© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL February 5, 1999 VNN2962 See Related VNN Stories ISKCON's Representative Gurus BY AMEYATMA DAS EDITORIAL, Feb 5 (VNN) — All Glories To Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga. All Glories to all the assembled Vaishnava devotees. A few days ago I was asked to read a petition written by a group of Prabhupad Grand-disciples here in Alachua, then, if I agreed, to sign it. They plan to present their petition to the GBC. I generally have my own strong opinions on matters, thus I have a real hard time signing on to very broad multi-faceted petitions. If I don't fully agree with everything, I won't sign it. Since I didn't agree with everything I decided to wrote them a response. When I started my response I had no idea or intention of writing or saying what actually came out. In fact, I was very enlightened by some of the points when I read it back to myself. I am a 1,000 levels below Srila Prabhupad, but still, just as he did not feel it was him writing, and he became enlivened reading his own books, in a very similar way, I was very enlivened by reading what I wrote. Because of that I felt others may also be interested, so I sent to a number of GBC, senior devotees and many from a list of Alachua temple devotees. One well respected senior Prabhupad disciple here responded with favorably and asked that send the letter to VNN. Therefore, here it is. The devotee the letter is addressed to, PrabhupadaAcharya das, is a disciple of Virabahu Prabhu, therefore I have used Virabahu Prabhu as an example in the letter. Since I had not written it as an article, I have made additional comments in [ brackets ]. PrabhupadaAcharya Prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP I read the articles on your Grand Disciples page. You will not like my response, but please read it in full. I am sorry, but I cannot fully support your views. I am not opposed to all of what you say, but I do not support all of it. I have my own views. I am not totally opposed to devotees who have accepted the Ritvik idea, although I do not fully accept their ideas either. I do oppose non-cooperation. I want that we all cooperate. The argument maybe, "How can you cooperate with those who are philosophically opposed to the accepted ISKCON standards of Sampradaya?" To know my position, you will have to read this whole letter. The problem that I see is this. Both sides, down in their hearts, feel they are right. (Both sides of the Ritvik issue) Thus they see the other side as incorrect, shastricaly or in the way they percieve as being SP's true desire. Thus, the older devotees who are 100% Ritvik feel they have a duty to establish what they feel is correct. And on the other hand many grand dsiciples feel that their anger and complete lack of any respect for the opinions of much more senior devotees who are pro Ritivik and their disdain for them is also justified. After all, the GBC has no respect for them, their gurus do not respect them. So, they feel fully justified to be disrespectful and look down upon so many Vaishnavs who are very senior to them. In my humble opinion, that is very wrong. I see the ritvik issue, and the followers of it, differently then you do. I don't have time to pull quotes right now, but in an article on your web page you quoted SP (Detroit 71) as saying that his disciples will carry on in the future and become gurus, just like him. You also pointed out that the idea of seeing SP as a more important guru then the diksha is offensive for that is jumping over the head of the immediate diksha. I want to point out some things for you to consider, carefully. Back in 1973 devotees in LA, on a trip to India, had purchased trunk loads of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's books and Bhaktivinode's books, in English, from the Gaudiya Math. They shipped them to the US and on arrival began to pass them around and sell them to devotees to read. Many devotees were quite enlivened to read the teachings of Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. But, when SP found out, he had become very, very angry. He ordered Karandhar to confiscate all copies, then BURN them ALL.