent
after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction
concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend
or in any way interrupt pre-initiation,
or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik's role being already
fulfilled well before the actual initiation ceremony takes place).
Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the
system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent,
the initiation has already occured.
The last point is that if sending the names to Srila Prabhupada were a vital
part of the ceremony, then even before Srila Prabhupada's departure, the system
would have been invalid, or at least run the constant risk of being so. It was
generally understood that Srila Prabhupada was ready to leave at any time, thus
the danger of not having anywhere to send the names was present from day one of
the order being issued. In other words, taking the possible scenario that
Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated
through the ritvik system, according to the above proposition, the
disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by
which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada's books that
the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to
complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service.
Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being
entered into His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book even now.
This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time.
Please consider the following points:
In summary, the GBC insists on the following:
Neither of the above stipulations appears in the July 9th letter, nor any other
signed order; yet they form the very foundation of both the zonal acarya
system and the current 'Multiple Acarya Successor System,' or
M.A.S.S. as we shall refer to it. (In this context we use the word
acarya in its strongest sense, that of initiating spiritual master, or
diksa guru).
To argue that since the letter is not specific about the time period in which
it is to run, it must therefore stop on departure, is completely illogical. The
letter does not specify that the ritvik system should be followed on
July 9th either, so according to this logic it should never have been followed
at all. Even accepting that 'henceforward' can at least stretch to the end of
the first day of the order being issued, it does not say it should be followed
on July 10th, so perhaps it should have stopped then.
The demand for the ritvik system to only operate within a pre-specified
time period is contradicted by accepting its operation for 126 separate 24 hour
time periods (i.e. four months), since none of these 126 separate time periods
is specified in the letter, yet everyone seems quite happy that the system ran
during this time frame. Unless we take the word 'henceforward' literally to
mean 'indefinitely', we could stop the system at any time after July 9th, so
why choose departure?
There is no example, either in Srila Prabhupada's 86 recorded uses, nor in the
entire history of the English language, where the actual word 'henceforward'
has ever meant:
'Every time period until the departure of a person who issued an
order'
Yet according to current thinking this is what the word must have meant
when it was used in the July 9th letter. All the letter states is that
the ritvik system is to be followed 'henceforward'. So why was it
stopped?
If an instruction is impossible to perform, for example giving Srila Prabhupada
his daily massage after his physical departure, then obviously there can be no
question of doing it. The duty of a disciple is simply to follow an order
until it is impossible to follow any longer, or until the spiritual master
changes the order. The question then is whether it is feasible to follow a
ritvik system without the physical presence of the person who set it
up.
In fact, the ritvik system was set up specifically to be
operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada
whatsoever. Had the ritvik system continued after his departure, it
would be identical in every respect to how it was practised whilst Srila
Prabhupada was present. After July 9th, Srila Prabhupada's involvement became
non-letter existent, and so even at that stage it was operating as though he
had already left. This being the case, we cannot classify the ritvik
system dysfunctional, or inoperable, on the grounds of Srila Prabhupada's
departure, since his departure does not in any way affect the running of the
system. In other words, since the system was specifically set up to operate
as if Srila Prabhupada was not on the planet, his leaving the planet can not in
itself render the system invalid.
This 'letters v books' argument does not apply in this case since this was no
ordinary letter. Generally, Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter in response to a specific query from an individual disciple, or
to offer individualised guidance or chastisement. Naturally, in these cases the
devotee's original query, situation or deviation may give grounds for
interpretation. Not everything in Srila Prabhupada's letters can be applied
universally (for example in one letter he advised a devotee, who was not good
with spices, to just cook with a little salt and tumeric; clearly this advice
was not meant for the entire Movement). However, the final order on initiation
is not open to any such interpretation since it was not written in response to
a specific query from a particular individual, or to address a disciple's
individual situation or behaviour. The July 9th letter was a procedural
instruction, or management policy document, which was sent to every leader in
the Movement.
The letter follows the format of any important instruction that Srila
Prabhupada issued and wanted followed without interpretation - he had it put in
writing, he approved it, and then sent it to his leaders. For example, he had
one sent on April 22nd, 1972, addressed to 'ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS':
"The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are
being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple
shall be independent and self-supporting."
(SP Letter to All Temple Presidents, 22/4/72)
Srila Prabhupada did not publish a new book each time he issued an important
instruction, regardless of whether the instruction was to continue past his
departure. Thus, the form in which the instruction was issued does not make it
prey for indirect interpretations, nor in any way diminishes its validity.
If such circumstances did exist, Srila Prabhupada would have stated them in the
letter, or in an accompanying document. Srila Prabhupada always gave enough
information to enable the correct application of his instructions. He certainly
did not operate on the assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic
mind readers, and that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and
incomplete directives which would later be made sense of telepathically. For
example, had Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to stop on his
departure he would have added the following seven words to the July 9th letter
- "This system will terminate on my departure". A quick look at the letter
tells us he wanted it to continue 'henceforward'. (please see
Appendices)
Sometimes it is argued that the ritvik system was only set up
because Srila Prabhupada was sick.
Devotees may or may not have been aware of the extent of Srila
Prabhupada's illness; but how could they possibly be expected to deduce from a
letter that says nothing about his health, that this was the only reason
it was issued? When did Srila Prabhupada say that any instruction he issued
must always be interpreted in conjunction with his latest medical report? Why
should the recipients of the final order on initiation not have assumed
the letter was a general instruction to be followed, without interpretation?
Srila Prabhupada had already announced that he had come to Vrindavan to leave
his body. Being tri-kala-jna he was most likely aware of his
departure in four months time. He had set in motion the final instructions for
the continuation of his Movement. He had already drawn up his will and other
documents relating to the BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) and GBC, specifically
to provide guidance for after his imminent departure. The one matter that had
not yet been settled was how initiations would operate when he left. At this
point, no-one had the faintest clue how things were to run. The July 9th order
clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in his
absence.
In summary, you can not modify an instruction with information that those to
whom the instruction was given did not have access. Why would Srila Prabhupada
purposely issue an instruction that he knew in advance no one could follow
correctly, since he had not given them the relevant information within the
instruction? If the ritvik system was only set up because he was ill,
Srila Prabhupada would have said so in the letter or in some accompanying
document. There is no record of Srila Prabhupada ever behaving in such a
purposely ambiguous and uninformative manner, especially when instructing the
entire Movement. Srila Prabhupada never signed anything in a cavalier fashion,
and when one considers the magnitude of the instruction in question, it is
inconcievable that he would have left out any vital information.
In the GBC's handbook GII, the sole evidence offered in support
of modifications a) & b) is extracted from a conversation
which took place on May 28th, 1977. The paper appears to concede that there is
no other instructional evidence which directly relates to the function of
ritviks after Srila Prabhupada's departure:
"Although Srila Prabhupada did not repeat his earlier
statements, it was understood that he expected
these disciples to initiate in the future." (GII, p.14, emphasis
added)
Since it is the sole evidence, there is a section exclusively
dedicated to the May 28th conversation on page 21. Suffice to say it was
not referred to in the July 9th letter, nor did Srila Prabhupada demand that a
copy of the taped conversation be sent out with the final order. From this we
can deduce, with absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of
modifying information vital to the understanding of the final order. As a point
of fact, the May 28th conversation was not released till several years after
Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus once more we are expected to modify a clear
written instruction with information which was not accessible to the very
people who were issued the instruction. As will be seen later, the May
conversation has nothing in it to contradict the final order.
As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always supercede
previous instructions: The final order is the final order, and must be
followed:
"I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to you, you
do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue - 'Sir you said to me
do like this before', no that is not your duty, what I
say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue."
(SP S.B. Lecture, 14/4/75, Hyderabad)
Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna gave so many instructions to
Arjuna, he spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but
all this was superseded by the final order:
"Always think of Me and become My devotee"- should be taken as the final
order of the Lord and should be followed."
(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, chapter 11)
The final order given by Sankaracarya,'bhaja Govinda', was also meant to
supersede many of his earlier statements - all of them, in fact. As mentioned
in the introduction, the GBC itself recognises this as an axiomatic principle
of logic:
"In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance."
(GII, p. 25)
It is not possible to have a 'later' statement than the
last one. Therefore we must follow the ritvik system by the GBC's
own logic.
Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa
guru for after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced,
indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:
"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the
next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorised gurus
for the Movement, for the world". He did not do that." (Ravindra
Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)
Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must
be a maha-bhagavata (most advanced stage of
God-realisation) and be specifically authorised by
his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of
guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorised. We quote
below the only passage in Srila Prabhupada's books where the term
diksa (diksitah) is linked with a specific qualification:
"The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional
service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must
be accepted from the topmost class."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is
to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of
Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a
guru."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport))
Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific
authorisation from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone
could act as a diksa guru:
"On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and
therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It
requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities."
(SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming
in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual
master. This is called diksa-vidhana."
(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)
Indian man: When did you become spiritual the leader of
Krsna Consciousness?
(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)
Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru
when both the qualification and authorisation are in place. Srila
Prabhupada had not authorised any such gurus, nor had he stated that any of his
disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he
agreed that they were still 'conditioned souls', and that vigilance was
essential lest persons pose themselves as guru. (please see
Appendices)
Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik
system falls into three basic categories :
Looking first at category 1) :
The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in
the Caitanya-Caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:
"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krsna as they are given in
Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a
spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."
(C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)
However, the type of guru which Lord Caitanya is encouraging
everyone to become is clearly established in the detailed purports
following this verse:
"That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna
mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are
given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam."
(C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)
"One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or
whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra
and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of
Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...]
It is best not to accept any disciples."
(C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)
We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question
first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request
is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach
what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus.
This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to
remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa
guru:
"It is best not to accept any disciples."
(C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)
To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a
siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krsna
Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that
in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus,
not diksa gurus.
This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila
Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:
"yare dekha, tare kaha, krsna-upadesa. You haven't got to
manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't
make addition, adulteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal
[...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your
neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna.
Then it will act [...] Anyone can do. A child can do."
(SP Evening darsan, 11/5/77, Hrsikesh)
"Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to
enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, [...] He said that
"Everyone of you become guru."
(SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
"You simply say [...] "Just always think of Me", Krsna said, "And just
become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances." Kindly do these
things." So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become
guru. Is there any difficulty?"
(SP Conversation, 2/8/76, Paris)
"Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said....You have simply to
say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?"
(SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
"...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru ?' There is no
need of qualification...Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna
has said. That's all. You become guru."
(SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
(Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a
justification for 'minimally qualified diksa gurus'*(1), an
entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters,
lectures or conversations).
An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he
has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON.
It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to
become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this
since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more
stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru:
"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is
to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of
Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a
guru."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming
in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual
master. This is called diksa-vidhana."
(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)
As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an
initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru. The
general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is
obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider 'amara ajnaya guru
hana' to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we
need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya? This
general instruction from Lord Caitanya must be referring to siksa not
diksa guru. Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule. Whereas
Srila Prabhupada envisaged millions of siksa gurus, comprising of men,
women and children.
Looking now at category 2) :
There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate
their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, who Srila Prabhupada wrote
letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S.. Srila Prabhupada
had a fairly gstandard approach when dealing with such ambitious individuals.
Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his
physical departure, they may accept disciples:
"The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in
a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such
maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do
not be in a hurry."
(SP Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)
"Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the
time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong
preaching work."
(SP Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72)
"I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees.
Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the
presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master,
it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create
factions."
(SP Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74)
"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can
accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the
custom that during the lifetime of your spiritual master you bring the
prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can
accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic
succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide spiritual master and
spread Krsna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krsna very
happy."
(SP Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/75)
(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above 'law' in
support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very SAME document it is asserted that
it is actually not a law at all) :
"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving
initition in the presence of the guru, [...] In the scriptures there is no
specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is
present." (GII, p. 23)
Eagerness to accept worship and followers is actually a disqualification
for a spiritual master. We can only marvel at the power of the false ego,
that even in the presence of the most powerful acarya
the planet had ever seen, some personalities still felt amply qualified to
initiate their own disciples right under Srila Prabhupada's nose!
*(2)
It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take
disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply
trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the
possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified:
Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice
to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their
glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously
promise guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least
qualified?
As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate
after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a
car once he is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little
provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be
authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own
parallels.
Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:
"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be
specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna
Consciousness population."
(SP Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/69)
Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on
initiation?
Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use
of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's 'law of disciplic
succession'. The first part of the 'law' states that a disciple must not act
as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence. Since this was
the 'law', clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila
Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila
Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only
conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of 'officiating'
initiation system as early as 1969. By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed
'empowered', or authorised, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and
conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be
predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation.
Later he called these representatives 'ritviks', and formalised their
function in the July 9th order. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that
Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a
sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams.
"Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona
fide representative can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my
absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna
Consciousness throughout the whole world."
(SP Letter to Madhusudana, 2/11/67)
Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions
his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have
been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus.
However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general
encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual
masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual
masters also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote
of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The
term 'bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the
whole world' is equally applicable to a siksa guru.
Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system,
they still could not be used to modify the final July 9th order since these
instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in
question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that
some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the
Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to
note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears never to have been set
up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that
Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private corespondence to be
distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be
published 'if there was time', but he never intimated that without these
documents no-one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his
departure.
To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can
only use evidence that was readily available in an authorised form at that
time. If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be
run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their
publication, and mass distribution, a matter of utmost urgency. There was,
after all, the reasonable possibility that not all his leaders had read his
private correspondence, and as a result gained a clear understanding of
precisely how initiations were to run after his departure. We know this to be
more than a possibility since the entire GBC still had no idea what Srila
Prabhupada was planning as late on as May 28th, 1977. (please see
Appendices)
In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of
these handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such
letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would
certainly have made that clear in the order itself or in some accompanying
document.
In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were
concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks.
Finally we shall look at category 3) :
There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which
have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We
shall now examine this evidence.
In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a
diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his
own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the
quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and
authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:
"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be
a bona fide and authorised spiritual master unless one has been
strictly obedient to his spiritual master."
(S.B. 2.9.43, purport)
The above injunction hardly gives carte-blanche for anyone
to initiate just because their guru has left the planet. The concept of the
guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they
must be authorised and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must
have first attained the platform of maha-bhagavata.
Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journey to Other Planets
(p.32) dealing with monitor 'gurus' as evidence supporting the
M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However,
this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa,
not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of
the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher,
but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of
the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru). A monitor
guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number
at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform
of maha-bhagavata, and then been authorised by his predecessor
acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be
a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may
accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the
teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa
guru, the siksha guru may gradually rise to the platform at which he may
at least become qualified to be a diksa guru. Furthermore, a monitor
merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is
at variance with the 'law' of disciplic succession that is used to support the
M.A.S.S. system. A monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or
succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside the teacher. We
do not see how this description supports the GBC's a) and b)
assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila
Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically
become diksa gurus.
There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's personal letters,
which are quoted as giving authorisation for his disciples to become
diksa gurus:
"Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this
knowledge."
(SP Arrival Lecture, 18/5/72, Los Angeles)
"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master .
Every one of you should be spiritual master next."
(SP Vyasa-Puja address, 5/9/69, Hamburg)
The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already
the twelfth - 'you ARE the twelfth'. Thus this is not some authorisation for
them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that
they are already carrying on the message of the parampara. The second
quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next
in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place
by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching. Either way, there is no clear
explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was
asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he
wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To
insist that he did mean this is pure speculation. In fact, we know it is wrong
since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act
as representatives of the acarya, and not in any type of
initiating or diksa capacity.
To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable,
and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada,
specifically in relation to what would happen after his departure, which
completely contradict the proposition being made:
Reporter: What will happen to the movement in the
United States when you when you die?
Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for
the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention.. But instead he says he shall not
be succeeded since he shall never die. From the above exchange it can be
understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who
continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main
constituant of diksa) through his books; and that this will
continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples being to
facilitate the process.
"Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of
acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become
acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the
etiquette is
at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become
acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is,
if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to
bring that prospective candidate to his acarya."
(SP C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)
The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to
become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it
now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his
disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his
presence. This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above.
This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take
their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle. As will be
seen later, on the 'Appt. tape'(p.21), which is used in GII as
principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not
given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("On my
order, [...] But by my order, [...] When I order"). And this
situation remained unchanged until his departure. Furthermore, later on in the
same lecture, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya
ambitions in the following manner:
"And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] amara ajnaya
guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa: "By following
My order, you become guru." [...] Then, in future... suppose you have got now
ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then
hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million."
(SP C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)
It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was
for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krsna conscious followers,
but not to take disciples. This point is re-inforced where Srila
Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is
significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got
now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence).
