© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL April 20, 1999 VNN3653 See Related VNN Stories Amara Ajnaya BY J. M. DAS EDITORIAL, Apr 20 (VNN) — The following points have been jotted down after reading the 'Prabhupada Order'. It also examines the 'parampara argument' that is being used to oppose the ritvikism. 1. The number of times 'on my order' or amara ajnaya appears in this document (Prabhupada's Order), is most striking. It appears in the quotes, (like the one below). Apparently, Srila Prabhupada always qualified the general instruction, 'everyone should become Guru', by the red stop flag, but 'on my order'. The second most striking fact that comes through in this document and adds irony to it is that, clearly such an explicit order did not come forth. It makes one thing quite clear. Srila Prabhupada's repeatedly insisted on this clearance and therefore it is highly suspicious that it is missing. ["On My order." That is the crucial point. One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is not spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he's spiritual master. Amara ajnaya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So, we have tried it. That's all. (Srila Prabhupada, London, August 3, 1973, extract from the PO] 2. During his last days, Srila Prabhupada's main focus was to tie up loose ends. Such being the case, it seems highly unlikely that he would institute a temporary system concerning the single most volatile issue of future initiation. Being astute and ever wary, he would have easily realised its potential for creating confusion. Further, since senior disciples were assiduously manoeuvring to extract his final 'shortlist', he had every reason to be unambiguous and final about this issue. To assume that it was a temporary system to be followed by a permanent one, which did not materialise, is to say that Srila Prabhupada somehow slipped. This is very difficult to believe, as we are all aware that he was grappling with this crucial issue practically before he even established ISKCON. 3. There appear to be scant information, or confusing information, regarding this crucial issue of future initiation, and truly, we cannot attribute it to Srila Prabhupada. It seems entirely unlike Srila Prabhupada. Thus, we have to look elsewhere for the source of confusion. In fact, if you examine all available documents, it appears incomplete, as if edited or erased or doctored, perhaps knowingly or unknowingly by his staff. ('Unknowingly' refers to an unwillingness to accept or to understand.) 4. Earlier, Srila Prabhupada had wanted to give the title Bhaktivedanta to qualified devotees and these Bhaktivedantas could initiate. This did not happen. All throughout he promised to appoint qualified men for the task, yet, he kept on delaying it. The senior disciples were ready and besides, in the limited and uncertain time available, they could not be expected to get any better, attain further spiritual maturity, or become pure devotees, etc. In fact, most were cent percent sincere and Srila Prabhupada was extremely satisfied with them. They why did he delay? It would appear that he delayed essentially because he was deeply meditating on the actual process of future initiation, grappling to resolve a no-win situation. In other words, if you seriously consider the available options, they are fraught with all manners of difficulties. Be it a single successor, many successors, outsider, self-correcting systems, etc., etc.- all have their unpleasant drawbacks. Thus, considering the delay and the drawbacks, and considering the eventual presentation of a unique arrangement, the ritvik system, it is possible that Srila Prabhupada desired this new and seemingly unorthodox. Truly, if inspected, unemotionally, this system is tried and tested and has admirably served the Christian for 2000 years. Jesus Christ is available to his twentieth century disciples in an undiluted, potent form even today: He continues to inspire even today. In comparison, Srila Prabhupada is faring poorly. His picture no longer graces the BTG inside cover after a mere 22 years, and all manners of resolutions are stealthily being passed to effectively shelve him for the sake of the new crop of Acharyas; to validate the so called parampara system. Frankly, I cannot help wonder just how we are planning to survive for 10,000 years. 5. The fact that Srila Prabhupada finally addressed the issue of future initiation (when pressed) and appointed Officiating Acharyas, and the fact that it was initially accepted as the final order and acted upon, clearly suggests that it was the final arrangement. In fact, initially these final instructions were used by the appointees to metamorphose into Acharyas. Interestingly, now that this metamorphosis has been proved unsanctioned by god-brothers, the appointees have actually rejected the very same final order, claiming that they are non-shastric. They now have a fresh perspective. They continue as Acharyas using the 'parampara argument'. 