05/16/98 - 1800

Sri Srimad B.V. Narayana Maharaja and Reinitiation

USA (VNN) - by Agrahya das

In speaking with several different devotees recently, the word "reinitiation" came up, especially in connection with Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. It is an ugly concept indeed, conjuring various frightening images in the minds of both gurus and disciples. The guru fears that disciples will be lured away from his competent and responsible guidance for uncharted and possibly dangerous waters. The disciple sees an evil conspiracy to undermine his faith in Gurudeva. What blasphemy might he be asked to hear, he wonders, and what pressure will his faith in his Gurudeva be subjected to? In these times of controversy and quarrel, it is often difficult enough to have faith without any outside pressure needed. Even if the disciple has firm faith in his or her Gurudeva, it will be an intolerable insult to see Godbrothers being snatched away from the competent care of Gurudeva.

This article will examine what is the truth of these allegations. All too often the actual facts are obscured by emotionally surcharged interpretations. Rather than hearing the facts, we hear an individual's interpretation of them. By presenting a balanced account, the author hopes to counter some of the misleading and inaccurate ideas which are circulating among some sections of the Vaishnava community.

All the concepts presented herein are fully supported by sastra and the writings of the previous acaryas such as Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Narahari Sarakara Thakur. In the interest of brevity, full quotations have been omitted here as the references should be obvious to anyone who has read Srila Prabhupada's books. The full text of Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita by Srila Narahari Sarakara Thakur is available at http://hgsoft.com/~agrah ya/mail/msg00014.html

Reinitiation and infallibility

There is actually no such thing as "reinitiation." It is stated quite emphatically that one can never have more than one initiating spiritual master, although there may be many instructing spiritual masters. This has been discussed at some length in the paper Akhanda-gu ru-tattva with references to shastra and the books of Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. For many devotees like myself who came to Krishna consciousness between 1966 and 1977, Srila Prabhupada was our only guru, diksa and siksa, and therefore we came to think of "guru" as a post held by only one person, the acarya. It was similarly unthinkable that a guru who is a maha-bhagavata uttama-adhikari like Srila Prabhupada could fall, or that a disciple might ever have any difference of opinion with the infallible acarya.

However, according to Srila Prabhupada's purports to Srila Rupa Goswami's Upadesamrita (Nectar of Instruction), a guru may be chosen from three classes: kanistha, madhyama, and uttama. One should only accept a guru from the uttama-adhikari class. If it is not otherwise possible to get the shelter of an uttama-adhikari, one may accept the shelter of a madhyama-adhikari guru. It is never recommended to take the inadequate shelter of a kanistha-adhikari guru whose own spiritual faith is not steady and who is not fully aware of scriptural conclusions.

In order to properly examine the issues, we need to start with this fundamental principle of diksa and siksa, and gurus who are on different levels of realization.

Guru is one

In Srila Prabhupada's 1936 Vyasa-puja homage to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada, he strongly makes the point that if we accept there is only one Absolute Truth Sri Krishna, and if we accept that the bonafide guru is saksad-dhari (not different from Hari), we cannot then say there are multiple gurus. Just as Krishna descends in a variety of forms (fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, etc.) for the benefit of the conditioned souls, so He comes in the form of the bonafide spiritual master for the purpose of instructing the conditioned souls. One should accept a spiritual master only from the class of uttama-adhikaris, those who are beyond even the fixed-up and fully knowledgeable madhyama stage.

Sri Guru is accepted as the representative of Krishna. Krishna Himself teaches this in the Bhagavatam, speaking in reference to His own guru, Sandipani Muni. One may argue that this applied only to such a high-class liberated soul as Sandipani Muni, but that sage is understood by Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur to be a Saivite, not a Vaishnava (commentary on Bhagavad-gita).

When the guru has difficulty

While we understand the guru to be Krishna's representative, what then can we say when a guru falls down to abominable activities? This is also addressed by Srila Narahari Sarakara Thakur, saying that if there is some falldown, one may confront the guru based on sastra. This is an important point. Guru is not a lifetime appointment. If one does not act properly he is not acting as guru, and if that person becomes inimical toward Sri Krishna and the Vaishnavas may be given up altogether. Srila Jiva Goswami explains this in Bhakti-sandarbha based on the Mahabharata verse guror apy avaliptasya.