From this it is clear he is talking about Krsna conscious followers, not
'disciples of his disciples', since the main point of the lecture was
that they should not initiate in his presence. The implication being then, that
just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krsna
Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik
system was to ensue that when these followers became suitably qualified for
initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they
could when he gave the above lecture.
In conclusion :
There is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada issuing specific orders for his
disciples to become diksa gurus, thus setting up an alternative to
the ritvik system.
What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished
personal letters, sent only to individuals who were desiring to become
diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence, sometimes having only
recently joined the Movement. In such cases they are told to wait until Srila
Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact
that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9th letter means that they
were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation
within ISKCON.
Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations only contain
instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus. Though the general
principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila
Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their
own disciples.
The above then does not represent grounds for supplanting the explicit
instruction of July 9th, an order that was distributed to the whole Movement as
a specific policy document.
Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his
disciples should become diksa gurus, immediately on his departure,
shortly after or indeed ever, is nothing but a myth.
It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the
final July 9th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he
had already explained again and again in his books, letters, lectures, and
conversations precisely what he wanted to happen. Sadly this assertion, apart
from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities:
If Srila Prabhupada's previous teachings on how he wanted to continue
initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need
to issue a specific directive on the matter; then why did the GBC send a
special delegation to his bedside in the first place? A delegation whose
principal objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations
'particularly' at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see
'Appt. tape', p.21). Srila Prabhupada was in ill
health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking
him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of
times over the preceding decade.
If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he
leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his
departure his most senior men felt compelled to question Sridhar Maharaja on
how to operate it?
If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted
everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the '11
diksa gurus only' zonal acarya system, and allow it to run for an
entire decade?
Although we have been somewhat critical of the GBC's paper GII, there is
one passage in it relating to this issue which we feel totally encapsulates the
mood that will re-unite Srila Prabhupada's family:
"A disciple's only duty is to worship and serve his spiritual master. His
mind should not be agitated over how he may become guru. A devotee
who sincerely wants to make spiritual advancement should try to become a
disciple, not a spiritual master." (GII, p. 25, GBC
1995)
We could not agree more.
*(2) - We would like to point out that most of the devotees mentioned above
have since recognised their faults, and thus we apologise for any offense or
embarrassment we may have caused. Perhaps they may appreciate the fact that
personal letters sent by Srila Prabhupada, to specifically address their
individual anarthas are currently being used to support the M.A.S.S.
within ISKCON.
There is no such statement in Srila Prabhupada's books, and since Srila
Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric
principles, such a restriction simply can not exist in our philosophy.
The use of a ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure would
actually be in line with Srila Prabhupada's many instructions stating the
immateriality of physical association in the guru-disciple relationship
(please see Appendices). After reading these quotes one can see how
some members of the GBC have presented a somewhat different picture over the
years:
"Srila Prabhupada has taught us that the disciplic succession is a living
affair [...] The law of disciplic succession is that one approaches a
living spiritual master - living in the sense of being
physically present." (ISKCON Journal,
p.31, Gaura Purnima 1990)
It is hard to reconcile the above assertion with statements such as:
"Physical presence is not important." (SP Room
conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)
or
"Physical presence is immaterial." (SP Letter,
19/1/67)
Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage
pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila
Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically
present:
"Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical
presence."
(C.c. Antya, concluding words)
Srila Prabhupada practically demonstrated this principle by initiating large
numbers of his disciples without ever meeting them physically at all.
This fact in itself proves that diksa can be obtained without any
physical involvement from the guru. There is nothing in sastra, or from
Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with physical presence. Therefore, the
continuation of the ritvik system is perfectly consistent with both
sastra and the example our acarya set whilst he was
physically present.
In one of the main sections on diksa in Srila Prabhupada's books, it is
stated that the only requirement for receiving it is the agreement of the guru.
This agreement was totally delegated to the ritviks:
"So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will
depend on discretion."
(SP Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)
Srila Prabhupada instructs us that:
"As far as the time of diksa (initiation) is concerned, everything
depends on the position of the guru.[...] If the sad-guru, the bona fide
spiritual master agrees, one can be initiated immediately, without waiting for
a suitable time or place."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.331, purport)
It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the
diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact, or
that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement
(it is also interesting that Srila Prabhupada equates the term sad-guru
with the term diksa guru). Srila Prabhupada has stated many times that
the requirement for being initiated is simply to abide by the rules and
regulations he had taught over and over again:
"This is the process of initiation. The disciple must admit that he
will no longer commit sinful activity [...] He promises to execute the order of
the spiritual master. Then, the spiritual master takes care of him and
elevates him to spiritual emancipation."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.256)
Devotee: How important is formal
initiation?
(SP Lecture, 22/2/73, Auckland)
Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow
strictly the disciplined rules.
(SP Morning walk, 13/6/76,
Detroit)
"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of
disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline."
(SP Morning walk, 8/3/76, Mayapur)
Does the definition of the word diksa imply a connection with the guru being
physically present on the planet?
"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his
transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful
activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this
process as diksa."
(C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)
(please see 'Diksa' diagram)
There is nothing in this definition of diksa that in any way implies
that the guru needs to be on the same planet as the disciple in order for it to
work properly. Conversely, Srila Prabhupada's instructions and personal example
prove categorically that the elements which constitute diksa can be
utilised without the need for the guru's physical involvement:
"Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material
condition."
(S.B. 7.7.1, purport)
"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator
is apparently absent."
(S.B. 2.9.8, purport)
Thus, all the elements of diksa - , transcendental knowledge, the
receiving of the mantra etc., can be effectively delivered without the guru's
physical presence.
In summary, it can be shown conclusively that there is no sastric
principle mentioned in any of Srila Prahupada's books that precludes the
granting of diksa once the guru leaves the earth planet. Although
historical precedent is sometime cited
as an objection, historical precedent is not a sastric principle.
Our philosophy is based on following sastric injunctions not
historical tradition. This is the very thing that distinguishes ISKCON from
virtually every other Gaudiya Vaisnava group. There are many influential
smarta brahmins in India who strongly criticise the lack of adherence to
tradition exhibited by Srila Prabhupada.
Sastric statements, along with the practical example of Srila
Prabhupada himself, fully support the principle that diksa is not
dependent in any way on the guru's physical presence.
This can not be a reason to reject the July 9th order since Srila Prabhupada
set many precedents - (reducing the number of required rounds of japa
from sixty-four to sixteen, performing marriages, allowing women to live in the
temples, giving gayatri mantra by tape, etc). Indeed, it is a
distinguishing feature of acaryas in our line that, practically without
exception, they set their own historical precedents. As acaryas, it is
their prerogative to do this; albeit in accordance with sastric
principles. As already stated, the use of ritviks without the guru's
physical presence on the planet does not violate any sastric principle.
Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, and
since there is no mention in his books of the guru needing to be on the planet
at the time of initiation, it can not be a principle. Thus the historical
precedent of continuing to use ritviks after his departure can only be a
change in detail, not in principle.
Srila Prabhupada did many things, particularly connected with initiation, which
were unprecedented, yet we do not reject them (please see box on page
25). It may be argued that he explained some of these changes in his books.
This is true, but there were many he did not explain in his books. Besides,
there was no need to give detailed explanations of the ritvik
system in his books since he had practically demonstrated prototypes of it for
many years, with the final touches of how it was to continue fully elucidated
in the July 9th order. Srila Prabhupada never taught us to just blindly follow
tradition.:
"Our only tradition is how to satisfy Visnu."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 30/7/73, London)
"No. Tradition, religion, they are all material. They are also all
designations."
(SP Room conversation, 13/3/75, Teheran)
Whether precisely the same orders we received from Srila Prabhupada were ever
issued by a previous acarya is utterly irrelevant. Our only duty is to
follow the orders given to us by our own acarya.
If a system of initiation can be rejected solely on the grounds that it
has no exact historical precedent, then we would certainly be forced to reject
the current guru system within ISKCON by the same token.
Never before has a plethora of diksa gurus been subordinate to a
committee which could suspend or terminate their initiating activities. No
previous initiating acarya in our line has ever been voted into office
with a two-thirds majority vote, nor subsequently fallen prey to gross sinful
activity and as a consequence been hastily withdrawn from the 'disciplic
succession'. We reject such irregular practices, not on the grounds of
historical precedent, but because they clash violently with many of the basic
tenets of Vaisnava philosophy found in Srila Prabhupada's books, and are
in blatant violation of Srila Prabhupada's final order.
The fact that the identical system to ritvik is not directly mentioned
in sastra, or ancient Vedic texts, is also not pertinent. According to
some Vedic rules, sudras and women should not even receive
brahmin initiation at all:
"Diksa cannot be offered to a sudra [...] This initiation is
offered not according to Vedic rules, because it is very difficult to find out
a qualified brahmana."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 29/3/71, Bombay)
Thus, strictly speaking, Srila Prabhupada should not have initiated any of his
western disciples since they were all born lower than the lowest Vedic caste.
Srila Prabhupada was able to over-rule such Vedic laws through the invocation
of higher order sastric injunctions. He sometimes exercised these
injunctions in ways that had never been applied before:
"As Hari is not subject to the criticism of mundane rules and regulations,
the spiritual master empowered by Him is also not subjected.
(C.c. Madhya, 10.136, text and purport)
"Therefore the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri
is not subjected to any Vedic rules and regulations"
(C.c. Madhya, 10.137)
The important point is that although the ritvik system may be
totally unique, (at least as far as we know), it does not violate higher order
sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he
was able to apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways
according to time, place and circumstance.
This objection rests on the premise that Srila Prabhupada would never 'spring'
anything new on the Movement. Taken literally, this objection is absurd, for it
means that any order from the guru can be rejected if it is new, or even just a
bit different from ones issued previously. It infers that in his final months
Srila Prabhupada should not have delivered far-reaching instructions regarding
his Society, unless everyone was already familiar with them.
As we have explained, the ritvik system was not 'new' anyway. Prior to
the July 9th letter, the experience of diksa initiation in the Movement
would have predominantly been through the use of representatives. Srila
Prabhupada was the diksa guru in ISKCON, and most initiation
ceremonies, particularly in the later years, were performed by a Temple
President or some other representative or priest.
The most notable difference after July 9th, 1977 was that the acceptance of new
disciples would now be done by representatives without recourse to Srila
Prabhupada. The letter which was sent out to new initiates would no longer be
signed by Srila Prabhupada, and the selection of all the initiates' names would
be done by the ritviks. Also the procedure was now linked with the
relatively unfamiliar word - 'ritvik'.
To get connected to the bona fide acarya through the use of
representatives was the experience of initiation that was familiar for
thousands of disciples. The July 9th letter defines the word 'ritvik' as
meaning: 'representative of the acarya'. Clearly the system of
being initiated by Srila Prabhupada through the use of representatives was
nothing 'new' at all. It was merely the continuation of what Srila
Prabhupada had taught and put in practice as soon as his Movement reached a
state of rapid growth.
Why should it have come as such a great shock that this system would
continue beyond November 14th, 1977?
Although unfamiliar to many, the word 'ritvik' was not new either. The
word and its derivatives had already been defined 32 times by Srila Prabhupada
in his books. What was 'new' was that the system which had already been in
existence for many years was now put in writing with the necessary adjustments
for the future. Hardly suprising, since Srila Prabhupada was at this time
issuing many documents in writing regarding the future of his Movement. This
arrangement was actually a re-endorsement of a system that everyone had already
come to consider as standard practise.
Ironically what was really 'new' was the curious metamorphosis of the
ritviks into the 'material and spiritual pure successor acaryas'
to Srila Prabhupada. This particular innovation came as such a shock that many
hundreds of disciples left the Movement shortly after it's implementation, with
thousands to follow them.
We have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence supporting the
termination of the ritvk system on Srila Prabhupada's departure, nor the
subsequent transformation of the ritviks into diksa gurus -
assumptions a) and b) . Even if there was extremely strong
indirect evidence supporting a) and b) , it would still
be debatable whether it could actually supplant the direct evidence,
since this usually takes precedence. However, as just demonstrated, there is
not even a shred of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the
ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus:
In view of the above analysis, we humbly submit that the revoking of Srila
Prabhupada's final instruction regarding initiation on November 14th 1977, was
at best an arbitrary and unauthorised act. We can find no evidence to support
assumptions a) and b) which, as we have said, form the very
foundation of ISKCON's current guru policy. To re-comply with Srila
Prabhupada's original order is our only option as disciples, followers
and servants of Srila Prabhupada.
To further assist with this compliance we will now go through the May 28th
conversation and a number of related objections that appear to have given rise
to confusion.
· Modification a) : That the appointment of
representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be
terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
· Modification b) : Having ceased their
representational function, the ritviks would automatically become
diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila
Prabhupada's.
This section therefore will be dedicated to a close scrutiny of the May 28th
conversation to see if it can be legitimately used to modify the final order in
terms of a) and b) above.
Since the entire GBC position rests on just this one piece of evidence it is
quite worrying that they have already published at least four different
versions, or transcripts, of this very same evidence. These differing
transcripts appeared in the following publications:
To be presented with four different versions of the same taped
conversation in itself raises a number of serious questions. For example, it
would not be unreasonable to ask, which is the correct version? Why are there
differing versions in the first place? Is the transcript a composite of more
than one conversation? Has the tape itself been edited from more than one
conversation? Has there been more than one version of the tape released? If so,
can we be sure that any version is true to any actual conversation? Thus
already, even before the evidence is examined, we are placed in the invidious
position of being expected to modify a signed letter through the analysis of a
tape transcript, over which hang serious questions of authenticity.
However since a large part of the transcript is common to all versions, we
shall allow a composite of the four different transcripts, to be considered as
evidence. So here is the conversation, with the variations in brackets:
(1) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: Then our next question
concerns initiations in the future,
(14) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: So (then) (they) (they'll) (may)
also be considered your disciples?
As we have previously mentioned neither the July 9th order, nor any subsequent
document signed by Srila Prabhupada, ever refers back to the above
conversation. This is quite peculiar since the central argument of GII
is that this brief exchange of words is absolutely crucial to the proper
understanding of the July 9th order.
This was not the regular way in which Srila Prabhupada issued instructions
to his vast worldwide organisation, ie, by releasing incomplete and misleading
written directives which could only be properly understood by rummaging through
old taped conversations.
When one considers the magnitude of the order in question, namely the
continuation of the Sankirtan mission for up to ten thousand years, and what
happened to the Gaudiya Math over precisely this issue, it seems inconceivable
that Srila Prabhupada would have managed things in this way. However this is
what we must believe if we are to accept the present GBC position. Let us now
proceed carefully through the composite transcript, paying particular attention
to all the lines which GII claim support the above mentioned
modifications to the July 9th order.
Lines 1-3: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks Srila Prabhupada a
specific question regarding how initiations will run in the future -
'particularly at that time when you are no longer with us'.
Whatever answer Srila Prabhupada gives we know it will be particularly
relevant to after his departure, since that is the time frame Satsvarupa is
clearly concerned with, ie - 'when you are no longer with us'.
Lines 4-7: Here Srila Prabhupada answers Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's
question. He says he will be appointing some disciples to act as
'officiating acarya', or 'ritviks'. Having clearly answered the
question Srila Prabhupada remains silent. He offers no further elaboration at
this point, nor does he qualify, nor attempt to qualify his answer. We
therefore must assume that this was his answer. The only alternatives to this
view are either:
No disciple of Srila Prabhupada would even consider option 1) , and if
option 2) were the case, then the conversation can tell us nothing
about the future of initiation for after his departure; hence we would still be
left with an un-modified July 9th order as his only statement on future
initiations.
Sometimes people have argued that the full answer is only properly revealed,
piecemeal as it were, throughout the rest of the conversation. The problem with
this proposition is that, in issuing instructions in such a manner, Srila
Prabhupada would only correctly answer the original question posed by
Satsvarupa dasa Goswami if the following conditions were satisfied:
This would be an eccentric way for anyone to answer a question, what to
speak of direct a world-wide organisation, and was certainly not Srila
Prabhupada's style. Indeed if, as is being proposed by the GBC, he went to all
the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole Movement with instructions on
initiation which were only to have relevance for four months, surely he would
not have dealt in such an obscurist manner with instructions which could run
for as long as ten thousand years.
Clearly if we are looking to this transcript to incontrovertibly support
modifications a) & b) we are not doing very well so far.
Srila Prabhupada is asked what will happen about initiations, particularly
when he leaves: he answers he will be appointing ritviks. This
completely contradicts both of the GBC's proposed modifications and simply
reinforces the idea that the July 9th order was meant to run 'henceforward'.