6. This parampara argument is in reality more deception, an argument of convenience and is in fact, a well greased one. This is the standard 'usurper argument' and it has been used on numerous occasions by disciples all over the world, to effectively bury the original Acharya. Truly, if anything, this argument is a 'paramparic' guru oppressor. It is the story of the yogi who turned the mouse into a lion and now the lion is doing his bit. 7. In the 'Prabhupada Order', His Holiness HDG argues that the concept of the 'Ritvik Acharya' is unfounded and not shastric, based on the deliberations of 'MW'. He forgets that it was indeed Srila Prabhupada who actually conceived of such a specie. Besides, it was His Holiness TKG, who introduced the word 'ritvik' while Srila Prabhupada had specifically coined, 'Officiating Acharya'. Admittedly, even 'Officiating Acharya' is a strange coinage, an oxymoron, with its separate words meaning almost negating each other. Awkward it may be, yet it clearly reveals Srila Prabhupada's mind. Evidently, an attempt to breathe life into a new breed of 'clipped winged Acharyas' can be discerned. Officiating Acharyas were obviously meant to be a subordinate or trimmed version. It may not be a specie listed in the shastras, but it certainly was created by Srila Prabhupada. Besides, I would also like to humbly request His Holiness HDG, to kindly look in the shastras, for that special breed of Acharyas, 'who habitually fall'-and what he recommends we call them. For, rather than tarnish this elevated title (Acharya) and leave unprotect our illustrious line of Acharyas, we have to engineer a differentiation: perhaps on the lines of Brahmana-Dwijabhandu, or its crude version, putra-mutra etc. Considering this, one can see that Srila Prabhupada had every reason to institute a 'ritvik system', which would ensure longevity, save us from boomeranging Acharyas, as well as retain the sanctity of the elevated title of 'Acharya'. 8. When the title 'Officiating Acharya' is juxtaposed with the title 'Founder Acharya', it can be seen that they are indeed the principal and subordinates of the same hierarchy, gravely conceived by the same mind. It becomes immediately obvious, that Srila Prabhupada had indeed envisaged a serious and definite differentiation between these two. Clearly, any attempt to obliterate this differentiation has to be seen as an attempt to step into the master's shoes - a grave transgression. 9. The word 'founder' in the title 'Founder Acharya,' cannot be accepted to meaning merely 'first'. Indeed, this partial meaning 'first' of the word 'founder' is a corruption, for it facilitates the argument that the 'first' is followed by 'second' and then 'third' and so on. What it does firmly convey is the concept of an establisher or progenitor or fountainhead. Obviously, Srila Prabhupada was clearheaded about his progenitor role, and was not bewildered even when this role took flight and assumed a global prominence. In other words, Srila Prabhupada's title (Founder acharya)may seem presumptuous, as in the greater picture one may see him as merely another robust link in a long chain of equally stalwart Acharyas of the parampara. In other words, in our linear and rigid understanding of the parampara concept, there appears to be no room either for a Founder Acharya or for a subordinate Ritvik Acharya. If the Founder Acharya's unique position is acceptable in such a scenario, then we should have no difficulty in accepting the subordinate and ritvik's status of his branches. Clearly, it appears that an imperfect understanding of the parampara is being propagated, once again favouring the present crop of Acharyas. 10. The 'parampara argument' and its imperfect understanding appears to be the crux of the issue. Indeed, it has been repeatedly used to reject the officiating Acharya's subordinate, or ritvik position, even though Srila Prabhupada himself instituted this system. Let us try and understand it. The faulty assumption is made that in a disciplic succession, an Acharya follows the previous Acharya exactly like the well-formed links of a chain. This is a childish and incomplete picture. Branches of the various Acharyas, generally known as 'Maths'(like in Gaudiya Math), are a legitimate concept of the parampara. Factually, many different Maths, or individual houses, is contained in the concept of Parampara. Their numerous hierarchical structures independently coexist in the concept of the parampara. To help understand this concept, allow me to present a familiar analogy, but with a difference. The parampara has to be seen as a nursery or a greenhouse rather that a single large tree, all originating from a primary source. A seed from any tree in this nursery or greenhouse can be transplanted and it too will grow into a legitimate specie of that grove, regardless of where in grows. The branches of these trees are subservient or subordinate to the tree itself, attached to the tree, always. Thus, we have numerous trees, such as ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, etc. Each tree exists independently and functions on parameters set by the Acharya of that particular tree. In other words, if Srila Prabhupada desired to appoint ritviks, it is entirely legitimate. This hierarchy of the Acharya's Math with subordinate branches and its own set of rules cannot be compared to the apparent structure discerned in the concept of the parampara. The parampara is a listing of pervious 'Acharyas', spanning a timeframe of thousands of years, tracing essentially a unique lineage, literally jumping from tree to tree. It is not an organisation and does not represent any form of hierarchy in the conventional sense of the term. To use an argument of succession derived from this symbolic and subtle concept of the parampara to overturn the hierarchy established by Srila Prabhupada of his Acharya tree, is deceitful and treacherous. To use this argument to claim to be the next link and hence the next Acharya, is high treason. 