January 5, 1999   VNN2792   See Related VNN Stories

Srila Prabhupada 'Deliverer' Or 'Instrumental' Guru?

BY SWAMI B.G. NARASINGHA

EDITORIAL, Jan 5 (VNN) — (A brief commentary on the article "The Founder-Acharya and Other Gurus in Madhva and Sri Sampradayas" by Vidvan Gauranga das, posted on Chakra.

The article under discussion begins by establishing certain well known scholars from the Ramanuja and Madhva sampradayas (most notably Sri Sri Rangapriya Swami Desikachar and 'Vidyavachaspati' Bannanje Govindachar) as authoritative sources of transcendental knowledge regarding guru-tattva. We have personally had the pleasure to meet Sri Rangapriya Swami Desikachar and Bannanje Govindachar on numerous occasions, and are happy to say that they are every bit the scholars and sincere devotees of Sri Ramanuja Acharya and Sri Madhva Acharya, respectively, that Vidvan Gauranga das indicates they are.

We shall also agree at the outset that what the Madhva and Ramanuja scholars have stated is indeed true to their creed and applicable to the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya, at least in regard to some basic principles concerning guru-tattva, Founder Acharya, successor gurus, etc.

However, the conception of guru-tattva in the Madhva tradition is quite different from the concept of guru-tattva presently recognized in the Gaudiya sampradaya. The fact that Madhva Acharya himself could not accept the pastime wherein Brahma (the original guru of both his and our sampradaya) became illusioned, is itself conclusive evidence for this statement. While Madhva omitted the section of Bhagavatam known as Brahma-vimohana-lila from his version, the 'Illusion of Brahma' was accepted by Sridhar Swami, the original commentator on the Bhagavatam, and Sridhar Swami's commentary was accepted by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

That which is useful to Gaudiyas in Madhva's commentary is certainly negligible compared to that of Sridhar Swami. Most notably, Madhva accepted Vishnu as the ashraya-tattva (ultimate shelter), whereas Sridhar Swami accepted Sri Vrindavan Chandra (Krsna) as the ashraya-tattva, and saranagati (surrender) as the ultimate sadhana or means to the end.

Bearing this in mind, it would be safe to say that guidance from the Madhva tradition in the matter of understanding guru-tattva among the Gaudiyas is indeed of limited value in the ultimate issue. Although it may be helpful to some devotees at this present time, as there seems to be a glaring inability of many to understand our own tradition from within, it will nonetheless lead to difficulty in the future.

The teachings of Ramanuja Acharya are indeed much closer to Gaudiya-siddhanta than those of Madhva Acharya. In the conception of Ramanuja Acharya, saranagati plays the essential role as it does in the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Regarding topics like diksa, archana, and sannyasa there are also more similarities between the Ramanujas and the Gaudiyas than there are between the Madhvas and the Gaudiyas. Our connection with the Madhvas is actually one of form, whereas our connection with the Ramanujas is based more on substance. The similarity between Ramanujas and Gaudiyas is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not the topic of this essay and can therefore be dealt with separately at another time.

Overall, the numerous rudimentary points regarding the Founder Acharya and the gurus that succeed him were well addressed in the article under discussion. There is a need, however, for some clarifications:

It is true that Madhva Acharya and Ramanuja Acharya each hold unique positions in their respective sampradayas as uddhaaraka-guru (Deliverer-guru). Correctly speaking, however, the 'Deliverer-guru' of the Ramanuja sect is Namalvar, one of the Twelve Alvars from whose writings Ramanuja drew his doctrine of 'saranagati' (surrender). Although Ramanuja regarded himself to be an upakaaraka-guru (Instrumental-Guru), he is nonetheless regarded as the head of the Sri-sampradaya in modern times, the uddhaaraka-guru.

One might ask that since Ramanuja considered himself an 'Instrumental-Guru,' how is it that his followers consider him the 'Deliverer-Guru'? The answer can be traced to the fact that it was Sri Ramanuja who gave shape to the Visisthadvaita philosophy (not accomplished previously by Namalvar) by writing a commentary on Vedanta-sutra. However, it can also be said that one who knows the answer to this question knows the secret of the guru-parampara.

The uddhaaraka-guru position held by Ramanuja Acharya and Madhva Acharya in their respective successions, has already been given to Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada in our Gaudiya-sampradaya by none other than Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, approximately 500 years ago.

Our Srila Prabhupada (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) does not hold the same position as Madhva or Ramanuja, since he did not introduce a new philosophical system or establish a sampradaya based on such. That was accomplished by Srila Rupa Goswami, and hence we (even Srila Prabhupada, Saraswati Thakura and Bhaktivinode Thakura) are all known as Rupanugas, followers of Srila Rupa Goswami.

Without being a Rupanuga, one can not be a 'Prabhupadanuga' (as followers of Srila Prabhupada are sometimes called), and vice-versa. Srila Prabhupada established ISKCON as an institution within an existing sampradaya, for preaching purposes only. ISKCON was not intended to be a separate sampradaya from that which was already established in this 20th century by Saraswati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinode. If it were, then a new tilaka would also be necessary for ISKCON, along with substantially more commentary --including a new commentary on the Vedanta-sutra in Sanskrit, showing how Srila Prabhupada's conception differed from that of his predecessor Acharyas. Indeed no intelligent disciple would entertain such a thought for even a moment.

sri-caitanya-mano-bhistam sthapitam yena-bhu-tale
svayam rupah kada mahyam dadati sva-padantikam

"When will Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada, who has established within this material world the mission to fulfill the desire of Sri Caitanya, give me shelter under his lotus feet"

I do not think that either ISKCON or the Ritvik proponents have understood this basic point. Srila Rupa Goswami is the head (uddhaaraka-guru) of our sampradaya in this world, and in the spiritual world also he is our supreme leader in the form of Sri Rupa Manjari. (The sampradaya of the Gaudiyas has descended from Goloka Vrindavana and its ontology is complete therein.)