Let us read on:
Lines 8-9: Here Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks what relationship the
initiator has with the person being initiated. Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami
does not quite finish his question when Srila Prabhupada immediately answers
'he is guru'. Since ritviks, by definition, are not the
initiators, Srila Prabhupada can only have been referring to himself as
the 'guru' of those being initiated. This is confirmed in the July 9th
letter where it states three times that those being initiated were to be the
disciples of Srila Prabhupada.
Sometimes the curious theory is put forward that when Srila Prabhupada says
'he is guru', he is really talking about the ritviks themselves.
This is quite bizarre since Srila Prabhupada has only just defined the word
ritvik as'officiating'acarya'-
literally a priest who conducts some type of religious or ceremonial function.
In the July 9th letter Srila Prabhupada clarifies precisely what ceremonial
function these priests will conduct. They were supposed to give spiritual names
to new initiates, and in the case of second initiation, chant on their
gayatri thread - all on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. That was it. There is
no mention of them being diksa gurus, initiating their own disciples or
being Spiritual Masters on their own behalf. The letter specifically defines
ritvik as 'representative of the acarya' They were
to act on behalf of the acarya, not as acaryas in their own
right. This being the case why would Srila Prabhupada cloud the issue by
calling the ritviks 'guru'? If they were initiating gurus all along, why
not just call them that to save confusion?
When discussing philosophical or managerial issues surrounding his position as
Acarya, Srila Prabhupada would often speak of himself in the third
person. It is particularly understandable that he should do so here since
Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's questions at this point are posed in that tense.
Thus the conversation can only make sense if we take it that Srila
Prabhupada is the 'guru' who was initiating new disciples, through his
representatives, the ritviks.
Although Srila Prabhupada's answers are quite clear and consistent, it
does seem as though there is some confusion in the mind of the questioner at
this point. This is where Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks on Line 10 - 'But he
does it on your behalf'. The 'he' Satsvarupa dasa Goswami is
referring to is the ritvik, whereas the 'he' that Srila
Prabhupada was referring to, as we have shown, could only have been himself,
since he is the only initiator within the ritvik system. Despite
his disciples apparent confusion Srila Prabhupada deftly adapts his next answer
to match Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's actual concern, namely the status of these
future ritviks.
Lines 11-13: This is where it is claimed in GII that there is
evidence for modification a) . Before considering whether or not these
lines do constitute such evidence, we should first remember the analysis of
lines 1-7.
If lines 11-13 do establish modification a) , this will only be
at the expense of contradicting lines 1-7 where Srila Prabhupada has
already clearly answered that ritviks were to be appointed
'particularly' for after his departure. So if indeed modification a)
is established in lines 11-13, the implication is that Srila
Prabhupada contradicted a statement he himself made just moments before. Should
this be the case it would once more render the transcript useless for
determining anything about future initiations, since two totally contradictory
positions would be equally validated in the same conversation. Again we would
be forced to refer back to the final July 9th order in an un-modified
condition.
Let us see if this did in fact happen. Remember we are looking for a specific
statement that the ritviks must cease their duties once Srila
Prabhupada departs. In other words that they can only operate in his
presence.
On reading lines 11-13 we see that all that is stated is that the
ritviks must operate in his presence because in his presence they can
not be guru. Thus Srila Prabhupada is simply re-stating a principle he
occasionally invoked in his dealings with ambitious disciples: that in the
presence of the guru one must act only on his behalf. However what Srila
Prabhupada does not say is that this 'acting on his behalf' must cease
once he leaves the planet. He also does not say that 'acting on his behalf' can
only happen whilst he is present. Indeed nowhere thus far has he
diectly linked his physical presence in any way with the concept of
acting on his behalf, but rather simply states it as a reason that
prevents his disciples from being guru, and it is this 'not being guru' which
is linked to acting as a ritvik.
In other words, at the time of this conversation, one of the reasons they could
not be diksa guru was Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. But this is
not the only hurdle preventing his disciples from taking on the diksa
guru mantle, as we learn on the very next line.
On line 12 we see that being guru also depends on receiving a specific
order from Srila Prabhupada - 'On my order'. He repeats
this condition on line 13 - 'But by my order', and
once more on line 25 - 'When I order'. It is quite
clear then that this cannot be the order proper, otherwise why say
'When I order'? If this was the actual order to become
guru after his departure, as the GBC maintains, then surely he would have said
something like: 'I am now ordering you, that as soon as I leave, you stop being
ritviks and become diksa gurus'. Such a statement would
certainly lend some credibility to the current GBC position and the M.A.S.S.
doctrine. However, as can be seen, nothing even remotely resembling such a
statement can be found anywhere in the May 28th conversation.
It is further argued that the use of the 'amara ajanya' verse at this
point means that the order to be diksa guru had already been
given, since this order from Lord Caitanya had been repeated many times by
Srila Prabhupada. However the 'amara ajnaya' order, as we have seen,
refers only to siksa guru; we know that the order to become diksa
guru had not yet been given since Srila Prabhupada states
'When I order'. Therefore Srila Prabhupada's use of the
verse at this point is simply to convey the notion of an order needing to be
given before guruship, of whatever type, is taken up.
There is certainly nothing on lines 11-13 which in any way modifies
Srila Prabhupada's clear reply to Satsvarupa's original question - (lines
1-7) Thus our understanding of lines 1-7 remains intact.
Srila Prabhupada did not contradict himself, the July 9th order stands so far
unmodified
What lines 11-13 do establish is that the ritvik system was to
operate whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present., but not that it can
only operate whilst he is present. The July 9th letter makes this clear
anyway by the use of the word 'henceforward'. The word 'henceforward'
encompasses all time frames from that day onwards, regardless of Srila
Prabhupada's physical proximity. Let us read on:
Lines 14-15: Interestingly at this point Satsvarupa dasa Goswami asks
a question in the first person: 'So then they'll also be considered your
disciples?' Srila Prabhupada answers 'Yes, they are disciples...'
Once more confirming the ownership of any future disciples. Although it is
not clear what Srila Prabhupada is going on to say, his initial answer is quite
definite. He is asked a direct question, in the first person, and he answers
'Yes'.
If the GBC had any hope of upholding modifications a) & b)
Srila Prabhupada would have had to answer this question something along
the lines of: 'No, they are not my disciples' Whatever Srila Prabhupada
was going on to say is irrelevant since no-one can ever know. We only know that
when asked whether future initiates were to be his disciples, he
answered 'Yes'. Again not a good sign for the modifications a)
& b) .
Lines 16-18: Tamal Krsna Goswami seems to sense some confusion here
and interrupts Srila Prabhupada. He further clarifies Satsvarupa dasa
Goswami's question by asking Srila Prabhupada whose disciples are those who are
being given diksa by the ritviks. Once again Srila Prabhupada
answers in the third person (having been asked the question in the third
person): 'They are his disciples'. As we have discussed he can
only be referring to himself since ritviks do not, by definition,
possess their own disciples. Furthermore we know that he was definitely
referring to himself since he answers the question in the singular ('his
disciples...who is initiating'), having been asked the question about
the ritviks in the plural ( 'these ritvik-acaryas').
One idea, which is sometimes put forward, is that at this point in the
conversation Tamal Krsna Goswami is asking the question in some vaguely
futuristic sense, about an unspecified time frame in which the ritviks
have somehow transformed themselves into diksa gurus. According to this
theory when Srila Prabhupada, who is now presumerably mystically attuned to
Tamal Krsna Goswami's mind set, answers that future initiates are 'his
disciples', what he actually means is that they are disciples of the
ritviks, who are now not ritviks at all, but diksa gurus.
Leaving aside the fact that this fanciful 'meeting of minds' is both unlikely
and highly speculative, there is at least one other problem with this
hypothesis:
Up till this point Srila Prabhupada has not stated that the
ritviks, which he has yet to appoint, will ever act in any
capacity other than as ritviks. So why would Tamal Krsna Goswami
have assumed their status was to change?
Lines 19-20: Tamal Krsna Goswami repeats the answer, and then Srila
Prabhupada continues; 'who is initiating ... his grand-disciple.' We
have chosen the transcript version 'his grand-disciple' over the version
'he is grand-disciple' since it most closely resembles the tape, and
seems to flow best with the sense of the conversation. (Otherwise the person
initiating would simultaneously become a grand-disciple! - 'who
is initiating ... he is grand-disciple.')
The argument that when speaking here in the third person, Srila Prabhupada must
be referring to the ritviks and not himself, can be tested by modifying
the conversation in accordance with this view, replacing third person with
first person statements (shown in brackets), for lines 17-20 :
TKG: Whose disciples are they?
Given the premise that ritviks are only officiating, and that their role
is only representational, it should be self-evident to the reader that this
interpretation of lines 17-20 is nonsense. It is a contradiction in
terms for a ritvik to have their own disciples, what to speak of
grand-disciples.
Lines 25-26: Srila Prabhupada concludes with the unequivocal
stipulation that only when he orders will anyone become guru. At such a
juncture new initiates would be 'disciple of my disciple'.
A great deal is made of the use of the term 'grand-disciple'. For many, the use
of this phrase by Srila Prabhupada acts as a clincher, since you can only have
grand-disciples if there are diksa gurus. This is true. Unfortunately
the words following the term 'his grand-disciple' are usually ignored. Srila
Prabhupada goes on to state that a grand-disciple and hence a diksa guru
will only exist when Srila Prabhupada orders his
disciple to become a diksa guru. In other words Srila Prabhupada is
simply saying that when a guru orders his disciple to become a diksa
guru, he will have grand-disciples ('his grand- disciple'), since the new
diksa guru will then be initiating in his own right ('he
becomes disciple of my disciple').
This seems straight forward enough, a point nobody could dispute. But where
is the order for this guruship to occur? Certainly not on lines 25-26,
nor for that matter anywhere else in the conversation.
In actuality the May 28th conversation is not ordering any specific person to
do anything at all. Srila Prabhupada is simply making known his intention to
appoint ritviks at some point in the future. He then goes on to answer
slightly muddled questions about guru-disciple relationships within the
ritvik system. He then concludes with a statement about what would
happen should he ever decide to give the relevant order to someone to
become a diksa guru. It is clear though that the specific order naming
specific people to perform specific functions was first made on July 7th
(please see Appendices), and then confirmed in the signed letter of July
9th. But as can be seen from reading the July 9th letter, there is no mention
whatsoever of the eleven appointed ritviks ever becoming diksa
gurus; or for the ritvik system to ever stop.
After our exhaustive analysis of the May 28th conversation, it is
clear that what the GBC is presenting is a classic circular argument:
In order to support modifications a) and b), which are
absolutely vital to the current position on gurus within ISKCON, we are told we
must modify the July 9th letter using an 'order' which Srila Prabhupada
gave in the May 28th transcript. However, having read the transcript carefully
we see that Srila Prabhupada says they can only be gurus 'When I order'.
So how can it be asserted that this 'When I order' was the same
'order' that was finally put in place on July 7th and 9th, since this
'order' is purely for the creation of ritviks, and is the very
same 'order' which was required by the GBC to be modified in the first
place in order to support their crucial a) and b)
modifications?
Unfortunately, in adopting the line of reasoning championed in GII,
we find ourselves drawn inexorably towards the above absurd dialectical
impasse.
As an aid to understanding the above impasse please see the flow
chart in 'Diagrams'.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the whole 'modification'
theory, apart from the obvious absence of any supportive evidence, is that you
cannot legitimately modify an instruction with information which was not
available to the very people who were supposed to carry out the instruction.
If it was indeed the case that the May 28th conversation had contained clear
instructions supporting modifications a) and b) , then surely
the final letter should have contained at least some hint of them. Indeed the
main purpose of the meeting on May 28th was to clearly establish what was to be
done about initiations after Srila Prabhupada left the planet. And yet
it is being proposed that when Srila Prabhupada finally releases his last
written directive on initiation, he somehow only addressed what was to be
done before he left the planet.
In other words the subject Srila Prabhupada was not being asked about he
supposedly gave clear and emphatic directives on; whilst the really important
matter, the one which everyone did want to know about, i.e. the future
of initiations for up to ten thousand years, he entirely ommitted to address in
his last signed instruction on the issue.
We can find no example of Srila Prabhupada ever directing his Society in the
following manner:
The common defence: that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the
final letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already
clearly explained in his books and lectures how he wanted everyone to become a
diksa guru, has already been disproven in objection 7 above
(p.9).
There is one further attempt made in GII to extract something from the
May 28th conversation in support of a) and b) when it points
to Srila Prabhupada's use of the verse 'amara ajnaya guru hana'
on line 12. The verse is also repeated
further along in the May 28th conversation after discussion relating to the
translation of his books. According to this view
the ritvik order is identical to the order to be a diksa guru,
simply by merit of Srila Prabhupada mentioning this famous instruction of Lord
Caitanya for 'everyone to become guru' in the same conversation as he discusses
ritviks. But all Srila Prabhupada states is that:
"...one who understands his guru's order, the same parampara, he can
become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you."
(May 28th Conversation)
The essential points to consider here are:
By this logic anyone who follows any order given by the guru, has also somehow
automatically received a specific order to become a diksa guru!
Unfortunately GII does not offer any evidence to support this thesis. As
shown previously, the use of the 'amara ajnaya' verse is simply an order
for everyone to become a siksa guru only ("It is best not to
accept any disciples.").
In conclusion :
We are forced then to reject totally modifications a) and b)
, the very foundations of the GBC's current position on initiation within
ISKCON, since there is no evidence to support them.
Consequently, the instructions given in the July 9th policy document do indeed
constitute Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiation.
There follows some related objections which we thought it would be helpful to
address.
Ritvik : 4.6.1 / 4.7.16 / 5.3.2
/ 5.3.3 / 5.4.17 / 7.3.20 / 8.20.22
/ 9.1.15 .
Rtvijah : 4.5.7 / 4.5.18 / 4.7.27
/ 4.7.45 / 4.13.26 / 4.19.27 / 4.19.29 / 5.3.4
/ 5.3.15 / 5.3.18 / 5.7.5
8.16.53 / 8.18.21 /
8.18.22 / 9.4.23 / 9.6.3 .
Rtvijam : 4.6.52 / 4.21.5 / 8.23.13
/ 9.13.1 .
Rtvigbhyah : 8.16.55 .
Rtvigbhih : 4.7.56 / 9.13.3 .
(all these references are from the Srimad-Bhagavatam)
"In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to
his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the
purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the
pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness."
(C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)
"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with
transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material
contamination."
(C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)
"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his
transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity.
A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this
process as diksa."
(C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)
Diksa normally involves a ceremony, but it is not absolutely
essential, more a formality:
"So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I
got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was
thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja."
(SP Lecture, 10/12/76, Hyderabad)
"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real
initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination,
that is initiation." (BTG, Search for the Divine)
"...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to
be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic
conclusion."
(SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)
"The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real initiation.
And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is
already there."
(SP Letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/68)
"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge...
knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge,
and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."
(SP Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)
Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow
strictly the disciplined rules.
Disciple: As long as they are following, then
he is...
Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right.
(SP Morning walk, 13/6/76, Detroit)
"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of
disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline."
(SP Morning walk, 8/3/76, Mayapur)
"If one does not observe the discipline, then he is not
disciple."
(SP S.B. Lecture, 21/1/74)
Thus the ceremonial initiation is a formality performed to solidify in the mind
of the disciple the serious commitments he has made to the process of
diksa. Such commitments include:
Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated that the formality of the ceremony is just
that, a formality, not an essential. Furthermore, this formalisation of
initiation through a ceremony, itself involves a number of elements:
It is only points two and four which necessarily involves a ritvik
priest. The other two are usually carried out by the Temple President.
As mentioned previously, nowhere is it ever stated that the guru and
disciple must co-exist on the same planet in order for the disciple to receive
any element of diksa, such as transcendental knowledge, annihilation of
sinful reactions, a fire yajna ceremony and a spiritual name. On the
other hand, every element of diksa (knowledge transmission, the
yajna, etc.), can be given quite easily without the guru's physical
presence. This was demonstrated practically by Srila Prabhupada, as he gave all
the elements of diksa through intermediaries such as his disciples and
books. Thus, no spiritual principles are changed through the use of
ritviks. Only a change of detail is involved.
Thus, to put into perspective the use of ritviks, we can see that we are
dealing with the details of one element of a ceremony, a ceremony which
itself constitutes but one element, and an unnecessary element at
that, of the transcendental process of diksa. (please see
'Diksa' diagram)
We note that Srila Prabhupada dealt with all these elements in a manner
proportional to their importance:
Thus the lack of specific mention in Srila Prabhupada's books, or previous
historical application, regarding the use of ritviks in initiation
procedures, is consistent with Srila Prabhupada's general approach to matters
surrounding initiation; specific mention in his books being directly
proportional to the significance of the innovations involved.