11. We must take our cue from the Supreme Lord himself who lists in the BG only the prominent Acharyas of the parampara, although it spans thousands of years. Indeed, his main concern is authenticity of the teachings rather than anything else. Thus, when he detects that it appears to be lost, he downloads it afresh to Sriman Arjun, amidst two facing armies on the teeth of battle-showing scant regard for fraying nerves, flying arrows, 'current living guru links', or other bickering points of etiquette. Similarly, Chaitnaya Mahaprabhu also sets an example by taking initiation (sanyas) from the effulgent Kashava Bharati, showing scant regard for the parampara's idiosyncrasies. In other words, it is the medicine we have to be concerned with, not the distribution network. 12. Unqualified disciples-turned-Acharyas merely bring it shame especially when they come crashing down. Rather, than add to the illustriousness of the house, they effectively lessen the lustre of the parampara and colour its lofty conclusions as unattainable and misguided, thus seriously undermining its validity. In other words, seeing so many Acharyas fall, the following conclusions may be reached by the general populace, "if the teachers themselves are falling, what hope do we have" or that "we are inherently unqualified for this process; it was meant for elevated persons of a previous yuga", etc., etc. This will effectively extinguish the parampara. I really cannot see Srila Prabhupada participating in this corruption. 13. Indeed, if history of the parampara is studied, it will be seem that almost all our the previous Acharyas have 'emerged' so to speak. None where appointees. Thus, 'emergence' can be considered the authentic process by which the Gaudiya Sampradaya recognises its Acharyas, in which case, appointing Acharyas would be contrary to this process. Thus, as obviously a difference can be discerned between the emerged Acharyas and appointed representatives, an artificially appointed Acharya, would necessarily have to be in an 'officiating' capacity, officiating for the last emerged Acharya. They act like 'care-takers' and are specifically the mercy-extensions of the previous Acharya appointed to merely fill in the gaps. Appointing ones own disciples to this illustrious chain of emerged Acharyas is akin to appointing ones own sons to positions of power through the 'backdoor'. Again, I really can't see Srila Prabhupada doing that. 14. If you examine the mechanics the word parampara in the specific context of delivering or handing-down spiritual knowledge, it entirely refers to an authentication process by comparison, especially with noteworthy Acharyas of the past. In other words, since there exists no other means to verify a theological conclusion, the best that can be done is to authenticate it by referring or comparing to the teachings of great teachers of the past. Thus, the parampara authentication process largely hinges on 'renowned teachers' and an availability of their teachings. This continual authentication process has been encoded into the system as the 'parampara' form of accepting instructions. The operative words are really 'upholding the conclusions' and 'bringing glory' to the sampradaya, not unbroken adjacency. Indeed, the parampara is upheld and glorified only by the likes of Srila Prabhupada. The brightest and the best alone bring it glory. 15. Leading disciples use the loopholes of the system, by forcing a literal translation of 'coming down through generations' or parampara. They thus arrive at the convenient argument, of a continuous living link chain of gurus. This 'Living links' is a forced translation, and it in fact, defeats the authentication process, by its potential corruption factor. Indeed, while the system of parampara is exclusively meant to stem corruption, how then can this forced translation be valid? The following deficiencies can be pinned on to this forced 'living link' translation of the parampara concept. a) The primordial scramble for the next Acharya-ship by the disciples happens always. And when the Acharya gets old and incapacitated in body and mind, then his instructions are distorted, coaxed, and manipulated, at times intentionally at times inadvertently by faulty understanding, by the his sevaks. b) It does not accommodate 'extra-effulgence' of a previous Acharya after his demise. This is of course the greatest loss. In our undue haste to get current links, we are ready to abandon an Acharya of Srila Prabhupada stature, and as Jesus Christ's parable succinctly puts it, we are ready to 'bushel' our brightest star. Our own Acharyas were keenly aware of this age-old 'disciple trap' and with a sense of desperation declare, almost as if from beyond, "An acharya lives in his words….etc." c) Using the convenient parampara argument of adjacency, we are encumbered by weighty chains of under-qualified and artificial Acharyas who creating a disturbance by themselves deviating, and by their pseudo loyal disciples, egging them on. Needless to say, they create bad politics, and spell bad days for God brothers of these so-called Acharyas. 