Therefore, if the guru is rightly situated in pure devotional service but suffers some temporary falldown, we understand according to api cet suduracaro bhajate mam ananya-bhak that such an unalloyed devotee will very quickly be rectified and return the path of righteousness. But the important point here is that we do not reject or neglect shastra, rather it is on the basis of shastra we will confront even the guru who falls to forbidden activities. No bonafide guru will minimize sastra. Srila Prabhupada taught us to follow guru, sadhu and shastra - not one but all three. Simply following guru is akin to kartabhaja, where the guru is accepted as all in all without consideration of shastra or even Bhagavan.

When the guru becomes inimical

If the guru becomes envious toward Sri Krishna or His devotees, such a guru may be given up. This is the extreme case. Why, then, one may ask, can one justify giving up a guru in good standing? If the guru is daily chanting 16 rounds and following the 4 regulative principles and actively engaged in service, how can one justify leaving such a guru? Isn't it a flimsy excuse to claim that the guru is envious just because he doesn't respect someone outside his organization?

To properly understand this, we need to return to the concept of siksa and diksa gurus. There can be only one diksa guru, but there may be many siksa gurus. Furthermore, one will always have special respect for the diksa guru because that relationship came first, and by the act of diksa one becomes connected to the sampradaya and (according to Hari-bhakti-vilasa) Krishna accepts the initiate to be as good as Himself.

When siksa is more prominent than diksa

However, it is often the case in our sampradaya that the relationship with the siksa-guru is considered more prominent than the diksa relationship. Those who make propaganda against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur and his entire mission make much of the need for an unbroken diksa succession. But in fact this was not taught by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Rupa Goswami, or any of their followers. One must accept a bonafide spiritual master, but the spiritual master is qualified by their connection with the line of teaching of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the previous acaryas. Guru is recognized by qualification, not by appointment or succession.

To give one example, the diksa-guru of Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami is not known, but his siksa-gurus Rupa Goswami and Raghunath das Goswami are well known - he mentions their lotus feet at the end of each chapter of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita. Jagannath das Babaji Maharaja was accepted by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur as Vaishnava Sarvabhauma (leader of the Vaishnavas) and as his siksa-guru, but the Thakur's relationship with his diksa-guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, appears to be more a matter of formality than substance. It was seen that way by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada.

It is also sometimes the case that a Vaishnava gives diksa to someone, but later with the blessings of the diksa-guru the disciple goes to take instruction from another Vaishnava. In some cases this siksa relationship becomes more prominent than the diksa relationship. One example of this is Duhkhi Krishnadas, whose guru sent him to the shelter of Srila Jiva Goswami. He was consequently given the name Syamananda Prabhu. By such examples we see that the position of guru is not one of controlling or exploiting the disciple, but of acting in the disciple's best interest.

When the diksa-guru does not give blessings

We respect guru, sadhu, and shastra. We hear from different saintly Vaishnavas, and take inspiration from them. We should always be mutually enlightening each other (bodhayantah parasparam). In hearing from some Vaishnavas we may obtain great inspiration and desire to further the relationship. What is the position when a disciple finds shelter in such a Vaishnava, finding someone who speaks according to shastra, but the diksa-guru forbids the disciple to associate? What should the disciple do?

In many recent cases, this is exactly what has transpired with different individuals. The details and the results differ, but let us consider what is the appropriate course of action. The disciple should (according to Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita) respectfully present arguments according to shastra to the diksa-guru, and request enlightenment according to shastra as to why the instructions of this other Vaishnava are not to be taken. If the diksa-guru's response is not according to shastra but based on some other consideration, the disciple may conclude after careful deliberation and consultation with other Vaishnavas learned in shastra that the diksa-guru has taken a position contrary to shastra. One may then continue to respect the diksa-guru even as one's guru, but may disregard the order to not associate with another Vaishnava. Such an order is not given according to shastra and may thus be disregarded or left aside.