[He ordered his own disciple to burn SP's own guru's books]. SP instructed that this was juimping over his head, jumping over the head of the immediate guru and taking teachings directly from the previous guru, even though it was only reading the books of the previous Acharyas. SP told us only those books that he authorized us to read were we allowed to do so. That is how strictly he treated this topic of jumping over his head. But, contrast this with the fact that it is SP's OWN desire, and the policy of the GBC, that all ISKCON devotees, new and old alike, not only 'can', but MUST DIRECTLY read and study SP's books. His books are the foundation for ISKCON law and philosophy - period. Not only 'can' new devotees directly study SP's books, they MUST study his books DIRECTLY. This introduces a very significant wrinkle in the idea of jumping over the immediate guru. It rightfully asks the question, who is the real guru, or the more important guru? It definately presents SP's position to the grand disciples in a 'different' role then was Bhaktisiddhanta's position with us. Let me add further another wrinkle. When SP came to the West he came with a trunk load of books. Srimad Bhagavatams. Whose books were they? His gurus? No. They were his own. But, lets say Virabahu Prabhu were to go to a new city to preach. Would he take with him a trunk load of his own books, or SP's books? Lets examine this further. When SP registered the first temple in the US he created ISKCON. In India he also had established the League of Devotees. In both cases, he did not set out to establish centers for the Gaudiya Math. This is also VERY significant. Why? Because, if say Virabahu were to go to a new city and open a new temple, he would do so as a representative of ISKCON and the temple he established would be an ISKCON temple. SP did NOT do this. He did not come as a representative of the Gaudiya Math, he came and established his own temples, separate and independent from the Gaudiya Math. He established his own temples, his own separate society of temples and management completely apart from and separate from the temples and society of his own diksha guru. And, he established his own books as the basis for his own separate society. And he established that his books will continue to be the basis of all teachings in his ISKCON society for all new devotees for 10,000 years and more. This presents SP in a completely different way to all new devotees then the way we saw or related to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. And it presents the newer diksha gurus in a completely different way then how SP was to us. In a very real sense, SP fully acted as his own guru, lets say, an independent guru, as opposed to coming as a representative of the Gaudiya Math. Of coiurse, he was representing Bhaktisiddhanta, and acted only under his order, still, he did not put Bhaktisiddhanta forth as our direct guru or that we must read his books, etc or that we belonged to Bhaktisiddhanta's society. He came independent of any other organization. He was, in that sense, his own independent guru. Not a representative of the management of or under the control of the Gaudiya Math. Contrast this to the current ISKCON dikshas. They are 'not' their own independent gurus, not in the same way as SP was. They are representatiives of SP, representabives of ISKCON. They are not making their own temples outside of ISKCON. They are not teaching from their own books. They are making ISKCON devotees on behalf of ISKCON. They are initiating ISKCON devotees on behalf of ISKCON, not on their own behalf or on behalf of a separate temple or society that they founded. This is Definately a factor that Must be considered. Does that mean I support ritvik. Not entirely. I do accept that the new gurus give diksha, and the disciples are their disciples. That is why I am not partaking in the ritvik camp. I don't fully support their ideas either. But, I also contend, based on the FACTUAL situations outlined above, that the positions and roles of the current ISKCON gurus are very much different from those of SP. The differences outlined above MUST be taken into FULL consideration. You cannot discount these differences as being insignificant. SP said that his followers were to become like him and also become gurus. In which way? To start their own societies separate from ISKCON? To write their own books and have their disciples distribute them and read them, and NOT SPs? Well, maybe???? That is one option. But, that would be entirely separate from ISKCON. Like Tripurari Svami. I see his work as bona fied in that sense. But, it is NOT a part of ISKCON. Still, he is his own independent guru. He has his own temples, he writes and publishes his own books, etc. Fine, just as SP did. And his relationship with SP may still be favorable. But, it is totally separate from ISKCON. He is not representing ISKCON. He is not under the authority of ISKCON's GBC. The gurus within ISKCON are. They are not independent. The ISKCON gurus act completely under the control and authority of Srila Bhaiktivedanta Swami Prabhupad's ISKCON management, the GBC. They are soley empowered by the GBC and in that sense are initiating on behalf of and representatives of ISKCON's GBC and Srila Prabhupad. Is that Ritvik? In some ways, yes. Compared with someone like Tripurari who is his own authority of his own temples and society, and not under any GBC control, in that sense the ISKCON gurus are representatives, or ritvik if you choose that word. However, where I do not agree with