This question arises from the stated requirement that a disciple must
'approach', 'inquire from' and 'render service to' a guru (Bg. 4.34),
and that the guru must 'observe' the disciple (C.c. 24.330). If we
examine these verses carefully the following points become apparent:
"In our Krsna Consciousness Movement the requirement is that one must be
prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life [...] In western countries
especially we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to
follow the regulative principles."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
"In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of
the spiritual master or his representatives for at least six
months to a year."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
A few lines later we see how vital the use of representatives really
is:
"The spiritual master should study the disciple's inquisitiveness for no
less then six months or a year."
(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
On July 7th, when setting up the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada states
that the ritviks could accept devotees as his disciples without
consulting him. Thus, Srila Prabhupada was not involved in the process of
screening, or approving new disciples. The ritviks had full authority
and discretion. Srila Prabhupada's physical involvement was not required.
Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider
it is right. That will depend on discretion.
(SP Room conversation,
7/7/77, Vrindavan)
Furthermore, the names given by the ritviks would be entered by
Tamal Krsna Goswami into the 'initiated disciples' book. Thus, externally at
least, Srila Prabhupada would not even have been aware of the disciple's
existence. Consequently, the process now would be the same as it was then,
since the ritvik has full power of attorney.
At least the above assertion concedes the point that it is possible to
approach, enquire from and serve a physically absent spiritual master. The
injunction that this is only possible - 'if the diksa link is
made before the guru leaves the planet' - is pure invention, with no
reference in Srila Prabhupada`s books, and thus can be ignored. Diksa
does not even require a formal initiation ceremony to make it function; it is
the transmission of transcendental knowledge from guru to receptive disciple
(along with the annihilation of sinful reactions):
"...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated
officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion."
(SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69 )
"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge.
Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and
admission is formality. That is not very important thing."
(SP Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)
It is irrational to assert that the transcendental process of diksa
cannot work properly if the guru is not physically present during a
non-essential fire yajna; particularly since:
To date no one has been able to locate such an injunction. Rather as the quote
below shows, a well known example of diksa in our philosophy actually
contradicts the above proposition:
"So there was no difficulty in communicating with Manu or Manu's son,
Iksvaku. The communication was there, or the radio system was so nice that
communication could be transferred from one planet to another."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 24/8/68)
It would appear that diksa is not affected by the physical
distances between gurus and disciples.
Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to, without the
help of a Spiritual Master, to reach the spiritual sky through believing the
words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings?
(SP Morning walk, 2/10/68,
Seattle)
"Regarding the end of devotees of Lord Jesus Christ, they can go to
heaven, that is all. That is a planet in the material world. A
devotee of Lord Jesus Christ is one who is strictly following the
ten commandments. [...] Therefore the conclusion is that the devotees of
Lord Jesus Christ are promoted to the heavenly planets which are within this
material world."
(SP Letter to Bhagavan, 2/3/70)
"Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get
liberation."
(Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9)
"...Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. mahajano
yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality
[...] You follow one acarya, like Christians , they
follow Christ, acarya. The Mohammedans, they follow
acarya, Mohammed. That is good. You must follow some
acarya [...] evam parampara-praptam."
(SP Room conversation, 20/5/75, Melbourne)
"Voting procedures [...] for guru
candidate [...] who will be established by the voting
members [...] voting for guru process [...] by
a two third vote of the GBC [...] all GBCs are candidates
for appointment as guru." (GBC Resolutions)
"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava
acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and
there is no need for any court judgement."
(C.c. Madhya, 1.220, purport)
"Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms
of hereditary or customary social, and ecclesiastical
conventions."
(C.c. Adi, 1.35, purport)
"Srila Prabhupada is the foundational siksa guru for
all ISKCON devotees [...] Srila Prabhupada's instructions are the
essential teachings for every ISKCON devotee."
(GBC Resolutions, No. 35, 1994)
"Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in
spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later
on."
(C.c. Adi, 1.35, purport)
"It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct
the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the
process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between
siksa guru and diksa guru, and generally the siksa guru
later on becomes the diksa guru."
(S.B. 4.12.32, purport)
The confusion between diksa and siksa gurus occurs because
their titles are confused with their functions. Thus it is sometimes assumed
that only the siksa guru can give siksa, not the diksa
guru. However, as the last verse just quoted demonstrates, the diksa
guru also instructs. This should be obvious, otherwise how else will he
transmit divya jnana?:
Pradyumna: Guru-padasrayah. "First one
must take shelter of the lotus feet of a spiritual master." Tasmat
Krsna-diksadi-siksanam. Tasmat, "from him",
Krsna-diksadi-siksanam, "one should take
Krsna-Diksa, initiation, and
Siksa."
(SP Room conversation, 27/1/77, Bhubaneswar)
That transcendental siksa is the essence of diksa, is
evident from the most well known verse on the guru-disciple relationship (
Bg. 4.34). In this verse the word 'upadeksyanti' is translated
in the word for word as meaning 'initiate'. The verse however states that this
'initiation' requires the guru to 'impart knowledge', and that
this is assisted through the
disciple 'inquiring'. Consequently the 'Prabhupada is
siksa not diksa' advocates are caught in a logistical trap of
their own making. If Srila Prabhupada is capable of 'imparting knowledge' when
he is not on the planet - then he must, by definition be giving divya jnana
- transcendental knowledge. Thus, if Srila Prabhupada can be a siksa
guru without the need for physical interaction, then why not diksa
also? It is ludicrous to argue that Srila Prabhupada can give siksa
when not on the planet if acting as a siksa guru, but he can not give
siksa if we change his title. The very fact that he can be a
siksa Guru whilst not on the planet, is itself evidence
that he simultaneously can give diksa.
Some individuals have gone the next step; arguing that Srila Prabhupada can not
even give transcendental siksa without a physical body. If this were the
case, one wonders why Srila Prabhupada went to such effort to write so many
books and set up a trust with the sole purpose of propagating them for the next
ten thousand years? If it is no longer possible to receive transcendental
instruction from Srila Prabhupada's books, why are we distributing them, and
why are people still surrendering purely on the strength of them?
No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the
ritvik system to allow initiations to continue. Whether or not Srila
Prabhupada created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal
final order. As disciples our duty is simply to follow the instructions of the
guru. It is inappropriate to abandon the guru's instruction and instead
speculate as to how many pure devotees there are now, or will be in the
future.
Even taking a worst case scenario, that there are in fact no pure devotees at
present, one should consider the situation that existed after the departure of
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. After almost 40 years, Srila Prabhupada
indicated that there was only one authorized initiating acarya produced
from the Gaudiya Matha:
"Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become
acarya*. [...] instead of inspiring our students and
disciple they may sometimes pollute them. [...] they are very
competent to harm our natural progress."
(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)
(Srila Prabhupada used the terms 'acarya' and 'guru'
interchangeably):
"I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now
you become acarya.' [...] You can cheat, but it will not be
effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to be guru. A
small temple and 'guru'. What kind of guru?"
(SP Morning walk, 22/4/77)
This could be seen as a damning indictment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's
preaching work. However, it would be extremely unwise to argue that Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta was a 'failure'. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is known to have said
that if his mission only produced one pure devotee he would have considered it
a success.
In any case, the implementation of a ritvik system does not rule out,
a priori, the possible existence of pure devotees. There are various
scenarios that could easily accommodate both ritviks and pure devotees,
e.g.:
Guest: Are you planning to choose a
successor?
(SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico)
"After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost
ended. So you have to carry on, and these books will do
everything."
(SP Room conversation, 18/2/76)
"So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I
have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your
endeavour. Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter."
(SP Arrival conversation, 17/5/77, Vrindavan)
Reporter: What will happen to the movement in
the United States when you die?
Reporter: Are you training a successor?
(SP Press conference, 16/7/75, San
Francisco)
"Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the
Movement."
(SP Room conversation, 2/11/77)
Interviewer: What happens when that inevitable time
comes a successor is needed.
(SP Interview, 10/6/76, Los
Angeles)
Reporter: Do you expect to name one person as
your successor or have you already?
(SP Interview, 4/6/76, Los
Angeles)
Interviewer: I was wondering if he had a successor to
do...Do you have a successor to take your place when you die?
(SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York)
The fact that Srila Prabhupada did not authorise any of his disciples to
act as diksa guru does not necessarily mean that none of them were pure
devotees. It could just be that Krsna's plan did not require them to take up
such a role. Nevertheless followers of Srila Prabhupada do have an important
role to play, just as when he was physically present on the planet. That is to
act as his assistants, not successor acaryas:
"The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru, and
you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what
I am doing."
(SP Letter to Madhudvisa, 4/8/75)
"Sometimes a diksa guru is not present always. Therefore one
can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the
siksa guru."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 4/7/74, Honolulu)
Thus the issue is not whether Srila Prabhupada created any pure
devotees, but the fact that he did set up the ritvik system.
Although the diksa guru at this time is not physically present, that
does not mean he is not the diksa guru. In his absence we are expected
to take instruction from bona fide siksa gurus, of which there may
eventually be millions.
As discussed previously, in order to act as a diksa guru one must first
attain the highest platform of devotional service namely maha-bhagavata,
and then be authorised to initiate by one`s predecessor acarya. The
above post-dated cheque guru-philosophy is an offensive speculation as the
following quote illustrates:
"Although Prthu Maharaja was factually an incarnation of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, he rejected those praises because the qualities of the
Supreme Person were not yet manifest in him. He wanted to stress that one who
does not actually possess these qualities should not try to engage his
followers and devotees in offering him glory for them, even though these
qualities might be manifest in the future. If a man who does not
factually possess the attributes of a great personality engages his followers
in praising him with the expectation that such attributes will develop in the
future, that sort of praise is actually an insult."
(S.B. 4.15.23, purport)
Just as it would be an insult to address a blind man as `lotus eyed one', to
address partially conditioned souls as being 'as good as God' (GII, p.15,
point 8) is similarly offensive; not only to the person being falsely
flattered, but also to the pure disciplic succession of factually realised
souls, on up to the Supreme Lord Himself.
To 'strictly follow' is the process by which a disciple advances, not a
qualification in and of itself. Devotees often confuse the process with
the qualification, sometimes even preaching that they are one and the
same. Just because someone is following strictly does not mean he is a
maha-bhagavata, or that he has been asked to initiate by his own
spiritual master; and if a disciple does start initiating before he is
properly qualified and authorised , he is certainly not 'strictly following'
either.
Sometimes, devotees quote text 5 of The Nectar of Instruction (purport)
to prove that 'a neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava on the
intermediate platform can also accept disciples...' For some reason they do
not notice that the rest of the sentence warns disciples of such gurus that
'they cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life under his
insufficient guidance.' It then states:
"Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari
as a spiritual master."
Unqualified gurus are also warned:
"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the
platform of uttama-adhikari."
(The Nectar of Instruction, text 5, purport)
If a guru is only offering 'insufficient guidance' he cannot, by definition, be
a diksa guru, since this requires the transmission of full
divya-jnana. 'Insufficient' means - not enough. It is self-evident
that initiating gurus who cannot help one 'advance very well' are probably best
avoided altogether.
The disciplic succession, or guru parampara, is eternal; there is no
question of it stopping. According to Srila Prabhupada, the Sankirtan
Movement, (and hence ISKCON), will only exist for the next 9,500 years.
Compared with eternity 9,500 years is nothing, a mere blip in cosmic time. This
would appear to be the time period during which Srila Prabhupada shall remain
the 'current link' within ISKCON, unless he or Krsna countermands the July 9th
order, or some external circumstance renders the order impossible to follow
(such as total thermo-nuclear annihilation). Previous acaryas have
remained current for long periods of time, thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even
millions of years (see quote below). We see no reason why the duration
of Srila Prabhupada's reign as 'current link', even if it extends right till
the end of the Sankirtan Movement, should pose any particular problem.
"Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big
gaps [...] we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was
taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krsna has
mentioned only three names in this parampara system - namely,
Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding
the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent
acaryas, and follow from him [...] We have to pick up
from the authority of the acarya in whatever sampradaya we belong
to."
(SP Leter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)
The July 9th order is significant since it means that Srila Prabhupada shall be
the prominent acarya, at least for members of ISKCON, for as long as the
Society exists. Only the direct intervention of Srila Prabhupada or Krsna can
revoke the
final order (such intervention needing to be at least as clear and unequivocal
as a signed directive sent to the entire Society). Thus until some
counter-instruction is given, the science of devotional service shall continue
to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada to successive generations of his
disciples. Since this is a common phenomenon in our disciplic succession, there
is no cause for alarm. The succession can only be considered 'ended' if this
science of devotional service is lost. On such occasions, Lord Krsna Himself
usually descends to re-establish the principles of religion. As long as Srila
Prabhupada's books are in circulation, this 'science' shall remain vigorously
intact, and perfectly accessible.
The ritvik system involves linking potentially unlimited numbers
of sincere disciples with the greatest acarya who ever blessed the
earth, namely Srila Prabhupada. These disciples will have a relationship with
Srila Prabhupada based on studying his books and serving him within his Society
wherein there is ample opportunity for unlimited numbers of siksa
guru-disciple relationships to exist. How is this ending the tradition of guru
disciple relationships?
The details of how diksa guru-disciple relationships are formally bonded
may be adapted by an acarya, according to time place and circumstance,
but the principle remains the same:
"Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of
the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that
candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra
families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities
may be slightly changed here and there to make them
Vaisnavas."
(S.B. 4.8.5, purport)
Similarly this principle of accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual
master is in no way diminished or compromised by the ritvik system.
Some people point to traditional gurus living in villages in India as a model
for ISKCON. Each guru has a few disciples who he personally trains. However
cosy this may sound it has nothing remotely to do with the worldwide mission
Lord Caitanya predicted, and Srila Prabhupada established. Within that mission
Srila Prabhupada is the world acarya with thousands, and potentially
millions, of disciples. Srila Prabhupada set up a world Movement through which
anyone can 'approach', 'serve' and 'inquire from' him anywhere in the world.
Why should we want to introduce a village guru system into ISKCON, when it was
not what Srila Prabhupada ordered or set up?
If everyone is meditating on hundreds of different gurus of differing
viewpoints, opinions and levels of realisation, how can there be unity? Rather
than this lucky-dip approach to spiritual life, as we have demonstrated, Srila
Prabhupada gave us a tried and tested system that facilitated surrender
directly to himself, who is one hundred percent guaranteed. We know he shall
never let us down, and in this way ISKCON will remain united, not just in name,
but in consciousness.
Some devotees feel that without a succession of living, physically present,
initiating diksa gurus, the science of devotional service will be lost.
However, this principle is never once stated by Srila Prabhupada, and thus
cannot exist in our philosophy. As long as the ritvik system remains in
force (once it is re-instituted of course), there will be a succession of
living siksa gurus acting on behalf of a living, though not physically
present, maha-bhagavata. As long as these siksa gurus do not
change anything, invent philosophy, disobey important orders, and
unauthorisedly pose themselves as diksa gurus, the science of devotional
service shall remain perfectly intact. If such misbehaviour were to obstruct
the imperishable science of bhakti, then Krsna would certainly intervene
in some way, perhaps by sending again a resident of Goloka to establish a new
bona fide Society. Let us work together to make sure this will not be
necessary.
Leaving aside the two important pre-conditions to anyone initiating, it
is clear that diksa activity within our parampara is enormously
diverse. We have observed that violations of the so-called 'regular' system
fall into five basic categories, though we do not deny there could be many
others:
These are all the occasions when an acarya in the parampara
leaves, and there is no next link to immediately start initiating. Or the
person who is to become the next link does not immediately receive
authorisation from his spiritual master to initiate on, or directly after, his
departure. For example, there was a gap of some twenty years between the
departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and the next bona fide initiation in our
sampradaya. Gaps of more than one hundred years are not uncommon between
members of the disciplic succession.
These are all the occasions where an acarya has not yet left his body
before his disciples start initiating. Lord Brahma, for example, has not yet
left his body, and yet generations of successor gurus have initiated millions
upon millions of disciples. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta initiated when both Srila
Bhaktivinoda and Srila Gaura Kisora were still physically present. According to
GII (p. 23) this is a common phenomenon in our
sampradaya.
There are instances of a disciple accepting an acarya as his principal
spiritual master after he has left the planet. Whether the departed
acarya is a siksa or a diksa guru to the disciple is often
difficult to discern. Srila Prabhupada does not generally specify the precise
nature of these spiritual interactions. For example, the exact nature of the
relationship between Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Narottama dasa
Thakura who lived over a hundred years apart, is not detailed by Srila
Prabhupada. We may wish to call it a siksa relationship, but that is
speculation, since Srila Prabhupada simply says :
"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as
his servitor."