In other cases, the diksa-guru takes a far more aggressive position, telling the disciple, "You must immediately give up the association of this person or you are no longer my disciple." If, having requested some explanation based on shastra, the disciple is not satisfied with the guru's response, or if the guru does not even respond, then one may certainly give up the shelter of such a guru who behaves inimically toward other Vaishnavas.

What then is the position of someone who has been so harshly rejected by their guru? Where is the connection and shelter? One should continue to respect the diksa-guru although there may no longer be any interaction, but one may consider, "Was I ever connected to Krishna via diksa? Was my initiation bonafide simply because my guru was appointed, or should I take shelter of one in whom I have full faith?" This has been the situation with many devotees whose gurus are considered to be in good standing, but who have been left little or no alternative. In one case a disciple sent e-mail to her guru attempting to present arguments, and the reply came back that she should return her initiated beads. No discussion according to shastra, only the ultimatum.

In another case the diksa-guru told the disciple they could have some dialog as devotees might talk to Christians, and proceeded to blame certain problems on another worshipable Vaishnava who is no longer physically present. While not a harsh ultimatum, it was taken as a rejection nonetheless. It was a hard lesson for the disciple, who felt it would have been better to simply remain silent on the subject rather than feel that a 20-year relationship had been suddenly terminated for no good reason.

The truth

These are very difficult and sensitive issues to discuss, but they must be brought out to counterbalance the slanted and negative propaganda coming from certain individuals. They would have us believe that Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja is teaching some different philosophy, that his only interest is in snatching away their hard-earned money and disciples, and that he is against our Srila Prabhupada. The truth is that all of these are heinous untruths, and those who repeat them knowing them as such will only create their own reward.

The truth belongs to those who desire it and have the courage to face it. Sometimes speaking the truth when it is unpopular results in deprivation of residence, harassment, ostracization, or worse. Sometimes these things result only from acting according to true convictions. But if we depend on Krishna as we have been taught by Srila Prabhupada and all our acaryas we should have nothing to fear. That is the ultimate test.

The truth is that some devotees are put forward as having been "reinitiated" by Srila Narayana Maharaja when their own diksa-gurus are considered to be in good standing. The individuals differ, but in every case some variant on the scenarios described here has applied. If a diksa-guru takes such an opposite stance in demanding the disciple's respect, and even goes further into vilification, such a guru cannot blame anyone but himself for driving the disciple away. Srila Prabhupada once said we should "command respect, don't demand respect." Srila Narayana Maharaja is humble, gentle, learned in shastra, and never demanding. But he commands immense respect from those who associate with him.

The truth is that Srila Narayana Maharaja continues to preach the same things he has preached all along. While he was present at my home, one disciple of a guru told him, "Maharaja, I have lost faith in my guru." Srila Maharaja told the devotee he can accept the siksa relationship and it may even become more prominent, but he should always first respect the diksa-guru. This is the proper Vaishnava etiquette that Srila Maharaja is teaching.

Conclusion

This paper is presented not to provoke confrontation, argument, hysteria, or to deride any individual or group of people. It is presented in an attempt to respond to numerous inaccurate and distorted representations which are accepted as true by a large segment of the Vaishnava community. It is highly doubtful that it will be made available to those who might benefit from it, but it is the author's desire that it be read widely and accepted in the spirit of Vaishnava unity. There is no need for schisms, rejections, ultimatums, and all other such things if can understand and accept these truths regarding the plurality of siksa gurus and the etiquette between disciple and guru, which extends in both directions.

Some of the rifts that now exist may never be healed or repaired, but it is the author's hope that even if he is seen as the lowest type of person some gems of truth may be found in this presentation. Names of invidividuals have been witheld to avoid embarassment to anyone or any institution, but if anyone is offended by statements made herein, I beg your forgiveness. It is my intention to present an understanding of scriptural conclusions and set right some wrong understandings, not to offend anyone.

Begging for the mercy of the Vaishnavas,
Vaishnava dasanudas,

Agrahya das