the Ritviks is that I also accept that the ISKCON gurus are also Diksha gurus. Not the same as someone like Tripurari who acts independently, but, they are still dikshas and there is still room for guru-disciple relationships of a degree. But, not independdent, thus they can only relate in ways restricted ultimately by the real authority in ISKCON, the GBC Body. [It is the GBC (or SP while he was physically here) who has the authority in ISKCON to say, this person can now initiate, that person can no longer initiate. And it is the GBC who dictate that such and such relationship between guru and disciple is acceptable, and some other relation is not. Thus, it is the GBC who is the ultimate authority, not the individual gurus. ISKCON gurus are not independent, they act only under the control of and behalf of the GBC] Thus, ISKCON gurus are giving diksha under the control of and on behalf of the GBC. Not they initiate for their own separate ashrams. Maybe that can be called ritvik, but, it is also diksha guru. Thus, I see the ritvik issue as being a gray line. What is ritvik and what is not? Independent guru, or representative guru? One has established his own ashrams, his own temples and operates on his own authority and control, or one esstablishes temples on behalf of ISKCON, under the control of ISKCON, one initiates on behalf of and under the control of ISKCON. [The new disciple becomes a member of the gurus own ashram, or he becomes a member of SP's (ISKCON's) ashram]. Is that Ritvik? Call it what you want, but IT IS THE SYSTEM WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD IN PLACE IN ISKCON since 1977!!! Thus, I see the ritbik issue as too gray an issue..So, how can we be so bitterly opposed to each other over such a disappearing gray line? And that is why I say the best policy for us all is to remain respectful to each other, and respect the senior devotees and respect their feelings of love for SP. The issue is not unresolvable. It can be easily resolved by proper understanding. We just need to understand our situations better. I am completely opposed to this mood and move by leaders in ISKCON to try and push Ritviks out. To ban them, or even ban them from management. Look at it this way. There is a guru who comes and starts an ashram, students come and take initiation. The guru leaves this world and a couple of disciples take up the task of being guru and initiate. BUT, one difference. They did not go out and start their own ashrams, they are still living in and using the ashrams of their guru. So, some other disciples speak out and say, this is our gurus ashram, only he is guru in his own ashrams. So, what do the new gurus and their followers do? They tell the other disciples of the original guru, because you say that only the guru who Founded this ashram is to be guru, for that 'offense' you are no longer welcome in your guru's ashrams, please leave. What is that? What 'offense' they have committed? On one hand they are right. BUT, on the other, SP's order is there, become guru... carry on the sampradaya. So, that is why I do not consider myself what others call ritvik. I see the new gurus as true dikshas, but, restricted as representative gurus under ISKCON GBC authority. They are acting as Diksha on behalf of ISKCON, not like Tripurari who is initiating on his own. So, on one hand they must be seen as representatives, on the other hand, they should still be seen as dikshas. Thus I see a disappearing gray line, not black and white, between the ritvik camp and the non-ritviks. A line that begs for cooperation from both sides, not disrespect and disdain. Since 1977 ISKCON has always had a system of non-independent gurus who initiate only under the authority of ISKCON's GBC. There has never been independent gurus in ISKCON. If they become independent, then like Tripurari, they are no longer ISKCON gurus. Thus, ISKCON gurus have always been initating on behalf of the GBC. I have no problem labeling that as ritvik. But, I just keep the idea they are also giving actual diksha, not independently, but under the control of and behalf of the GBC. Thus, I cannot fully support your points of view. I only ask that we remain cordial and on cooperative terms. I will also send copies of this to your initiating guru, Virabahu Prabhu, and other senior devotees and ask them to reply and address these points and views I am making here. I will also send to Chakra, the IRG, etc. [and VNN] Hoping this meets you happily engaged in the service of Nitai and Gauranga's Dancing Lotus Feet (If They could only make Their Four Lotus Feet Dance on My foolish head) (Oh my mind dance, uttering kindly the sweet names of Nitai-Caitanya. Dayal Nitai Chaitanya Bole, Nachre Amar Mon) ys ameyatma das See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9902/ET05-2962.html
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