(C.c. Adi,1)
"...Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. He accepted his guru, Narottama
dasa Thakura."
(SP S.B. Lecture 17/4/76, Bombay)
Although such disciples normally go through some sort of ceremony with someone
who is physically present, that still may not preclude the departed
acarya from being his diksa guru ; just as a ritvik
ceremony does not mean that the ritvik or Temple President is the
diksa guru. Also such disciples normally obtained permission from an
authority who was physically present, to accept a sad-guru who was not.
In a similar way, were the ritvik system re-instated, new disciples of
Srila Prabhupada would first gain the approval of the Temple President and the
ritvik before they were initiated.
These are anomalous forms of initiation where unique, or inconceivable forms of
diksa transmission take place. For example, Lord Krsna to Lord Brahma;
or Lord Caitanya whispering into a Buddhist's ear. Interplanetary diksa
might also come under this category. This is where personalities initiate,
or transmit diksa to a disciple who resides on a different planet, for
example Manu to Iksvaku in Bhagavad-gita (4.1).
This refers to differing successor acarya systems within our
sampradaya. For example Srila Bhaktivinoda adopted a 'powerful
Vaisnava son' successor system. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta left in place a
'self-effulgent acarya' successor system. As far as we can determine,
Srila Prabhupada opted for an 'officiating acarya' successor system. The
present system favoured by the GBC is a 'multiple acarya successor
system'.
Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:
"...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 never states the above injunction.
So let us consider: Can a spiritual master be 'current' if he is physically
absent?
'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.
"...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)
'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.
In conclusion, we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current
link is based on physical or non-physical considerations.
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."
(SP L etter 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 Krsna Consciousness. It
requires special benediction from higher authorities."
(SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)
"If everyone just intiates there will be contradictory result. As long as
it goes on, there will be only failure."
(SP Phalgun Krishnan Pancami, verse 23)
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.
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?
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, 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 'Understood', 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:
Moving on to definition 2: Pradyumna explains that this type of
acarya can initiate disciples and be refered 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 (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'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
predeccessor 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."
None of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were authorised acaryas. One
would think that genuine humility should translate into giving up one's
unauthorized 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."
(SP 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 :
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, p.15, point 6), the GBC nevertheless, in effect, performs
precisely this function every Gaura-Purrnima at Mayapur, year after
year. We now have close to a hundred initiating gurus, all annointed 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, p.15, point 8). 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, p.9, section
2.2)
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?
Rather, let us follow Srila Prabhupada's clear order to keep him as the only
initiator within ISKCON. Who could object to that?
Who said this?
"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has not said or given any document that Swamiji
(Srila Prabhupada) will be guru."
(ISKCON Journal 1990, p.23)
"But there is a system in our sampradaya. So Tirtha Maharaja, Madhav
Maharaj, Sridhar Maharaj, 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 the these
'acaryas':
"Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much antagonistic to our Society and he
has no clear conception of devotional
service. He is contaminated."
(SP Letter to Sukadeva, 14/11/73)
and with what he said of the rest:
"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to
become acarya."
(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)
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 guenuine 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.'
(SP Conversation, 19/1/76, Mayapur)
Bona fide acaryas can never be described as envious rascals who just
want to cause trouble. Sadly, even to this day, some members of the Gaudiya
Matha are still causing trouble. Respect from a distance has to be the safest
policy.
Srila Prabhupada states the precise opposite:
"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time
eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of
the Supreme Lord."
(Bg. 4.42, purport)
Those deviant gurus being described could never, by definition, have been
members of the eternal disciplic succession. Rather, they were non-liberated,
self-authorised family priests posing as initiating acaryas. Bona
fide members of the disciplic succession never deviate:
"God is always God, Guru is always Guru." (The Science of Self
Realisation, chapter 2)
"Well if he is bad, how can he become a guru?" (The Science of Self
Realisation, chapter 2)
"The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya
and her influence." (S.B. 5.3.14)
"There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall
down." (C.c. Madhya, 22.71)
"A spiritual master is always liberated." (SP Letter
to Tamal Krsna, 21/6/70)
There is not a single example in Srila Prabhupada's books of a formally
authorised diksa guru, in our disciplic succession, ever
deviating from the path of devotional service. The rejection of Sukracarya
is sometimes used to validate the view that acaryas fall down, or can be
rejected, but this example is highly misleading since he was never an
authorised member of our disciplic succession. Lord Brahma's pastimes with his
daughter are sometimes mentioned. Yet it is clearly stated in the
Srimad-Bhagavatam that these incidents occured before Lord
Brahma became the head of our sampradaya. Indeed, when the disciple
Nitai referred to the pastime as an example of an acarya falling down,
Srila Prabhupada became most displeased.
Despite a total absence from Srila Prabhupada's books of bona fide gurus
deviating, the GBC's book GII has a whole section on what a disciple
should do when his previously bona fide guru deviates! The chapter begins by
asserting the importance of approaching a current link, and not 'jumping over'
(GII, p. 27). However, the authors proceed to do precisely this by
quoting numerous previous acaryas in an attempt to establish principles
never taught by Srila Prabhupada.
The gurus described by these previous acaryas could never have been
bona fide members of the parampara:
"Narada Muni, Haridasa Thakura and similar acaryas especially
empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord cannot be brought down to the
material platform."
( S.B. 7.7.14, purport)
The danger of 'jumping over' in the manner prevelant in GII is clearly
demonstrated in the chapter on 're-initiation', (itself a term never once used
by Srila Prabhupada, nor any previous acarya). In the question and
answer section (GII, p.35, question 4) the conditions under which one
may reject a guru and take 're-initiation' are described. The 'explanation'
follows:
"Fortunately , the crux of this issue has been
clarified for us by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Jaiva Dharma and by Srila
Jiva Gosvami in his Bhakti Sandarbha." (GII, p35)
The word 'fortunately' rather unfortunately implies that
since'Srila Prabhupada neglected to tell us what to do when a guru deviates,
it's just as well we can jump over him to all these previous acaryas'. But
Srila Prabhupada told us that everything we needed to know about
spiritual life was in his books. Why are we introducing systems never mentioned
by our acarya?
Nothing, as long as we do attempt to use them to add new principles which were
not mentioned by our own acarya. The idea that a bona fide guru can
deviate is totally alien to anything Srila Prabhupada taught. The problems over
the 'origin of the jiva' issue, all stem from this propensity to jump
over:
"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump
over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous
acaryas." (Our Original Position, p. 163, GBC
Press)
How is adopting entirely new philosophical principles, never mentioned by Srila
Prabhupada , seeing 'the previous acaryas through
Prabhupada'?
Even if the interpretation the GBC in GII has placed on these previous
acaryas writings were correct, we still could not use them to
modify or add to Srila Prabhupada's teachings. This is clearly explained in two
verses in the book Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta by Srila Narahari
Sarakara. GII should have mentioned these verses by way of
caution , since it supported its thesis with other verses from the very same
book:
Verse 48:
"A disciple may hear some instruction from another advanced Vaisnava, but
after gaining that good instruction he must bring it and present it to his own
spiritual master. After presenting them he should hear the same teachings again
from his spiritual master with appropriate instructions."
Verse 49:
"...a disciple who listens to the words of other Vaisnavas, even if their
instructions are proper and true, but does not re-confirm those teachings with
his own spiritual master and instead directly personally accepts these
instructions, is considered a bad disciple and a sinner."
We would humbly suggest that in the interest of the spiritual lives of all the
members of ISKCON, the GII book be revised in a manner congruous with
the above injunction.
According to Srila Prabhupada's final order he was to be the initiator long
into the future, and as an authorised link in the disciplic succession, there
was no question of his deviating from the path of pure devotional service for
even one second:
"The bona fide spiritual master always engages in unalloyed
devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
(C.c. Adi, 1.46)
Sometimes referred to as 'soft ritvik', the above injunction
rests on the premise that the ritvik system was only put in place
because at the time prior to Srila Prabhupada's passing there were no qualified
disciples.
However, this premise is speculation since it was never articulated by Srila
Prabhupada. There is no evidence that the ritvik system was set up
only as a reaction to a dearth of qualified people, and that once there
is a qualified person we should stop following it. This notion has the
unfortunate side-effect of making the ritvik system seem only second
best, or make-shift, when actually it is Krsna's perfect plan. It also makes it
possible for some future unscrupulous charismatic personality to stop the
system through some false show of devotion.
In theory, even if there were qualified uttama adhikari disciples
present now, they would still have to follow the ritvik system if they
wanted to remain in ISKCON. There is no reason why a qualified person would not
be more than happy to follow the order of Srila Prabhupada, as we have already
stated.
One possible source of this misconception could be the instructions Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta left the Gaudiya Matha. Srila Prabhupada told us that his Guru
Maharaja had asked for there to be a GBC, and that in due course a
self-effulgent acarya would emerge. As we know the Gaudiya Matha did not
follow this, to catastrophic effect. Some devotees believe we must also be on
the look out for a self-effulgent acarya; and that since he could come
at any time the ritvik system is only a stop-gap measure.
The difficulty with this theory is that the instructions Srila Bhaktisidhanta
left his disciples, and the ones Srila Prabhupada left us, are different. Srila
Prabhupada certainly left instructions that the GBC should continue managing
his Society, but he said nothing anywhere about the emergence of a future
self-effulgent acarya for ISKCON. Instead he set up a ritvik
system whereby he would remain the acarya 'henceforward'. Obviously as
disciples we cannot jump over Srila Prabhupada and start following Srila
Bhaktisidhanta.
If Srila Prabhupada had been given some dictation from Krsna that his Society
was shortly to be helmed by a new
acarya, then he would have made some provision for this in his final
instructions. Instead he ordered that only his books
were to be distributed, and that they would be law for the next ten thousand
years. What would a future acarya have left to do? Srila Prabhupada has
already put in place the Movement that will fulfill every prophesy and purport
of our disciplic succession for the remainder of the Sankirtan Movement.
Some have argued that acaryas have the power to change things,
and thus a new one could alter the ritvik system within ISKCON. But
would an authorised acarya ever contradict the direct orders left by a
previous acarya to his followers? To do so would surely undermine the
authority of the previous acarya. It would certainly cause confusion
and bewilderment for those followers faced with the tortuous choice of whose
order to follow.
All such concerns melt away once we read the final order. There is simply no
mention of the 'soft' ritvik injunction. The letter just says
'henceforward'. Thus to say it will end with the emergence of a new
acarya, or perfected disciple, is superimposing one's own speculation
over a perfectly clear request. The letter only supports a 'hard' ritvik
understanding, ie that:
This understanding is consistent with the idea that Srila Prabhupada had
already single-handedly put into place the success of his mission (please
see related objection 8: "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure
devotees?")
It is sometimes claimed that since the July 9th letter only
authorises the original 11 appointed ritviks, the system
must stop once the 11 persons nominated die or deviate.
This is rather an extreme argument. After all the July 9th letter does not
state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the
list of acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other
systems of management put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where
new members are freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is
illogical to single out one system of management, and treat it entirely
differently from other equally important ones. This is particularly so since
Srila Prabhupada never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the
ritvik system should differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems
he personally put in place.
This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the
following points:
Tamal Krsna: "Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do
you want to add more?"
(Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80)
Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that
could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be
'added'.
Newsday Reporter: You are now the leader and the Spiritual
Master. Who will take your place?
(SP Interview, 14/7/76, New York)
However, we feel it is safer to follow the orders we did receive from our
acarya, rather than speculate about ones that may or may not come in the
future, or worse still invent our own.
This accusation is based on the misconception that in order to
surrender to a Spiritual Master he must be physically present. If this were the
case then none of Srila Prabhupada's original disciples could currently be
surrendering to him. Surrender to the Spiritual Master means following his
instructions, and this can be done whether he is physically present or not.
The purpose of ISKCON is to provide proper guidance and encouragement to all
comers through potentially unlimited siksa relationships. Once the
current GBC itself surrenders to the 'order' of Srila Prabhupada this system
will naturally inspire more and more surrender from others, eventually perhaps
even attracting die hard ritvik activists to do the same.
Even if all ritvik proponents were actually stubbornly unwilling to
surrender to a Guru, that still does not invalidate the July 9th order. The
fact that ritviks are alledgedly so unsurrendered should make the GBC
even more anxious to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order, if for no other
reason than to prove a contrast.
There will be a Diksa Guru, Srila Prabhupada; and guidance and
service will be given in exactly the same way as it was when he was present,
through reading his books and through Siksa Guru relationships with
other devotees. Before 1977, when someone joined the temple, they would be
instructed by the Bhakta Leader, the Sankirtan Leader, visiting
Sannyasis, the Cook, the Pujari, the Temple President, etc. It
would be extremely rare to be given personal guidance directly from Srila
Prabhupada; infact he constantly discouraged such interaction so that he could
concentrate on his writing. We suggest things should go on just as Srila
Prabhupada set them up.
"Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from
within our heart he gives us favourable instruction so that we can gradually
make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we
become more interested then we have to go to a physical spiritual master."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 14/8/66, New York)
"Because Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, he is the
spiritual master, Caitya-Guru. So in order to help us, he
comes out as physical spiritual master."
(SP S.B. Lecture, 28/5/74, Rome)
"Therefore God is called Caitya-Guru, the spiritual master
within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy [...] He
will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of the
spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart."
(SP Room conversation, 23/5/74)
Srila Prabhupada used the term physical guru when explaining that in the
conditioned stage we cannot rely purely on the Caitya-Guru or Supersoul
for guidance. It is imperative that we surrender to the external manifestation
of the Supersoul. This is the Diksa Guru. Such a Spiritual Master, who
is considered a resident of the spiritual world, and an intimate associate of
Lord Krsna, makes his physical appearance just to guide the fallen
conditioned souls. Often such a Spiritual Master will write physical
books; he will give lectures which can be heard with physical ears and
be recorded on physical tape machines; he may leave physical
murtis and even a physical GBC to continue managing everything once he
has physically departed.
However what Srila Prabhupada never taught was that this
physical guru must also be physically present in
order to act as guru. As we have pointed out, were this the case, then
currently no-one could be considered his disciple. If the guru must always be
physically present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted,
then once Srila Prabhupada left the planet all his disciples should have taken
're-initiation'. Furthermore thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were
initiated having had no contact with the physical body of Srila
Prabhupada. Yet it is accepted that they approached, enquired from, surrendered
to, served and took initiation from the physical spiritual master. No one is
arguing that their initiations were null and void by dint of the above three
quotes.
As we have already mentioned there is only one place in all of Srila
Prabhupada's teachings where the qualification of a Diksa guru is
specifically mentioned (C.c. Madhya, 24.330). That is in the section of
the Caitanya-Caritamrta which deals specifically with diksa. The
quote clearly establishes that the Diksa guru must be a
maha-bhagavata. The pertinent point to note is Srila Prabhupada's use of
the words 'must', 'must', and 'only'. It is not possible to be more emphatic.
There are no quotes that state that the Diksa guru can be
a conditioned soul. This is not surprising otherwise Srila Prabhupada would be
preaching a contradiction in guru-tattva. There are quotes which may
give the impression that they are supporting the idea of a non-liberated
guru, but they usually fall into two categories:
These quotes will stress how easy it is to act as a guru, how even children
can do it, and is usually linked to Lord Caitanya's amara ajnaya
verse.
These quotes will usually always have the word 'become' in them. This is
because by following the process outlined, one will advance and qualify oneself
for guruhood. In this way one will 'become' guru. The quotes will never say
that the qualification of the resultant guru will be less than
maha-bhagavata. They will usually just describe the process.
"Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been established by
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent Him in
carrying out the responsibility of managing the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which He is the
Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The GBC accepts as its life and
soul His divine instructions and recognises that it is completely
dependent on His mercy in all respects. The GBC has no other
function or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by
His Divine Grace and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world
in their pure form." (Definition of GBC, Resolution 1, GBC minutes
1975)
"The system of management will continue as it is now and there
is no need of any change."
(Srila Prabhupada's Declaration of Will, 4th June, 1977)
"The standards I have already given you, now try to maintain them at all
times under standard procedure. Do not try to innovate or create anything or
manufacture anything, that will ruin everything."
(SP Letter to Bali Mardan and Pusta Krsna, 18/9/72)
"Now I have invested the GBC for maintaining the standard of our Krsna
Consciousness Society, so keep the GBC very vigilant. I have already given you
full directions in my books."
(SP Letter to Satsvarupa, 13/9/70)
"I have appointed originally 12 GBC members and I have given them 12 zones
for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have
changed everything, so what is this, I don't know."
(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 4/4/72)
(SP Letter to Hansadutta, 11/4/72)
We hope the reader has now gained a deeper appreciation for Srila
Prabhupada's momentus final order on the future of initiation within ISKCON. We
apologise if any part of our presentation has offended anyone; that was not our
intention, so please forgive our inadequacies.
