VNN Editorial - Proxy Gurus: Institutionalized Deviance

EDITORIAL

August 4, 1999 VNN4433 Related VNN StoriesComment on this story

Proxy Gurus: Institutionalized Deviance

BY KRISHNA-KIRTI DAS

EDITORIAL, Aug 4 (VNN) —

In the beginning of the article Who Is The Real Follower, Who Is The Thief? by Anuttama das, Anuttama Prabhu makes a classical error in reasoning - he assumes that that which is yet to be proven is aximotically true:

In his article, "Follower of His Example" (VNN), Sri Antardwipa Das suggests that Adridharan and Madhu Pandit Prabhus step out of ISKCON if they are "unhappy" with the system of initiations currently practised in ISKCON. Apart from the fact that Antardwipa fills his article with baseless strawmen-like accusations against Madhu and Adri, he also reveals his complete ignorance on the real problem at hand. While the whole world is debating on the issue of post-samadhi initiations within ISKCON, Antardwipa prabhu seems to be just waking up from a long slumber.

Is Antardwipa aware that Srila Prabhupada set up a specific system of initiating devotees with the help of representatives on July 9th, 1977?

This is begging the question: The debate was precisely about whether or not Srila Prabhupada would posthumously accept disciples. This is what Anuttama Prabhu is trying to prove, but he is using it as an assumption: "Is Antardwipa aware that Srila Prabhupada set up a specific system of initiating devotees. . . " Assuming that which you are trying to prove is cirucular logic. "My conclusion is right because my conclusion is right."

Let's examine this with a neutral disposition:

a. Srila Prabhupada did not give any instruction (known to us at present) to stop that system of initiation upon his departure.

But he gave instructions that they should become guru, and accept their own disciples.

"I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta WILL BE ALLOWED TO INITIATE DISCIPLES. Maybe by 1975 all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the number of generations. That is my program." (Srila Pabhupada 3rd Dec 1968)

"Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, THEY ARE BEING TRAINED TO BECOME FUTURE SPIRITUAL MASTERS." (Srila Prabhupada Detroit, July 18, 1971)

On 28 May 1977 Srila Prabhupada was aksed directly: IN YOUR ABSENCE Srila Prabhupada what is the procedure for first, second and sannyasa initiations? And what is the relationship of the person who gives this initiation to the person he gives it to? Srila Prabhupada asnwered: "HE IS GRAND-DISCIPLE HE BECOMES DISCIPLE OF MY DISCIPLE. THAT'S IT"

...EVEN IF I DIE, my movement will not stop. I am very much hopeful, yes. All these nice boys and girls who have taken so seriously... YOU WILL HAVE TO BECOME SPIRITUAL MASTER... YOU...ALL MY DISCIPLES..." Srila Prabhupada London, 22 Aug 73

So, what do all these quotes mean?

The first quote is refering to his disciples initiating by a certain time and accepting disciples. In this passage, Srila Prabhupada did not say "accepting disciples on his behalf." Furthermore, there is no distinction made by Srila Prabhupada of his disciples accepting disciples either in his presence or after his passing away. In both cases, in this passage, they are accepting their own disciples.

"All of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many godbrothers, they are all acting." from the second quote--how are we supposed to understand this? How will Srila Prabhupada's disciples act as he is acting if they are forbidden to take disciples? The ritviks equivocate following in the footsteps of acharyas as imitating acharyas. They cannot distinguish between the two. If Prabhupada was accepting that his godbrothers were also accepting disciples and this was bona fide, and his godbrothers weren't the dig-vijaya acarya Srila Prabhupada was, then how do we think that Prabhupada is treating his disciples any differently? Again, the claims of the ritviks are speculative.

b. Nor do we have any instruction (known to us at present) to continue that system after his departure.

The order is there to accept disciples. This is a standing order, just as Srila Sarasvati Thakura's order for Srila Prabhupada to be a diksa guru was a standing order:

"Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya guru haya tara sarva-desa, tara ei desa. He's asking everyone to become a spiritual master. So how everyone can become a spiritual master? A spiritual master must have sufficient knowledge, so many other qualifications. No. Even without any qualifications, one can become a spiritual master. How? Now the process is, Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya: "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. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That's all. This is the secret of success." (3/8/73, London)

Please note that Srila Prabhupada also speaks about the specific instruction from his spiritual master for him to become a spiritual master: "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."

And "that's all". There was no specific order from Sarasvati Thakura to be a diksa guru. Why then do the ritviks insist that the order to be a diksa guru is different from the order to preach? The only order was to preach, and on THAT order Srila Prabhupada also accepted disciples.