16. Why is it that the continual falling of a living guru link, and hence the chronic breaks of this precious link, not seen as a fatal deficiency of this system? Consider the tenth generation devotees; linked with, as many unstable isotopes - surely aren't we looking at a potential nuclear chain reaction? Indeed, would not one single break in this link jeopardise the subsequent thousands? And in any case, would not this highly unstable system try to correct itself by gravitating towards, say Indian gurus, who may be stable (low kinky factor), but just as unqualified? 17. Formerly, the concept of the guru had to be revised to accommodate two or more gurus by the Siksa, Diksa differentiation, as at times, a disciple was forced to split loyalties. Ideologically such a differentiation is artificial, for they are inseparable like the two sides of a coin. Now of course, it is a bona fide concession, although this 'legs in different boats' may have been unacceptable earlier. This, differentiation may have served us, but unfortunately, we have abused this concession. We now identify our siksha gurus as 'aimless god-brothers of the lofty Acharyas'. Thus, it is of no use to brightly declaring, 'Srila Prabhupada will be our Siksa guru for all times'! Thank you very much! The ritvik or Officiating Acharya has to be seen as a similar, bona fide adjustment, desired by Srila Prabhupada. 18. Our twenty odd year old experiment with this imperfect understanding of the parampara system has indeed taught (some of) us our base reality. In our hearts, we know, Srila Prabhupada alone is our 'Golokera prema dhana'- our gift of love from Goloka, perhaps for a very, very long time to come. We are tired, and fed up with 'ticking' Acharyas (liable to burst in our faces), we are tired of reforms, and fearful that a whole crop of vapid 'Indian' Acharyas may begin to rule the roost. At this point in time scattered temples exist that have gone ahead and adopted the ritvik system, and one may discern minor discrepancies and even a defensive or offensive mood, that may make a novice (Baktin Jen, of all people!!) blow hot-blow cold, yet these minor teething troubles will pass. Senior devotees and indeed the Officiating Acharya will be encouraged to take up a more positive and personal role to usher in the second generation Prabhupada Disciples. It has been done before, and has proved immensely successful. Christianity (an organisation perhaps looked upon with disdain by Iskcon pundits, but much admired by Thakur Bhaktivinod) has successfully transported their brightest star to the twenty-first century. Jesus is available to his disciples even after two thousand years. Imagine just how much of Srila Prabhupada will distil down through 70 odd link (2000 years)! Consider, what a more potent (than Jesus) messiah to the whole world, Srila Prabhupada will make! If surviving for ten thousand years has to be seriously taken, we must rise above the crippling guru-falling issue. True, we now take it in our strides, hardened as we are, like a bunch of Hollywood offspring suffering from 'multiple parent syndrome' and do not think twice about getting reinitiated from another guru. How has it come to pass, that the foremost religious organisation suffers from this penultimate kaliyuga disease? When the principles are been religiously been broken, what good can come of it? Soon it will become an issue of world focus, and the world will laugh at us-and refuse to fund our extravagancies. Then a miracle alone will take us across our 100th anniversary. The question of whether Srila Prabhupada accepts his ritvik disciples does not arise. This is the system he put into place. The more appropriate question to ask maybe, would the present system of Acharyas operating without a sanction, have his approval or even be bona fide, or be accepted by Srila Prabhupada, if that is, (they get beyond terra-firma). We all know how Srila Prabhupada felt about the Gaudiya Math splitting fiasco. He had difficulty even to consider them (the splinter groups) as bona fide. Finally, remember that this is not political issue. A bunch of bhaktas, bhaktins and their Acharyas, hyperventilating, cannot be allowed to cloud the issue. Many senior devotees, disciples of Srila Prabhupada, with long years of service and association are involved. Many 'grand disciples' too are languishing in (and out) temples corners around the world, moaning their wretched fate. Make this your mission statement Mahaprabhu's pastimes we missed participating by a hair's breadth. Come now, what's a gap 500 year compared to eternity? Fortunately, that is certainly not the case here. After countless lifetimes, we have actually found a twenty-four carat guru who actually touched our lives. It does not matter that he is no longer with us. Like the boy Narada, who had a glimpse of the Supreme Lord and continued henceforth hankering with the memories only, we too have had a glimpse of a pure devotee and our memories will serve faithfully, the way he walked, the way he talked…they are all still fresh in our minds. Verily, in separation, even like the Gopies, we too will hanker, and we will die. Your humble servant, J. M. Das See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story | Contact VNN regarding this Story
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