We started this paper stressing how we are sure that if any mistakes have been
made, they were not deliberate, and it should therefore not be felt necessary
to witch-hunt or spend unnecessary energy blaming anyone. It is a fact that
when the Acarya leaves, there is automatically some confusion. When one
considers that the Movement is destined to run for at least another 9,500
years, nineteen years of confusion is very little indeed. It is time now to
digest what has gone wrong, learn from our mistakes and then put the past
behind us and work together to build a better ISKCON.
It may be considered necessary to ease the ritvik system in
gently, in phases perhaps. Maybe it can even run concurrently with the M.A.S.S.
for a short, pre-specified time period, in order not to create undue tension
and disturbance. Such points will need careful consideration and discussion. As
long as our goal is to re-establish Srila Prabhupada's final order, then within
that there should be scope to deal gently with everyone's feelings. We must
treat devotees with care and consideration, allowing them time to adjust. If an
extensive programme can be introduced whereby Srila Prabhupada's teachings and
instructions on the guru and initiation are presented systematically, we are
confident the whole thing can be turned round quite quickly, and with a minimum
of disturbance and ill feeling.
Once it is agreed that the ritvik system is the way forward, there will
need to be a cooling off period where the enmity which has built on both sides
of the issue can be allowed to dissipate. Retreats should be organised where
both sides can come together and make friends. Unfortunately there is
considerable immaturity at present, as much from ritvik proponents as
from anyone else. Certainly for ourselves, we do not believe that had we been
senior disciples at the time of Srila Prabhupada's passing, we would
necessarily have acted any differently, or any better. More likely we would
have made matters worse.
In our experience many devotees in ISKCON, even more senior ones, have never
really had the chance to closely examine the ritvik issue in detail.
Unfortunately the form of much ritvik literature is enough to put
anybody off, filled as it is with personal attacks and very little philosophy.
The best solution, as far as we can see, is for the GBC themselves to resolve
this issue. With the correct information before them we are confident
everything will be adjusted correctly in time. This would certainly be more
desirable than being constantly pressured into change by a band of disgruntled
and embittered devotees, some of whom may also have their own agendas not
entirely in line with Srila Prabhupada's final order.
Of course we are also subject to the four defects and thus we warmly welcome
any comments or criticism. Our main hope in writing this booklet is that the
discussion it may inspire might go some ways towards resolving one of the most
protracted and difficult controversies ISKCON has faced since the departure of
His Divine Grace. Please forgive our offenses. All glories to Srila
Prabhupada.
Ritviks are often defined in one of two incorrect ways:
Looking first at definition 1). The post of ritvik is a very
responsible position. This should be obvious since Srila Prabhupada
specifically chose 11 devotees who already had a proven track record of taking
senior responsibility within his mission. He did not simply pull the names out
of a hat. Thus, although for the most part their function would be fairly
routine, they would also be the first to spot deviations from the strict
standards necessary for initiation. Rather as a policeman's job is mostly
routine, since most citizens are law abiding, yet he will often be the first
person to know when some misdemeanor is being committed. Srila Prabhupada
would often express concern that initiation should only take place when a
student has proven, for at least six months, that he can chant 16 rounds a day,
follow the four regulative principles, read his books etc. Should a Temple
President start sending recommendations to a ritvik for students who
were failing in one of these essential areas, the ritvik would have the
power to refuse initiation. In this way the ritvik would ensure that the
standards within ISKCON remained the same as the day Srila Prabhupada left the
planet.
Certainly a ritvik would himself have to be following strictly, and
would hence be a qualified siksa guru. Whether the ritvik would
have a siksa or instructing relationship with the persons being
initiated is a separate issue. He may or may not. For a devotee who takes on
this position, his ritvik portfolio is separate and distinct from his
siksa guru portfolio, though the two may sometimes over-lap. Whilst
Srila Prabhupada was present new initiates would not necessarily even meet the
acting ritvik for his zone. Very often the initiation ceremony would be
carried out by the Temple President, the initiates name arriving by post from
his designated ritvik. At the same time we can see no reason why a
ritvik should not meet new initiates, and even perform the ceremony, if
such an arrangement is agreeable at the local Temple level.
We shall now examine definition 2). As we have several times
mentioned, in order to take disciples one must be a fully authorised
maha-bhagavata. Before Srila Prabhupada left, he put in place a system
which made it illegal for anyone other than himself to initiate within ISKCON.
Thus there is no authorisation for anyone, at any time in the future of ISKCON,
to initiate on their own behalf, apart from Srila Prabhupada. Thus even if a
ritvik, or anyone else for that matter, were to attain the level of
maha-bhagavata, he would still need to follow the ritvik system
if he wished to stay within ISKCON. We were given an order on July 9th 1977,
and it says nothing about the ritviks ever becoming diksa gurus.
What they do and how they are selected.
July 9th, 1977
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "ritvik--representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:
In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has acceted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book.
Hoping this finds you all well.
Your servant,
Tamala Krsna Gosvami
Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
[Srila Prabhupada's signature appears on the original]
10th July9.25 a.m. Tamala Krsna Maharaja comes out of Prabhupada's room
(I'm coming from the gurukula) near the garden.
Tamala Krsna Goswami: Haribol. Yasoda, did you see this?
I had returned to the Gurukula deeply thinking of the meaning of
the conversation with Maharaja.
(Emphasis added. Original Diary still available for examination.)
ISKCON
July 11th 1977
My dear Kirtanananda Maharaja,
Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. His Divine
Grace Srila Prabhupada has just received the latest issue of
Brijabasi Spirit, Vol.IV,No.4, which brought Him great joy. As He
looked at the cover showing Kaladri performing a fire ceremony,
He said, "Just see his face how devotee he is, so expert in
everything". When Srila Prabhupada opened the first page, His
eyes fixed on the picture of Radha- Vrindavana Chandra, and He
said, "Vrindavana Bihari - so beautiful. There is no danger
wherever Vrindavana Chandra is." After enjoying the whole
magazine throughly Srila Prabhupada said, "It is printed on
their own press. It is very good progress." His Divine Grace very
much appreciated the article "How I Was Deprogrammed" by the
young devotee boy. Prabhupada was feeling great sympathy when he
heard his story and said, "If one man is turned like this boy
then this movement is successful. There is good prospect, good
hope. You all combine together and push this movement on and on.
Now I am assured that it will go on." While going through the
magazine, Srila Prabhupada also saw your good photo on the page
"Istagosthi" and Srila Prabhupada bestowed a long loving look
upon your good self expressing his deep appreciation for how you
have understood this Krishna Consciousness.
A letter has been sent to all the Temple Presidents and GBC which
you should be receiving soon describing the process for
initiation to be followed in the future. Srila Prabhupada has
appointed thus far eleven representitives who will initiate new
devotees on His behalf. You can wait for this letter to arrive
(the original has been sent to Ramesvara Maharaja for
duplicating) and then all of the persons whom you recommened in
your previous letters can be initiated.
His Divine Grace has been maintaining His health on an even
course and most amazingly has doubled His translation work
keeping pace with the doubling of book distribution. Hoping this
meets you well.
Your servant,
Tamala Krsna Goswami
His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
ROOM CONVERSATION Vrindavana, July 19th, 1977
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Upendra and I could see it far
last...(break)."
Srila Prabhupada: "And nobody is going to disturb you there. Make
your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my
charge. People are becoming sympathetic there. The place is very
nice."
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Yeah. He says: 'The introduction of
Bhagavad Gita has been translated into Tamil, and I will have the
second chapter due next, then publish a small booklet for
distribution'".
(Letter from Tamala Krsna Goswami (on Srila Prabhupada's behalf)
to Hansadutta).
July 31st 1977
My Dear Hansadutta Maharaja,
Please accept my most humble obeisances at your feet. I have been
instructed by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada to thank you for
your letter dated July 25th 1977.
You have written to Srila Prabhupada saying you do not know why
Srila Prabhupada has chosen you to be a recipient of his mercy.
His Divine Grace immediately replied, 'It is because you are my
sincere servant. You have given up attachment for a beautiful and
qualified wife and that is a great benidiction. You are a real
preacher. Therefore I like you. (Then laughing) Sometimes you
become obstinate, but that is true of any intelligent man. Now
you have a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a
great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field
and continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.'
Srila Prabhupada listened with great enthusiasm as I read to him
the newspaper article. His Divine Grace was very pleased: 'This
article will increase your prestige. It is very nice article.
Therfore the newspaper has spared so much space to print it. It
is very nice. It must be published in Back to Godhead. Now there
is a column in Back to Godhead called 'Prabhupada Speaks Out'.
Your article may be entitled 'Prabhupada's Disciple Speaks Out'.
Yes, we shall publish this article certainly. Let this rascal be
fool before the public. I have enjoyed this article very much. I
want my disciples to speak out...backed by complete reasoning.
'Brahma sutra sunisthita', this is preaching. Be blessed. All my
disciples go forward. You have given the challenge. They cannot
answer. This Dr. Kovoor should be invited...For Dr. Svarupa
Damodara's convention on 'Life comes from Life'. He can learn
something at this scientific convention."
Yes, you should certainly get some ISKCON Food Relief money. For
your program American money collected and sent for food
distribution. That is my proposal. Three hundred people coming is
no joke. You mentioned so many nice preperations. I would like
to eat but I cannot. At simply hearing these names (of
preperations) it is satisfying. Just thinking this morning of
you, and now you have written me.
(last paragraph illegible)
ROOM CONVERSATION Vrindavana, October 22nd 1977
Srila Prabhupada "Hare Krishna. One Bengali gentleman has come
from New York?" (One man had travelled from New York to be
initiated by Srila Prabhupada).
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Yes, Srila Prabhupada. Mr Sukamoy Roy
Choudry."
Srila Prabhupada: "So I have deputied some of you to initiate?"
Tamla Krsna Maharaja: "Yes."
Srila Prabhupada: "So, I think Jayapataka can do that. If you
like, I have already deputed. Tell him, some deputies, that
Jayapataka's name was there? So, I depute him to do this at
Mayapur and he may go with him. I have stopped for the time
being. Is that alright?"
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "What Srila Prabhupada?"
Srila Prabhupada: "This initiation I have deputed my disciples,
is that clear or not?"
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "It is clear"
Srila Prabhupada: "You have got a list of names? And if by
Krsna's grace I recover from this condition then I shall begin or
I may not but in this condition to initiate is not good".
ROOM CONVERSATION Vrindavana, November 2nd, 1977
(Srila Prabhupada is explaining what was discussed with the
guests)
Srila Prabhupada: "...So after you, who will take the leadership,
and (I said) everyone will take. All my disciples. If you want
you can take also. (Laughter) But if you follow. They are
prepared to sacrifice everything. They'll take the leadership. I
may, one, go away. But there will be hundreds. Hundreds will
preach. If you want you can also be leader. We have no such thing
that here is leader. Anyone who follows the previous leadership.
He's leader.
Tamal Krsna Maharaja: "Hmm"
Srila Prabhupada: "Indian! We have no such distinction. Indian.
European.
Devotee: "They wanted an Indian to be leader".
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Everyone. All my disciples they're
leaders. As purely as they follow, they'll become leaders. If you
want to follow, you can become leader. But you don't follow. I
told that. (pause)
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Yeah. They probably wanted to propose
someone who would take over our movement."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Hmm. (pause) 'Leader'...all nonesense.
(pause) Leader means one who has become first-class disciple.
He's leader, 'evam parampara praptam', one who is perfectly
following our intsructions, he's leader. Hmm. To become leader is
not very difficult, provided one is prepared to follow the
instructions of a bona fide guru.
ROOM CONVERSATION. Vrindavana, May 28th, 1977
Satsvarupa Maharaja: "Then our next question concerns initiations
in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer
with us. We want to know how first and second initiations will be
conducted."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this
is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as
officiating acarya."
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "Is that called ritvik-acarya?"
Srila Prabhupada: "Ritvik. Yes."
Satsvarupa Maharaja: "What is the relationship of that person who
gives the initiation and..."
Srila Prabhupada: "He's guru. He's guru."
Satsvarupa Maharaja: "But he does it on your behalf."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence
one should not become guru, so on my behalf. On my order, amara
ajnaya guru hana, be actually guru. But on my order."
Satsvarupa Maharaja: "So they maybe considered your disciples?"
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, they are disciples but consider...
who..."
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "No. He is asking that these ritvik-
acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, their - the people
who they give diksa to - whose disciples are they?"
Srila Prabhupada: "They are his disciples."
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: "They are his disciples."
Srila Prabhupada: "Who is initiating...His grand-disciple..."
Satsvarupa Maharaja: "Then we have a question concerning..."
Srila Prabhupada: "When I order you become guru, he becomes
regular guru. That's all.
He becomes disciple of my disciple. Just see."
ROOM CONVERSATION. Vrindavana, July 8th, 1977.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Srila Prabhupada, we are receiving a
number of letters now. These are people who want to get
initiated. So, up until now, since you're becoming ill, we asked
them to wait.
Srila Prabhupada: The local senior sannyasis can do.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: That's what we were doing. I mean,
formally we were...the local GBC sannyasis were chanting on their
beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace. And you were
giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed, or
should we...I mean, one thing is that it is said the spiritual
master takes on the...he takes on the...he has to cleanse the
disciple by...so we don't want that you should have to uh...your
health is not so good, so that should not be...that's why we've
been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should
continue to wait some more time.
Srila Prabhupada: No. Senior sannyasais.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: So they should continue to...
Srila Prabhupada: You can give me a list of sannyasis. I'll mark
them.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: OK.
Srila Prabhpada: You can do. Kirtanananda can do. Satsvarupa can
do. So these three can do.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: So suppose someone is in America. Should
they simply write to Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa?
Srila Prabhupada: Nearby. Jayatirtha can do.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Jayatirtha.
Srila Prabhupada: Bhagavan. And he can do also...Harikesa.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Harikesa Maharaja.
Srila Prabhupada: Five, six men they divide, who is nearest.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Who is nearest. So persons wouldn't have
to write to Your Divine Grace. They could write directly to that
person. Actually they are initiating that person on Your Divine
Grace's behalf. The persons who are initiated are still your...
Srila Prabhupada: Second initiation. We shall think. Second.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: This is for the first initiation. OK. And
for second initiation, for the time being they should...
Srila Prabhupada: Again have to wait. Second initiation, that
should be.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Some devotees are writing you now for
second initiation. And I am writing to them to wait a while,
because you are not well. So can I continue to tell them that?
Srila Prabhupada: They can be second initiated.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: By writing to you?
Srila Prabhupada: No. These men.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: These men. They can also do second
initiation. So there's no need for devotees to write to you for
first and second initiation. they can write to the man nearest
them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who
would give initiations is doing so on your behalf.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: You know that book that I'm maintaining of
all your disciple's names? Should I continue that?
Srila Prabhupada: Hmm!
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: So if someone gives initiations like
Harikesa Maharaja, he should send the persons name to us here,
and I'll enter it into the book. OK. Is there someone else in
India that you want to do this?
Srila Prabhupada: India? I am here. We shall see. In India -
Jayapataka.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Jayapataka Maharaja?.
Srila Prabhupada: You are also in India. You can note down these
names.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Yes I have them.
Srila Prabhupada: Who are they?
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Kirtanananda Maharaja, Satsvarupa
Maharaja, Jayatirtha Prabhu, Bhagavan Prabhu, Harikesa Maharaja,
Jayapataka Maharaja and Tamal Krsna Maharaja.
Srila Prabhupada: That's alright. Now distribute.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Seven. There's seven names.
Srila Prabhupada: For the time being, seven names. Sufficient. (A
little time passes) You can write, Ramesvara Maharaja.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Ramesvara Maharaja.
Srila Prabhupada: And Hrdayananda.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Oh, South America.
Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, whoever you consider
deserves. That will depend on discretion.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: That's the first and second initiations.
Srila Prabhupada: Hmm!
Tamala Krsna Maharaja: Should I send a kirtana party, Srila
Prabhupada?
ROOM CONVERSATION - APRIL 22, 1977, BOMBAY
Srila Prabhupada: "I told him that 'You cannot do so independent.
You are doing nice, but not to do in the magazine.' (Pause)
People complained against Hansadutta. Did you know that?"
PYRAMID HOUSE CONFESSIONS, December 3rd, 1980
Tamla Krsna Maharaja: "I've had a certain realization a few days
ago.(...) There are obviously so many statements by Srila
Prabhupada that his Guru Maharaja did not appoint any
successors.(...) Even in Srila Prabhupada's books he says guru
means by qualification.(...)
The inspiration came because there was a questioning on my part,
so Krishna spoke. Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus.