Anuttama Prabhu then asks a sober question: "So how do we decide what to do?" Answer: By accepting guru-sadhu-shastra:

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the center for all.
(Madhya 20.352 purport)

And also

tac chraddhadana munayao jnana-vairagya yuktaya
pasyanty atmani catmanam bhaktya sruta-grhitaya

The seriously inquisitive student or sage, well equipped with knowledge and detachment, realizes that Absolute Truth by rendering devotional service in terms of what he has heard from the Vedanta-sruti. (SB 1.2.12)

A sincere devotee must, therefore, be prepared to hear the Vedic literature like the Upanisads, Vedanta and other literatures left by the previous authorities or Gosvamis, for the benefit of his progress. Without hearing such literatures, one cannot make actual progress. And without hearing and following the instructions, the show of devotional service becomes worthless and therefore a sort of disturbance in the path of devotional service. Unless, therefore, devotional service is established on the principles of sruti, smrti, purana or pancaratra authorities, the make-show of devotional service should at once be rejected. (from SB 1.2.12 purport)

Although Srila Prabhupada himself has used the word ritvik, the proxy guru system extrapolated from this word by Adridharan Prabhu, Krishnakant Desai, et. all, has NO basis in shastra. We, therefore, cannot accept their explanations.

It goes without saying that in the absence of an explicit instruction from Srila Prabhupada directing either way, if anyone has to stop the system personally set up by him and appoint himself or other ISKCON devotees as "as-good-as-God" diksha gurus, then he must provide sufficient justification for doing so. Can anyone doubt this?

Justification is provided. The ritviks will not accept the quotes above--that is their problem, they are selective in their evidence. The guru is as good as God acaryam mam vijaniyan . . ., but the guru IS NOT GOD. So many times Srila Prabhupada instructed us on this point. And even when there was some attempt by some of his sannyasa disciples to declare him God, Srila Prabhupada clipped their wings - he wouldn't tolerate it.

Similarly the words of guru are NOT directly sastra. Shastra is that which is given by the Supreme Lord: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat pranitam. Since Vyasa is an incarnation of Vishnu, whatever he has written is sastra. But this is what the ritviks claim:

Since Prabhupada, of course, is such a bona fide guru, a fact that is not disputed by anyone in ISKCON. Thus we know that when we follow the orders of Srila Prabhupada, the bona fide guru, sastra and sadhu will automatically be satisfied.

(Shastric Basis for Srila Prabhupada's Continued Diksa Status)

Here, they wrongly equivocate the words of Srila Prabhupada (guru) with the words of Vyasa (sastra). Prabhupada is a bonafide guru because his words are based on sastra - sastra is the basis. That is why Srila Prabhupada stressed so much on quoting sastra:

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the center for all.
(Madhya 20.352 purport)

Not only do the ritviks wrongly equivocate Srila Prabhupada's words with sastra, but they disobey Srila Prabhupada's order when they suggest that only quoting Srila Prabhupada (guru) is sufficient. Sufficient it is not. Again, Srila Prabhupada's words may be pure, but our understanding of it is subject to fault - the ritviks INTERPRETATION of Srila Prabhupada's words are certainly no exception. Therefore also quoting from sadhu and sastra is a necessity in order to arrive at a proper understaning.

Compare a philosophical statement to a "point", and an interpretation of that idea to a "line". Through that point (philosophical statement) a virtually unlimited number of lines (interpretations) can be drawn. But if you add a second point, and your line has to be drawn through both of them (i.e. agree with both statements without contradicting either), then how many interpretations can you have? And if you add more points, the proper understanding becomes all the more clear. Srila Prabhupada himself in his books frequently quoted from sastra, sadhu (previous acaryas) and his guru. Since we are his spiritual descendents, it is therefore our duty to follow in his footsteps and do likewise - it is Srila Prabhupada's instruction AND his example. Following Srila Prabhupada's example and instruction, in this regard, would necessarily mean rejecting the ritvik interpretation that it is not necessary to refer to sadhu and sastra.

Please note, that during the course of the ritvik debate on CHAKRA, Adridharan Prabhu has quoted at length from Srila Prabhupada, but he has failed to quote from sastra or sadhu - even that which Srila Prabhupada has quoted. Simply on the consideration that he has not offered sufficient evidence to support his point (remember, the criteria is sadhu-shastra-guru vakya - the words of saintly persons, scripture, and guru - not some legalistic wrangling), Adridharan Prabhu automatically lost the debate, even if he and his followers disagree.

Back to Anuttama Prabhu's article:

The oft-repeated justifications for this change, given by its supporters, are a plethora of explanations of " the law of disciplic succession", "one must have a living guru", "this is unprecedented" and so on & so forth...

