03/04/98 - 1669

Srila Prabhupada’s Conception of Acharya

USA (VNN) - by Rishi Kumara das (see also VNN story# 1659)

I would like to say a few words about the recent article posted on VNN by Dharmapada. ("Srila Prabhupada, A Ramanuja For Us!") He has explained well some of the defects of the current situation with gurus in ISKCON. The GBC has often gone to the Gaudiya Matha to get support for their guru system, but what’s the use of that? Srila Prabhupada even criticized his exalted personal friend and Godbrother for his idea to put forth diksa-gurus, or acaryas. Although Srila Prabhupada highly regarded Sri Sridhara Swami Maharaj, he didn’t agree with his idea that ordinary devotees should sometimes assume the role of acharya. (Nor when the GBC questioned Sridhara Swami on the guru issue, did they properly answer his question, “What did Swami Maharaj say to do?”)

Instead of remaining humble servants of the mission of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur and working together, various camp leaders tried artificially to create acaryas to fulfill the role of diksa guru in the Gaudiya Matha. But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta never told them to do this. His conception, as Srila Prabhupada explained, was that only an empowered person could act as diksa-guru in Lord Caitanya’s movement. Others should preach as of representatives of the self-efflugent Acharya.

In spite of Srila Prabhupada’s warnings about the mistakes of the Gaudiya Matha, after Prabhupada’s departure a few GBCs got together and decided they would disband Srila Prabhupada’s system of initiations by representatives and create their own system, which became known as the Zonal Acarya System. They did this without any authority from Srila Prabhupada, and this caused great confusion in the Krsna consciousness movement. In 1986 the GBC introduced a new system to streamline approval for appointments in ISKCON of gurus, and this system has been revised and adjusted many times. Even with all their resolutions and meetings they have no clear consensus in the GBC on the guru issue, and they don’t even follow all their own rules. All this confusion has come about due to our not carefully hearing from Srila Prabhupada alone. We listened to our own minds and Godbrothers possessed with the misguided ambition to occupy the seat of the spiritual master.

Why should the disciples of the greatest acharya who ever lived think we need to go to other groups to understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted us to do? This makes no sense. Do we think that Srila Prabhupada’s volumes and volumes of instructions are incomplete or unclear? Why do we need the Ramanuja Sampradaya or the Madhva sannyasis of Udupi, or even the Gaudiya Matha, to tell us what we should be doing? Did Srila Prabhupada neglect to tell us something? Something so important? Actually, the Vaisnavas in other sampradayas should be coming to us for advice on how to get connected with Srila Prabhupada and the mission of Lord Chaitanya. All leading devotees in every sampradaya and camp should aspire to represent Srila Prabhupada and his mission. The problem is we, the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, are not fully convinced of the value of Srila Prabhupada and his instructions, so how will we inspire others?

I agree with Dharmapada that it seems strange the GBC would need to appoint a subcommittee to determine how to put Srila Prabhupada in the center of ISKCON. But then why does Dharmapada prabhu think we need to consult the Ramanuja people to get insight how to do this? I agree that they could perhaps offer a lot in the form of cultural and religious advice. For instance, they could advise us what to do about child abusers, woman haters, women’s rights, social development, and other mundane issues upon which we speculate endlessly. (All these meetings on various “issues” would seem far less pressing if we could all could rise above the bodily concept and focus on developing real devotion to Srila Prabhupada.) I disagree, though, that we need to go to others to solve the guru issue, which is a matter of to be solved by spiritual deliberation based on Srila Prabhupada’s instructions alone.

I’ve heard from devotees who have preached in South India for many years that the Madhva sampradaya and the Ramanuja sampradaya have practically dried up of spiritual potency. Due to their not properly understanding and representing the Acharya, these sampradayas became corrupted. Authorities in these movements do not agree on every philosophical point. The Ramanuja’s, like other spiritual movements in Kali Yuga, have degenerated due to the influx of mundane religious and cultural ideas.

Such a fate can be avoided in ISKCON only if we stick very carefully to understanding and following Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. For those who doubt that we can literally accept Srila Prabhupada’s final order on initiations in ISKCON, or for those who feel we must maintain the GBC’s current system for initiations, I beg you to research the answers to the questions listed below. This research should be based on Srila Prabhupada’s books and instructions alone. In this way we can help protect the all-spiritual Hare Krishna movement founded by Srila Prabhupada. We can save it from degenerating to the status of a mundane religious culture. All our problems and confusion on various issues can be easily solved simply by our careful hearing from Srila Prabhupada in the association of those who are satisfied hearing from Srila Prabhupada alone. To say nothing of clearing confusion, hearing from Srila Prabhupada repeatedly and meditating on him constantly easily awards the highest benediction of krsna-prema.