He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus.
Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to
this movement the last three years because we interpreted the
appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.
What actually happened I'll explain. I explained it but the
interpretation is wrong. What actually happened was that
Prabhupada mentioned he might be appointing some ritviks, so the
GBC met for various reasons, and they went to Prabhupada, five or
six of us. (This refers to the meeting of May 1977,). We asked
him, 'Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept
disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?'
Later on there was a piled up list of people to get initiated,
and it was jammed up. I said, 'Srila Prabhupada, you once
mentioned about ritviks. I don't know what to do. We don't want
to approach you, but there's hundreds of devotees named, and I'm
just holding all the letters. I don't know what you want to do'.
Srila Prabhupada said, 'All right, I will appoint so many...' and
he started to name them. He made it very clear that they are his
disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that they
were his disciples. Later on I asked him two questions, one:
'What about Brahmananda Swami?'. I asked him this because I
happened to have an affection for Brahmananda Swami.(...) So
Srila Prabhupada said, 'No, not unless he is qualified'. Before I
got ready to type the letter, I asked him, two: 'Srila Prabhupada
is this all or do you want to add more?'. He said, 'As is
necessary, others may be added.'
Now I understand that what he did was very clear. He was
phsically incapable of performing the function of initiation;
therfore he appointed officiating priests to initiate on his
behalf. He appointed eleven, and he said very clearly, 'Whoever
is nearest can initiate'. This is very important because when it
comes to initiating, it isn't whoever is nearest, it's wherever
your heart goes. Who (you) repose your faith on, you take
initiation from him. But when it's officiating, it's whoever is
nearest, and he was very clear. He named them. They were spread
out all over the world, and he said, 'Whoever your'e nearest, you
just approach that person, and they'll check you out. Then, on my
behalf, they'll initiate.' It is not a question that you repose
your faith in that person - nothing. That's a function for the
guru.
'In order for me to manage this movement', Prabhupada said, 'i
have to form a GBC and I will appoint the following people. In
order to continue the process of people joining our movement and
getting initiated, I have to appoint some priests to help me
because(...) I cannot physically manage everyone myself.'
And that's all it was, and it was never any more than that, you
can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for
days and hours and weeks on end about how to set up this thing
with the gurus, because he had already said it a million times.
He said: My Guru Maharaja did not appoint anyone. It's by
qualification.' We made a great mistake. After Prabhupada's
departure what is the position of these eleven people?(...)
Prabhupada showed that it is not just sannyasis. He named two
people who were grihastas, who could at least be ritviks, showing
that they were equal to any sannyasi. So anyone who is
spiritually qualified - it's always been understood that you
cannot accept disciples in the presence of your guru, but when
the guru disappears, you can accept disciples if you are
qualified and someone can repose their faith. Of course, they
(prospective disciples) should be fully appraised at how to
distinguish who is a proper guru. But if you are a proper guru,
and your guru is no longer present, that is your right. It's
like a man can procreate(...) Unfortunately the GBC did not
recognise this point. They immediately (assumed, decided) that
these eleven people are the selected gurus. I can definitely say
for myself, and for which I humbly beg forgiveness from
everybody, that there was definitely some degree of trying to
control(...) This is the conditioned nature, and it came out in
the highest position of all, 'Guru, oh wonderful! Now I am guru,
and there is only eleven of us'(...).
I feel that this realization or this understanding is essential
if we are to avoid further things from happening, because,
believe me, it's going to repeat. It's just a question of time
until things have a little bit faded out and again another
incident is going to happen, whether it's here in L.A. or
somewhere else. It's going to continuously happen until you allow
the actual spiritual force of Krishna to be exhibited without
restriction.(...) I feel that the GBC body, if they don't adopt
this point very quickly, if they don't realize this truth. You
cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada
says: 'I appoint these eleven as gurus'. It does not exist
because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.(...) The
day you got initiated you get the right to be come a father when
your father disappears, if you are qualified. No appointment. It
doesn't require an appointment, because there isn't one.
CENTER: Krsna-Balarama Mandir
DATE; 5th June 1977.
I, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder-acarya of the International Society for Krishna consciousness, Settlor of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and disciple of Om Visnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvama Maharaja Prabhupada, presently residing at Sri Krsna-Balarama Mandir in Vrndavana, make this my last will:
The executive directors who have herein been designated are appointed for life. In the event of death or failure to act for any reason of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books, and provided that there are never less than three (3) or more than five (5) exeutive directors acting at one time.
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
The above will was signed by Srila Prabhupada and sealed and
witnesses by the following,
Tamal Krsna Goswami
I, A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, a sannyasi and Founder-
Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness,
Settlor of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and disciple of Om Visnupada
108 Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja
Prabhupada, presently residing at Sri Krsna-Balarama Mandir in
Vrindavana do hereby make this last will and codocil to give vent
to my intention, and to clarify certain things which are to a
certain extent a liitle vague in my previous Will dated 4th June,
1977, as follows:
I had made a Will on 4th June, 1977, and had made certain
provisions therein. One of them being a provision of maintainance
allowance to Sri M.M. De, Brindaban Chandra de, Miss Bhakti Lata
De and Smt. Sulurmana Dey, who were born of me during my grhastha
ashram, and Smt. Radharani De, who was my wife in the grhastha
ashrama for their lives as per para.8 of the said Will. Since on
careful consideration I feel that the said paragraph does not
truly depict my intentions, I hereby direct that as regards Smt.
Radharani De, she will get Rs. 1,000/- per month for her life out
of interest to be earned from a fixed deposit of Rs. One Lakh
Twenty Thousand to be made by ISKCON in any bank that the
authorities of the said society think proper for a period of
seven years in the name of ISKCON, which amount shall not be
available to any of her heirs and after her death the said amount
be appropiated by ISKCON in any way the authorities of ISKCON
think proper looking to the objects of this society.
As regards Sri M.M. De, Sri Brindaban Chandra De, Smt. Sulurmana
Dey and Miss Bhakti Lata De, the ISKCON will deposit Rs. One Lakh
Twenty Thousand under 4 seperate Fixed Deposit receipts, each
for Rs. 1,20,000/- for seven years in a bank to earn interest at
least Rs. 1,000/- a month under each receipt. Out of the said sum
of Rs. 1,000/-, only Rs. 250/- will be paid to each of them from
the interest of their Fixed Deposit receipts. The remaining
interset of Rs. 750/- will be deposited again under new fixed
Deposit receipts in their respective names for seven years. On
the maturity of these Fixed Deposit receipts created from Rs.
750/- monthly interest for the first seven years, the said sums
shall be invested by the above named persons in some Govt. Bonds,
Fixed Deposit recepits or under any Govt. Deposit scheme or shall
be used to purchase some immovable property so that the amount
may remain safe and may not be dissipated. In case, however, the
aboved named persons or any of them violate these conditions and
use the said sum in purpose or puposes other than those described
above, the ISKCON authorities will be free to stop the payment of
the monthly maintainance of such person or persons from the
original Fixed Deposits of Rs. 1,20,000/- and they shall instead
give the amount of interest of Rs. 1,000/- per month to
Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust. It is made clear that the
heirs of the said persons will have no right to anything out of
the said sums and that these sums are only for the personal use
of the said persons of my previous life during their respective
lifetimes only.
I have appointed some executors of my said Will. I now hereby add
the name of Sri. Jayapataka Swami, my disciple, residing at Sri
Mayapur Chandrodoya Mandir, Dist. Nadia, West Bengal, as an
executor of my said Will along with the previous already named in
the said Will dated 4th June, 1977. I hereby further direct that
my executors will be entitled to act together or individually to
fulfill their obligations under my said Will.
I therefore hereby extend, modify and alter my said Will dated
4th June, 1977, in the manner mentioned above. In all other
respects the said Will continues to hold good and shall always
hold good.
I hereby make this Will codocil this 5th day of November, 1977,
in my full conscience and with sound mind without any persuasion,
force or compulsion from anybody.
A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami
Witnesses: (signatures on original document)
(Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)
But always remember that I am always with you. As you are always thinking of
me, I am always thinking of you also. Although physically we are not
together, we are not separated spiritually. So we should be concerned
only with this spiritual connection.
(Letter to Gaurasundara, 13/11/69)
So we should associate by vibration, and not by the physical presence.
That is real association.
(Lectures SB, 68/08/18)
There are two conceptions, the physical conception and the
vibrational conception. The physical conception is temporary. The
vibrational conception is eternal.[...] When we feel separation from Krsna or
the Spirirual Master, we should just try to remember their words or
instructions, and we will no longer feel that separation. Such association with
Krsna and the Spiritual Master should be association by vibration not
physical presence. That is real association.
(Elevation to Krsna Consciousness,(BBT 1973), Page 57)
Although according to material vision His Divine Grace Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsavati Thakura Prabhupada passed away from this material
world on the last day of December 1936, I still consider his Divine Grace to be
always present with me by his vani, his words. There are two ways of
association - by vani and by vapuh. Vani means words and vapuh means physical
presence. Physical presence is sometimes appreciable and sometimes not,
but Vani continues to exist eternally. Therefore, one must take
advantage of the Vani, not the physical presence.
(CC, Antya 5 Conclusion)
Therefore we should take advantage of the Vani, not the
physical presence.
(Letter to Suci Devi Dasi, 4/11/75)
I shall remain your personal guidance,
physically present or not physically present,
as I am getting guidance from my Guru Maharaja.
(Room Conversation, Vrindavan, 14/7/77)
It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged
in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To
answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with
liberated persons not directly, physically, but by
understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life.
(SB 3:31:48)
I am always with you. Never mind if I am physically
absent.
(Letter to Jayananda, 16/9/67)
Paramananda: We're always feeling your presence very strongly, Srila
Prabhupada, simply by your teachings and your instructions. We're always
meditating on your instructions.
Srila Prabhupada: Thank you. That is the real presence.
Physical presence is not important.
(Room Conversation, Vrndavana, 6/10/77)
You write that you have desire to avail of my association again, but why do you
forget that you are always in association with me? When you are helping my
missionary activities I am always thinking of you, and you are always thinking
of me . That is real association. Just like I am always thinking of my Guru
Maharaja at every moment, although he is not physically present, and
because I am trying to serve him to my best capacity, I am sure he is helping
me by his spiritual blessings. So there are two kinds of association:
physical and preceptorial. Physical association is not
so important as preceptorial association.
(Letter to Govinda Dasi, 18/8/69)
As far as my blessing is concerned, it does not require my physical
presence. If you are chanting Hare Krsna there, and following my
instructions, reading the books, taking only Krsna prasadam etc., then there is
no question of your not receiving the blessings of Lord Caitanya, whose mission
I am humbly trying to push on.
(Letter to Bala Krsna, 30/6/74)
'Anyone who has developed unflinching faith in the Lord and the Spiritual
Master can understand the revealed scripture unfolding before him'. So continue
your present aptitude and you will be successful in your spiritual progress. I
am sure that even if I am not physically present
before you, still you will be able to execute all spiritual duties in
the matter of Krsna Consciousness, if you follow the above principles.
(Letter to Subala, 29/9/67)
So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should
be accepted as the presence of the Spiritual Master, vibration. What we have
heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living.
(General lectures, 69/01/13)
Devotee: ...so sometimes the Spiritual Master is far away. He may be in
Los Angeles. Somebody is coming to Hamburg Temple. He thinks 'How will the
Spiritual Master be pleased?'
Srila Prabhupada: Just follow his order, Spiritual Master is along with
you by his words. Just like my Spiritual Master is not
physically present, but I am associating with him by
his words.
(SB Lectures, 71/08/18)
Just like I am working, so my Guru Maharaja is there, Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati. Physically he may not be, but in every action he
is there. To serve master's word is more important than to serve
physically.
(Room Conversation, Vrindavan, 2/5/77)
So that is called Prakata, physically present. But that does not
mean, Krsna is dead or God is dead. That does not mean, Prakata or Aprakata,
physically present or not present, it does not
matter.
(Lectures SB 73/12/11)
So, spiritually, there is no question of separation, even physically we
may be in far distant place.
(Letter to Syama Dasi, 30/08/68)
I went to your country for spreading this information of Krsna
Consciousness and you are helping me in my mission, although I am not
physically present there but spiritually I am always
with you.
(Letter to Nandarani, Krsna Devi and Subala, 3/10/67)
We are not separated actually. There are two - Vani or Vapuh - so Vapu
is physical presence and Vani is presence by the vibration, but they are
all the same.
(Letter to Hamsadutta, 22/6/70)
So in the absence of physical presentation of the spiritual master, the
Vaniseva is more important. My Spiritual Master Sarsavati Goswami, may appear
to be physically not present, but still because I try to
serve his instruction, I never feel separated from him.
(Letter to Karandhara, 22/8/70)
I also do not feel separation from my Guru Maharaja. When I am engaged in his
service, his pictures give me sufficient strength. To serve master's word is
more important than to serve him physically.
(Letter to Syamasundara, 19/7/70)
(Letter to Satyadhana, 20/272)
So spiritually appearance and disappearance, there is no difference ...
spiritually there is no such difference, appearance or disappearance. Although
this is the disappearance day of Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura, there is nothing to be lamented, although we feel
separation.
(Lecture, Los Angeles 13/12/73)
So my Guru Maharaja will be very, very much pleased with you ... it is not that
he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding ... he is seeing. I
never feel that I am alone.
(Lecture, 2/3/75)
Vani is more important than vapuh.
(Letter to Tusta Krishna Das, 14/12/72)
Yes I am glad that your centre is doing so well and all the devotees are now
appreciating the presence of their spiritual master by following his
instructions, although he is no longer present. This is the right spirit.
(Letter to Karandhara, 13/9/70)
The spiritual master by his words, can penetrate into the heart
of the suffering person and inject knowledge transcendental which alone
can extinguish the fire of material existence.
(SB(1987 Ed) 1.7.22)
There are two words, vani and vapuh. Vani means words, and vapuh means
the physical body. Vapuh will be finished. This material body it will be
finished, that is the nature. But if we keep to the vani, to the words of the
spiritual master, then we remain very fixed up...if you always keep intact, in
link with the words and instructions of the higher instructions, then you are
always fresh. This is spiritual understanding.
(General lectures, 75/03/02)
So we should give more stress on the sound vibration, either of Krsna or
Spiritual Master. Never think that I am absent from you, presence by message(or
hearing) is the real touch.
(Letter to students, August 1967)
Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition.
(SB (1987)Ed) 7.7.1.)
The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is
apparently absent.
(SB 2.9.8.)
The disciple and Spiritual Master are never separated because the Spiritual
Master always keeps company with the disciple as long as the disciple follows
strictly the instructions of the Spiritual Master. This is called the
association of Vani. Physical presence is called Vapuh. As long as the
Spiritual Master is physically present, the disciple should serve the
physical body of the Spiritual Master, and when the Spiritual Master is
no longer physically existing, the disciple should serve the
instructions of the Spiritual Master.
(SB 4:28:47)
If there is no chance to serve the spiritual master directly, a devotee should
serve him by remembering his instructions. There is no difference between the
spiritual masters instructions and the spiritual master himself. In the absence
therefore, his words of direction should be pride of the disciple.
(CC(1975 Ed) Adi 1.35)
He lives forever by his divine instructions, and the follower lives with him.
(SB(1962 Ed) Preface)
He reasons ill who tells that Vaisnavas die, when thou art still living
in sound.
(Bhaktivinoda Thakura)
Yes, the ecstacy of separation of Spiritual Master is even greater ecstasy than
meeting with him.
(Letter to Jadurani, 13/1/68)
Krsna and his representative are the same. Similarly, the spiritual
master can be present wherever the disciple wants. A spiritual master is the
principle, not the body. Just like a television can be seen in thousands of
place by the principle of relay monitoring.
(Letter to Malati, 28/5/68)
It is better service to Krsna and Spiritual Master in a feeling of
separation; sometimes there is a risk in the matter of direct service.
(Letter to Madhusudana, 31/12/67)
Srila Prabhupada: Well the questions are answ...answers are there in my
books.
(Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)
So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my
books. Then all your questions will be answered.
(Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76)
If it is possible to go to the temple, then take advantage of the
temple. A temple is a place where by one is given the opportunity to render
direct devotional service to the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna. In conjunction with
this you should always read my books daily and all your questions will
be answered and you will have a firm basis of Krishna Consciousness. In this
way your life will be perfect.
(Letter to Hugo Salemon, 22/11/74)
Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice, in the
morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered.
( Letter to Randhira, 24/01/70)
In my books the philosophy of Krsna Consciousness is explained fully so
if there is anything you do not understand, then you simply have to read again
and again. By reading daily the knowledge will be
revealed to you and by this process your
spiritual life will develop.