Definitely, there is precedent for the necessity of accepting a living guru - even if all we are accepting is guru's instructions and not sadhu or sastra:

We see, Krsna was present before Arjuna, but nobody was present before Brahma. Therefore it is said, tene brahma hrda adi-kavaye, hrda: "through the heart." 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. And therefore saksad-dharitvena sama... Spiritual master is representative of Krsna. Krsna sends some sincere devotee to act on His behalf, and therefore he is spiritual master. (Lecture SB 1.2.4, May 28, 1974) [emphasis provided]

Therefore God is called caittya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the PHYSICAL SPIRITUAL MASTER is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.

(Conversation, May 23, Rome, 1974) [emphasis provided]

Yet, as everyone witnessed in the recently concluded debate on CHAKRA, all these arguments to justify the changes were filled with contradictions in themselves and self-defeating. And it became obvious to anyone who followed the debate closely with a neutral stand, that finally the GBC were never providing any proof to justify the change under scrutiny, but were just stating & re-stating the very claims they had been asked to prove. If Srila Prabhupada's instructions are so clear to appoint oneself as the next guru, then why all the "hand-waving" we saw in the debate? And the debate was prematurely terminated when the GBC representative seeing that he had got himself into a "spaghetti-like" sticky mess of contradicting statements excused himself to spend time with his son from the gurukula. And it strikes us why none of Antardwipa's "highly qualified disciples of Srila Prabhupada" could step in to save the situation.

Let us give this argument the best possible benefit of the doubt. Herein, the author could be suggesting that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the issue are not clear: "If Srila Prabhupada's instructions as so clear to appoint ones' self as the next guru. . ." There are certainly statements made by Srila Prabhupada that would suggest that this is indeed true (cf. Letter Dec 3^rd, 1968; Conversation July 18^th, 1971; Conversation May 28^th, 1977 - as quoted above), which means that even if the ritviks claim that their way is the only way, the presence of contradictory instructions only proves that no one can claim to have the perfect understanding based only on Srila Prabhupada's instructions. Because there are apparently contradictory statements, that means Srila Prabhupada's instructions have to be interpreted, and that interpretation has to come from some source other than his instructions. That is not to say that Srila Prabhupada's words are wrong or faulty, but our understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying is certainly subject to such fault. Unfortunately, the ritviks equivocate their INTERPRETAION of Srila Prabhupada's words with Srila Prabhupada's understanding of his own words.

That is why, to understand this issue properly, sadhu (the teachings of previous acaryas), and especially sastra (scripture written by Vyasa, or scriptures approved by Vyasa's writings like Ramayana, etc.) must be consulted. Again, this goes back to Prabhupada's quoting Narottama das Thakura's statement of sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya cittete kariya aikya. One must understand a subject by the words of guru, sadhu, and sastra, not simply guru, guru, and guru.

So the point being made is: If you cannot provide a proper justification for the change, then please follow the only system of initiation that Srila Prabhupada personally set up. You will get "full-points" for simply following the guru's instruction, even if it appears to you to be against sastra or whatever. Please don't speculate, concoct, invent and destroy the whole movement. Otherwise, you are not only a thief, but also a betrayer of your own guru.

And because the ritviks do not accept evidence from sadhu and sastra, their INTERPRETATION of Srila Prabhupada's words is speculative and therefore unacceptable.

And don't tread the path laid by the "qualified disciples" - removing sincere & honest devotees -- the real followers, from Prabhupada's home, it will serve you no good purpose. Gone are the days when you could manipulate the devotees, beat them up, remove them from temples and brainwash them.

It seems here the ritviks cannot distinguish between qualified disciples and so-called "qualified disciples". That would explain the ritvik position, which assumes no one is qualified, or ever will be qualified. Because they cannot understand what is wrong and what is right, they make a blanket statement that everyone is bad. The Ritviks' Solution? Institutionalize deviance. Since no one is qualified or ever will be qualified, make them priests, but waive their qualifications so they can accept disciples without having to strictly follow rules or take responsibility for their disciples' spiritual development. Nice solution: the Ritviks have invented a class of guru that has neither qualifications nor responsibilities. The very abuses, falldowns, disqualifications, etc., the ritviks have been speaking out against are, instead, plunged by the ritviks to even lower levels of deviance by institutionalizing them.

Yes, unfortunately, there have been abuses, there have been falldowns among the leadership, but making falldown and irresponsibility something official is one of the craziest so-called solutions imaginable. How could you possibly remove a guru who is fallen, when it is officially recognized that a fallen guru is bona fide?

The real solution to our problems is to cent percent apply the teachings of the Vedas, and saintly persons, as taught to us by Srila Prabhupada: "The sastra is the center of all".

Hare Krishna

Your fallen servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

krishna.kirti.hdg@bbt.se