It appears that both ISKCON and the Ritvik proponents, each in their own way, want to put Srila Prabhupada in the place of Rupa Goswami. This appears to be the case largely because a vast majority of devotees have no proper ontological understanding of siddhanta. The idea that Srila Prabhupada is the head of the sampradaya for the next 10,000 years (as it is held in ISKCON and by the Ritviks), has no basis in spiritual reality. It appears that many devotees are simply driven by mundane sentimentality, compounded with Vaishnava-aparadha. The result of this is complete bewilderment!!!

The position of Srila Rupa Goswami has been conclusively established by Saraswati Thakura in his last instructions before leaving the mortal world: "All of you please preach about Sri Rupa and Sri Raghunatha with great enthusiasm. The supreme goal of all our desires is to become specks of dust at the lotus feet of the followers of Sri Rupa Goswami."

Again, the supreme position of Srila Rupa Goswami in the Gaudiya sampradaya is made clear by Narottama dasa Thakura in his song, Sri Rupa Manjari Pada:

sri-rupa-manjari-pada, sei mora sampada
sei mor bhajana-pujana
sei mora prana-dhana, sei mora abharana
sei mor jivnera jivana É

"The feet of Sri Rupa Manjari (Rupa Goswami's eternal form as a gopi of Vraja) are my wealth. They are the objects of my bhajana and puja. They are the treasure of my heart, and they are my ornaments and the life of my life É"

Actually, Srila Prabhupada (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) was an upakaaraka-guru (Instrumental-Guru), in that he delivered his disciples at the lotus feet of Srila Rupa Goswami (the uddhaaraka-guru, the Deliverer-guru).

As for Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, He is our istha-deva or the most worshipable Deity of our sampradaya. But this too many devotees do not understand. Actually anyone who does not accept these basic conclusions regarding the position of Srila Rupa Goswami and that of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is a kanistha disciple, at best.

There is no indication by anyone from the Madhva or Ramanuja sampradayas that the 'Instrumental-Guru' cannot be a liberated soul or pure devotee, as is the 'Deliverer-guru.' The fact that all the Acharyas in our parampara since the time of Mahaprabhu were pure devotees does not alter the fact that they were 'Instrumental-Gurus,' and Srila Rupa Goswami was the 'Deliverer-guru.'

Therefore, our conclusion is that Srila Prabhupada does not become the head of a new sampradaya because he was a pure devotee, the founder of ISKCON or even a shaktavesa-avatar (which we believe he was). In fact, to become a pure devotee of Krsna is the necessary qualification to become guru of any kind, either uddhaaraka or upakaaraka! (There are no short cuts.) This is also not understood by ISKCON or the Ritviks.

If I'm not mistaken, the Madhvas and the Ramanujas understand this point to some degree, but the fact is that they have similar problems in their own sampradayas. For example, being a pure Vaishnava is not enough to initiate in their sampradayas; one has to be born a Brahmana, and this is often a contention among the Madhva and Ramanuja sampradayas.

An interesting point to note here is that ISKCON is prepared to inquire from advanced scholars outside our sampradaya, who know nothing of the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Six Goswamis, for a solution to their problems. But they refuse to inquire from advanced scholars and devotees who are surrendered souls at the lotus feet of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. ISKCON is prepared to accept the advice of those who are in complete ignorance of the divinity of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but they are averse to accept the advice of Mahaprabhu's direct representatives. Such a mentality could easily get one classified as a fool and a rascal.

It seems that the author of the Chakra article does indeed understand the difference between the uddhaaraka-guru and the upakaaraka-guru, save that he does not understand the position of Srila Prabhupada. It appears that ISKCON is trying to get out of a difficult situation with the Ritviks, but without outside help (Gaudiya Matha) they can not come to conclusive answers, at least answers that others will accept. Yet because they endure in their offenses to the senior members of our own sampradaya, they have no opportunity to approach them (either personally or through books).

It also appears that ISKCON does not fear that the Madhvas and Ramanujas will start re-initiating ISKCON devotees, as has happened in dealings with the Gaudiya Matha in the past. But they are again mistaken (Ramanujas have re-initiated several ISKCON devotees in Australia).

All these questions regarding the position of Srila Prabhupada and those gurus who would succeed him were already answered 20 years ago (1979) by Srila Sridhar Maharaja. Unfortunately, many of the devotees in leadership positions in the western Vaishnava communities have amnesia regarding this fact. But fortunately for all, the answers given by Srila Sridhar Maharaja regarding guru-tattva were recorded and published in a book called Sri Guru and His Grace. This book is recommended reading material for any and all devotees who would like clarification on the 'Guru Issue,' which seems to be tearing some Vaishnava communities apart.

At the conclusion of the article on Chakra, the author summarizes that in ISKCON Srila Prabhupada is the 'Deliverer-guru' and that he takes everyone back to Godhead. Yet, such a statement is not found anywhere in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada (books, letters, room conversations, or lectures, etc.). The conception that ISKCON is its own 'separate sampradaya' (separate from the line of Srila Rupa Goswami), is possibly the biggest deviation from the principles of pure devotional service to have occurred in our sampradaya since the reject sons of Advaita Acharya began to preach impersonalism.


About the Author | Other VNN Stories by this Author

See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story

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

---

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on