(Letter to Brahmarupa Dasa, 22/11/74)
Srila Prabhupada: Even a moments association with a pure devotee - all
success!
Revitananda: Does that apply to reading the words of a pure devotee?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes
Revitananda: Even a little association with your books has the same
effect?
Srila Prabhupada: Effect. Of course it requires both things. One must be
very eager to take it.
(Room Conversation, 13/12/70)
After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost
ended. So you have to carry on, and these books will do
everything.
(Room Conversation, 18/2/76)
Paramahamsa: My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on
Bhagavad Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in
contact with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. You can associate with Krsna by reading
Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations,
comments. So where is the difficulty?
(Morning Walk, Paris 11/6/74)
There is nothing new to be said. Whatever I had to say, I have
already said in my books. Now you must try to
understand it and continue with your endeavours. Whether I am present or not
does not matter.
(Vrindavan, 17/5/77)
If I depart there is no cause for lamentation. I will always be with you
through my books and orders. I will always remain with you in that way.
(BTG 13:1-2, December 1977)
Srila Prabhupada: I will never die!
Devotees: Jaya! Haribol!
Srila Prabhupada: I will live forever from my books and you will
utilise.
(Interview, Berkley, 17/7/75)
Indian Lady: ... is that spiritual master still guiding after death?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, yes. Just like Krsna is guiding us, similarly
spiritual master will guide us.
(General lectures, 69/09/23)
Eternal bond between disciple and Spiritual Master begins from the day he
hears.
(Letter to Jadurani, 4/9/72)
The influence of the pure devotee is such that if someone comes to
associate with him with a little faith, he gets the chance of hearing
about the Lord from authoritative scriptures like Srimad Bhagavatam and
Bhagavad Gita. This is the first stage of association with the pure devotee.
(Nectar of Devotion, (1982 Ed.), p146)
These are not ordinary books. It is recorded chanting. Anyone who reads, he
is hearing.
(Letter to Rupanuga Das, 19/10/74)
Regarding parampara system, there is nothing to wonder for big gaps. We
have to pick up the prominent acarya and follow from him.
(Letter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)
These great souls(members of the disciplic succession) were not mere luminaries
like comets appearing in the firmament for a while and disappearing as soon as
their mission is done. They are like so many suns shining all along to give
light and heat to succeeding generations. Long time yet to roll on when they
will be succeeded by others of sublime mind, beauty and calibre.
(Bhaktivinoda Thakura)
Narayana: So those disciples who don't have the opportunity to see you
or speak with you...
Srila Prabhupada: That he was speaking, vani and vapuh. Even if you
don't see his body, you take his words, vani.
Narayana: But how do they know that they're pleasing you?
Srila Prabhupada: If you actually follow the words of Guru, that means
he is pleased. And if you do not follow, how can he be pleased?
Sudama: Not only that, but your mercy is spread everywhere, and if we
take advantage, you told us once, then we will feel the result.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Jayadvaita: And if we have faith in what the Guru says, then
automatically we'll do that.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. My Guru Maharaja passed away in 1936, and I
started this movement in 1965, 30 years after. Then? I am getting mercy of
Guru. This is vani. Even if Guru is not physically present, if you follow
the vani, then you are getting help.
Sudama: So there is no question of ever separation as long as the
disciple follows the instructions of Guru.
Srila Prabhupada: No. Cakhu-dano-dilo-jei. What is the next one?
Sudama: Cakhu-dano-dilo-jei, janme janme prabhu sei.
Srila Prabhupada: Janme janme prabhu sei. So where there is separation?
Who has opened your eyes, he is birth after birth your prabhu.
(Room conversation, 21/7/75)
Madhudvisa: Is there any way for a Christian to do without the help of a
Spiritual Master. To reach the spiritual sky through believing the words of
Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings?
Srila Prabhupada: I don't follow.
Tamala Krishna Goswami: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual
Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the ...
Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual
Master. How can you say without. As soon as you read the Bible, that means you
are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means that you are
following the Spiritual Master. So where is the opportunity of being without
Spiritual Master.
Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living Spiritual Master.
Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of ... Spiritual
Master is eternal...so your question is 'without Spiritual Master'. Without
Spiritual Master you cannot be at any stage of your life. You may accept this
Spiritual master or that Spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you
have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible", when you read Bible that
means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some
clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.
(Morning Walk, Seattle, 2/10/68)
You have asked if it is true that the spiritual master remains in the universe
until all his disciples are transferred to the spiritual sky. The answer is
yes, this is the rule.
(Letter to Jayapataka, 11/7/69)
This booklet is a humble attempt to present the instructions Srila Prabhupada
left the Governing Body Commission on how he intended initiations to continue
within the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Although we will
refer to several papers and articles that have been published by senior ISKCON
devotees on this subject, the main points of reference will be the GBC's most
recent official handbook on initiation entitled 'Gurus And Initiation In
ISKCON' (to be referred to henceforward as GII), and the paper
'On My Order Understood' which is mentioned under section 1.1 of
the 'Laws of ISKCON':
Anyone who knew Srila Prabhupada would often note his meticulous nature. His
fastidious attention to every detail of his devotional service was one of Srila
Prabhupada's most distinguishing characteristics; and for those who served him
closely, was profound evidence of his deep love and devotion to Lord Sri Krsna.
His whole life was dedicated to carrying out the order of his spiritual
master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and in that duty he was uncannily vigilant. He
left nothing to chance, always correcting, guiding and chastising his disciples
in his effort to establish ISKCON. His mission was his life, he even said
ISKCON was his body.The above account is not a political opinion, it is historical fact,
accepted by everyone, including the GBC.
Consequently , for a disciple to stop following this order, with any degree of
legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing so. The only thing
that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to follow the ritvik
system. He never told us to stop following it, or that one could only
follow it in his physical presence. The onus of proof will naturally fall on
those who wish to terminate any system put in place by our acarya, and
left to run henceforward. This is an obvious point; one can not just stop
following the order of the guru whimsically:
Summary :
sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih
maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu
diksitah
sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah
Srila Prabhupada: What is that?
Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual
leader of Krsna Consciousness?
Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me.
This is the guru parampara.
Indian man: Did it...
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can
become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all.
Otherwise nobody can become guru.
Srila Prabhupada: I will never die
Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter)
Srila Prabhupada: I will live from my books and you will
utilise.
(SP Press Conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)
*(1)
- This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila das's paper 'Regular or
Ritvik', published in the GBC's ISKCON Journal 1990.
Srila Prabhupada: Formal initiation means to accept officially to abide by
the orders of Krsna and his representative. That is formal
initiation.
Disciple: As long as one is following, then he
is...
Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right.
The GBC claims in GII that the sole justification for
modifications a) & b) to the final July 9th order comes
from a taped room conversation which took place in Vrindavan on May 28th, 1977.
These modifications are given below for reference:
(2) particularly at
that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how
(3) first and second
initiation(s) would be conducted.
(4) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall
recommend some of you. After this is settled up
(5) I
shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya(s).
(6) Tamal Krsna Goswami: Is that called ritvik
acarya?
(7) Srila Prabhupada: Ritvik.
Yes.
(8) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: (Then) What is the
relationship of that person who gives the initiation and ...
(9) Srila Prabhupada: He's guru. He's
guru.
(10) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: But he does it on your behalf.
(11) Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality.
Because in my presence one should not become guru,
(12) so on my behalf.
On my order, amara ajnaya guru hana, (he is) (be) actually
guru.
(13) But by my order.
(15) Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples,
(but) (why) consider ... who
(16) Tamal Krsna Goswami: No. He is asking that these
ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa,
(17) (their)...
the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are
they?
(18) Srila Prabhupada: They are his
disciples.
(19) Tamal Krsna Goswami: They are his disciples (?)
(20) Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating ...
(his) (he is) grand-disciple ...
(21) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: (Yes)
(22) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (That's clear)
(23) Tamal Krsna Goswami: (Let's go on)
(24) Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: Then we have a question
concerning ...
(25) Srila Prabhupada: When I order you become
guru, he becomes regular guru.
(26) That's all.
He becomes disciple of my disciple. (That's it). (Just see).
Srila Prabhupada: They are (the ritvik's) disciples.
TKG: They are (the ritvik's)
disciples.
Srila Prabhupada: (The ritvik) is initiating ...
(The ritvik's) grand-disciple ...
The GBC body should act solely within the parameters it was set by Srila
Prabhupada. It pains us to see Srila Prabhupada's representative body in any
way compromised, since it was his desire that everyone cooperate under it's
direction.
This facility to use representatives is again repeated a few lines later when
discussing the observation required for prospective second initiation
candidates:
It may be argued that the elimination of personal pariksa was justified
because the guru was still present on the planet. Thus, at least personal
pariksa could theoretically have occured. However
this argument has no basis since:
Srila Prabhupada made it very clear what standards he expected in a disciple;
the Temple Presidents and ritviks were meant to see them continued. The
standards for initiation today are identical to those established by Srila
Prabhupada whilst he was present. So if he requested not to be consulted whilst
he was present, what makes us think he would urgently want to intervene now?
The only concern for us is to ensure that the standards are rigidly maintained
without change or speculation.
Tamal Krsna Goswami: On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
It might be argued that although Srila Prabhupada was not present at these
initiations, still he was physically present on the same planet at the time
they took place. So is the guru's physical presence on the planet during
initiation essential to diksa? In order to lend weight to this argument we
would need to find an injunction in Srila Prabhupada's books to the effect
that:
Srila Prabhupada: I don't follow.
Tamal Krsna Goswami: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual
Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach
the...
Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow Spiritual Master. How
can you say without? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are
following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means that you are
following Spiritual Master. So where is the opportunity of being without
Spiritual Master?
Madhudvisa: I was referring to a living Spiritual
Master.
Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of...Spiritual Master
is eternal. Spiritual Master is eternal...So your question is 'without
Spiritual Master'. Without Spiritual Master you cannot be at any stage of your
life. You may accept this Spiritual Master or that Spiritual Master. That is a
different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that "by reading Bible",
when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master
represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus
Christ.
These particular 'Christian' practices were never taught by
Jesus, and were totally condemned by Srila
Prabhupada:
Devotees can also assist in the above two activities (by preaching, book
distribution etc.), but they are vartma-pradasaka gurus, not
diksa gurus.
Srila Prabhupada: Diksa means divya-jnanam
ksapayati iti diksa. Which explains the divya-jnana,
transcendental, that is Diksa. Di, divya, diksanam. Diksa. So
divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge... If you don't accept a spiritual
master, how you'll get transcen... You'll be taught here and there, here and
there, and waste time. Waste time for the teacher and waste your valuable time.
Therefore you have to be guided by an expert spiritual master. Read it.
Pradyumna: Krsna-diksadi-siksanam.
Srila Prabhupada: Siksanam. We have to learn. If you don't learn,
how you'll make progress? Then?
Srila Prabhupada: It is already successful.
Guest: But there must be somebody you know,
needed to handle the thing.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees
who will handle.
Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would
like to know, is your successor named or your successor
will...
Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there.
Srila Prabhupada: I will never die
Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter)
Srila Prabhupada: I will live from my books and you will
utilise.
(SP Press Conference, 16/7/75, San
Francisco)
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there.
Ramesvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide
the Movement in the future.
Srila Prabhupada: They will guide, I am training them.
Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader
though?
Srila Prabhupada: No. I am training GBC, 18 all over the
world.
Srila Prabhupada: That I am not contemplating now. But there is no need of
one person.
Srila Prabhupada: Not yet settled up. Not yet settled up.
Interviewer: So what process? Would the Hare
Krsnas...
Srila Prabhupada: We have got secretaries. They are managing.
It is clear that the approach of each acarya is fairly unique; so
to talk about a 'regular' system for continuing the parampara is practically
meaningless.
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.
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.
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. 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.
How will it be possible for a new self-effulgent diksa guru to emerge
within ISKCON, when the only person allowed to give diksa is Srila
Prabhupada?
'Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the
Society is extant.'
Having said this it is always possible that Srila Prabhupada could revoke the
order if he wanted to. As stated previously the counter instruction would need
to be at least as clear and unequivocal as the personally signed letter which
put the ritvik system in place in the first place. With Krsna and his
pure devotees anything is possible:
Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be
added."
Srila Prabhupada: That Krsna will dictate, who will take my place."Proponents of ritvik just don't want to surrender to a
Guru."
We have kept this brief since it is a subject on which another paper could be
written; more importantly it is a topic that is not directly relevant to the
issue in hand - namely what Srila Prabhupada actually ordered. Just because the
Diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata does not mean we have to have
a ritvik system, or that Srila Prabhupada set up such a system.
Conversely even if the qualification of a Diksa guru was simple, that
does not mean Srila Prabhupada did not order a ritvik system. We
simply need to examine what Srila Prabhupada did and follow that; not
what Srila Prabhupada may or should have done. This paper has
dealt exclusively with Srila Prabhupada's actual final instructions. We have
also touched on this subject on pages 9 and 36.
"What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by
GBC?"
Let us all cooperate under the direction of Srila Prabhupada's final
order.
Only Srila Prabhupada can unite us.
What is a Ritvik?
We shall now compare these definitions with the role of a ritvik as
given by Srila Prabhupada.
So in summary the system would work exactly as it did when Srila Prabhupada was
still on the planet. The mood, attitude, relationship between the various
parties etc. will continue unchanged from the way it was for a brief four month
period in 1977. As Srila Prabhupada emphatically stated in the second paragraph
of his Will: "The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."
ISKCON
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
Founder-Acharya: His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
The following is a transcript of an actual page of Yasodanandana
Swami's (as he was then) diary. It is an entry listed under the
page for 10th July 1977, recording an exchange between
Yasodanandana Swami and Tamala Krsna Goswami.
Yasodanandana Swami: No, what is it?
Tamala Krsna Goswami: This is signed by Prabhupada. (He pointed
to Srila Prabhupada's signature in the left hand bottom corner. I
read the entire letter and then asked him:)
Yasodanandana Swami: What does all this mean?
Tamala Krsna Goswami: Devotees have been writing to Prabhupada
asking for initiation, and now Prabhupada has named eleven
ritviks who can initiate on his behalf. Prabhupada said that
others can be added.
Yasodanandana Swami: And when Prabhupada departs?
Tamala Krsna Goswami: They'll be Ritviks. That's what Prabhupada
said. It's all on tape. Haribol.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
Founder-Acharya His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
(signature appears on original)
c/o ISKCON New Vrndavana
Tamala Krsna Goswami
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
(signature appears on the original)
Tamala Krsna: "I'm not sure of the particular incidences, but
I've heard general..."
Srila Prabhupada: "In Germany. In Germany."
Tamala Krsna: "The devotees there."
Srila Prabhupada: "So many complaints."
Tamala Krsna: "Therefore, change is good."
Srila Prabhupada: "You become guru, but you must be qualified
first of all. Then you become.
Tamala Krsna: "Oh, that kind of complaint was there."
Srila Prabhupada: "Did you know that?"
Tamala Krsna: "Yeah, I heard that, yeah."
Srila Prabhupada: "What is the use of producing some rascal
guru?"
Tamala Krsna: "Well, I have studied myself and all of your
disciples, and it's a clear fact that we are all conditioned
souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible."
Srila Prabhupada: "Hmm!"
Tamala Krsna: "...but not now."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say
who is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I am
waiting for that. You become, all, acarya. I retire completely.
But the training must be complete."
Tamala Krsna: "The process of purification must be there."
Srila Prabhupada: "Oh yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahaprabhu
wants. amara ajnaya guru hana. You become guru. But be qualified.
(Laughs) Little thing, strictly follower."
Tamala Krsna: "No rubber stamp."
Srila Prabhupada: "Then you'll not be effective. You can cheat,
but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Math. Everyone
wanted to become guru, and a small temple and guru. What kind of
guru? No publication, no preaching, simply bring some
foodstuff...My Guru Maharaja used to say, 'Joint mess, a place
for eating and sleeping."
A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami
Founder-Acharya:
International Society for Krishna Conciousness
Bhaktivedanta Swami Marg
Ramanareti, Vrndavana, U.F.
Witnesses:
Bhagavan das Adhikari
and several other witnesses. (signatures on original document)
Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the
transcendental sound received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance
of life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very
strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting places and
this will be source of inspiration for you.
So far as personal association with Guru is concerned, I was only
with Guru Maharaj 4 or 5 times, but I have never left his association, not
even for a moment. Because I am following his instruction, I have never felt
any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India, who had
constant personal association with Guru Maharaja, but who are neglecting his
orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He may
be very puffed up by his position but all he can succeed in doing is biting the
king. Personal association is not so important as association through
serving.
Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you're not present with us,
how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may
arise...
Reporter: Who will succeed you when you die?