To help figure out how to keep Srila Prabhupada perfectly in the center in ISKCON, I suggest we research the answers to the following questions: 1.) Where is the instruction from Srila Prabhupada authorizing his disciples to act as initiating spiritual master in ISKCON? Is no specific order required from Srila Prabhupada for this important service?

2.) Is it a sastric principle that any disciple can initiate after his guru’s disappearance? If so, why do Srila Prabhupada’s books clearly state that only an uttama-adhikari, or a mahabhagavata, is eligible for the post of initiating spiritual master? When did Srila Prabhupada order anyone to become a diksa-guru in ISKCON?

3.) Which statements in Srila Prabhupada’s books indicate that his disciples must act as diksa-gurus in ISKCON?

4.) Formerly in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada was the only devotee who served as diksa-guru. Presently, seventy or eighty devotees serve as diksa-gurus because the GBC has determined that Srila Prabhupada can no longer accept disciples. How did the GBC arrive at this conclusion?

5.) Where did Srila Prabhupada describe how his “successor gurus” would be chosen or authorized for the post of diksa-guru in ISKCON?

6.) Where did Srila Prabhupada describe how several diksa-gurus would function in ISKCON together? Did he offer any specific guidance on this issue? 7.) Where in Srila Prabhupada’s books is stated the principle that an acarya would be unable or unwilling to accept as disciples persons who begin following his instructions after his disappearance? Where in Srila Prabhupada’s books or instructions are described principles indicating that after the disappearance of an empowered acarya no new student can accept him as diksa-guru?

8.) Where in Srila Prabhupada’s books does he describe the principles indicating that a system of officiating acaryas would constitute a deviation from Vaisnava siddhanta if the system was maintained after the disappearance of the acarya?

9.) There are devotees in ISKCON who met and served Srila Prabhupada personally yet received initiation from another ISKCON guru in 1978. There are other devotees who never saw Srila Prabhupada, yet were initiated in 1977, just before Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. Regarding their relationship with Srila Prabhupada, what is the difference between these two categories of devotees?

10.) When did Srila Prabhupada sanction positions (other than His own) of absolute authority in ISKCON?

11.) Why are new ISKCON devotees encouraged to accept devotees other than Srila Prabhupada as absolute authority?

12.) Srila Prabhupada’s books clearly advise that devotees accept as initiating spiritual master only an uttama-adhikari. Why are new devotees in ISKCON told they must accept devotees other than Srila Prabhupada as their diksa-guru?

13.) If a devotee has accepted initiation in ISKCON and follows Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, why would he need to get “reinitiated” or wonder if Srila Prabhupada had accepted him? What, then, would be the value of his “assurance” in being initiated or reiniated by a self-appointed ISKCON guru?

14.) Where in Srila Prabhupada’s books or instructions is the subject of “reinitiations” discussed? Where in Srila Prabhupada’s books or instructions does he sanction the idea of “reinitiations” in ISKCON?

15.) Formerly in ISKCON there was no discussion of “reinitiations”. Since Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance His representatives, with GBC sanction, have “reinitiated” hundreds of devotees who had already been initiated according to Srila Prabhupada’s standard and were engaged in serving Srila Prabhupada’s mission. Why was this done?

16.) Srila Prabhupada never approved the idea of self-appointed gurus or gurus by the appointment or approval of an ecclesiastical board (such as the GBC). In fact, He several times criticized his Godbrothers for artificially creating posts of diksa-guru , or acarya, in the Gaudiya Matha. What lesson can we learn from this mistake of the Gaudiya Matha?

17.) Why are new ISKCON devotees not encouraged to repose their full faith in Srila Prabhupada alone? Why are they told they must first surrender heart and soul to someone else?

18.) Since 1972, Srila Prabhupada had sometimes arranged that his deputies performed initiations on his behalf. That system was officially reestablished by Srila Prabhupada’s final written order (dated July 9th, 1977). He specifically set up this system to operate totally without his physical involvement. He indicated this system should operate perpetually and several times warned ISKCON leaders to leave his systems of management unchanged. Why, then, was Srila Prabhupada’s system for managing initiations in ISKCON canceled?

Finally, we might ask, "Could it be that we have misunderstood or misrepresented Srila Prabhupada and some of his divine instructions? Could this be why we’ve all seen so much confusion and offense in ISKCON?" To help keep Srila Prabhupada perfectly in the center of ISKCON, ISKCON devotees should all agree to follow all of Srila Prabhupada’s orders precisely. Until we do that, advice from other sampradayas and gurus may only add to our confusion.