Supporting Srila Prabhupada’s Choice
UPDATE Dec. 11, 2010: A second article has been published wherein Mahavidya notes that he received no response to his first. I responded with what I have written below, with a few later edits, but Rocana rejected it with no indication that he had read it, instead referring to an incident from a few months earlier when he had told me to never write to him again. At that time I had addressed his heavy criticism of Gauridas Pandit prabhu at Bhaktifest and refusal to publish Gauridas’s response, with a brief, sarcastic e-mail, trying to suggest that he be more tolerant of how others work to develop bhakti. Rocana mentions in an editorial today, which I don’t care to link, that there were responses, but none supporting Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order were mentioned.
———————
Hare Krishna.
In his recent article on the Sampradaya Sun, titled “Automatic?,” (http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/11-10/editorials6768.htm) Mahavidya Prabhu argues that the supporters of Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order are denying him his right to reject aspiring disciples. I’ve appreciated Mahavidya’s writing on many occasions, but that accusation is wrong.
There is no need for Srila Prabhupada to accept (or reject) individual disciples now, because historical record shows that he chose to distance himself from that role and delegate it to rtviks instead. This can be shown clearly in four events in 1977:
1. April 22, Tamal Krsna Gosvami tells Srila Prabhupada that he does not think any of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are qualified at the level of guru, and Srila Prabupada agrees, telling TKG that he is waiting for someone to become qualified. This contradicts any earlier evidence someone may put forward saying that he had authorized gurus. As of April 22, 1977, he had not.
Conspicuously absent is any mention by Srila Prabhupada of how he supposedly authorized everyone to be initiating guru with a private letter to Tusta Krsna swami several years earlier.
2. On May 28, Satsvarupa das Gosvami formally asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations were to continue after his disappearance, and he immediately replied, “Officiating acarya… Rtvik, yes.” They surely knew what this meant, but as if unsatisfied with this, his disciples brought the conversation around to discussion of gurus, and Srila Prabhupada emphasized it would be upon his order, an order that apparently was never given.
3. Srila Prabhupada signed a document dated July 9, 1977, indicating that the rtviks listed therein were to act on his behalf in accepting disciples, which would then be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. (TKG mentioned on at Topanga Canyon on Dec. 3, 1980, that Srila Prabhupada told him more rtviks could be added.) With this document, Srila Prabhupada materially removed himself from the decision-making process in accepting disciples, having already clearly established his standard of 16 rounds, 4 regs, etc. Nowhere in this document is there any termination clause or any other contradiction of Srila Prabhupada’s prior expressed choice to employ the rtvik method for accepting disciples in ISKCON after his disappearance.
4. That Srila Prabhupada dismissed himself from the decision of accepting disciples was confirmed on October 18, when the desire of one man to become his disciple was presented to Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada referred five times to the “deputies” he had made to go to instead. Reading the conversation gives me the impression that he was a little annoyed at being bothered to verbally accept a disciple when he had already delegated that role. Why would he turn away aspiring disciples? This was a disturbance.
Leaving aside other supporting evidence for the sake of time and space, these four events clearly illustrate the relevant decision that Srila Prabhupada actually made, to continue accepting disciples after his disappearance via the rtvik method he instituted. Therefore it is far better to focus on honoring Srila Prabhupada’s expressed order rather than worrying that someone might wrongly accept a disciple on his behalf and force Srila Prabhupada to save another soul and deliver another devotee to Krishna against his will. Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. Have we forgotten Srila Prabhupada’s mercy?
The way Mahavidya presented it, one unaware might think Srila Prabhupada was big on rejecting his aspiring disciples. We know he accepted several thousand, including some who were just passing through and many whom he never met. How many did he reject? Mahavidya acts as if he knows of one but yet calls him a disciple, so that suggests Srila Prabhupada accepted him too. I would like to know what, if any, evidence anyone has to suggest that Srila Prabhupada would reject an aspiring disciple who would meet the criteria for initiation that he established for ISKCON. In the absence of such evidence, I find it extremely mislead for anyone to stand in the way of aspiring disciples wanting to take shelter at Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet.
Some, including Mahavidya Prabhu recently if I recall correctly, have presented an argument they seem to find very clever, that if we can be initiated as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples even now, then that means we could just as well be initiated as disciples of any past acarya. They say, devoid of logic, that the rtvik system is invalid because I could become the godbrother of Krishna’s spiritual master, for example. This again ignores the bold fact that Srila Prabhupada created a worldwide institution and a rtvik method within that institution for accepting disciples in his absence, and he said this was the method to be used after his disappearance. The previous acaryas came in a different time, place, and circumstance, and did not do that. History shows that Srila Prabhupada did.
Others present the idea that somehow a guru cannot accept disciples after his disappearance. I’m not sure whether they think this is a limitation on Krishna’s abilities, on the guru’s, or both.
Considering that an ordinary rich person can give his material wealth after his disappearance to someone he has never met but who meets certain qualifications, I find it impossible to believe that on the spiritual platform a guru cannot give his spiritual wealth in an equivalent situation. Materially, it happens every day. Someone has loads of money and establishes a foundation, with funding, trustees, criteria for awards, etc., and money is given as designated, even after the founder’s death. Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of the rtvik system in ISKCON during his manifest pastimes provides a similar infrastructure, making that system possible even now. The ISKCON GBC was wrong to tear that down and install themselves as gurus in his place, and they knew it.
Given that Srila Prabhupada provided the means for accepting disciples after his disappearance, directly said to utilize the rtvik method after his disappearance, widely promulgated a written order following that, referred to the same in later conversations and letters, and never subsequently contradicting this order… if the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” logic is good for anything, then rtvik system is undoubtedly what Srila Prabhupada wanted to do.
Therefore one should accept the decisions Srila Prabhupada made rather than falsely accusing others of stealing from Srila Prabhupada a decision that he formally delegated.
Hare Krishna
Rtvikvada is bogus philosophy and not based on shastra. It is absolutely clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted the disciplic succession to continue and not terminate with him.Do you have any written record of Bhakti siddhanta Saraswati Thakur authorising Srila Prabhupada to start initiating in future after his departure . Such record is not there as it is not required. That is the guru shisya parampara.
“Krishna das,”
Your claims lack any support and but I’ll briefly comment anyway.
Srila Prabhupada said he was authorized; he did not say how. I believe he told the truth. As I recall reading, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada said that a successor acarya would emerge. I don’t remember the exact phrase at the moment. Srila Prabhupada, on the other hand, when asked (5/28/77) how initiations were to continue after his disappearance, replied “Officiating acarya…Rtvik, yes,” and followed that up with a widely promulgated letter to that effect.
The GBC is corrupt. This was proven decades ago and practically admitted by TKG when he acknowledged that they were not authorized as acaryas. They Zonal Acarya period could not have been a mistake; it was fraud, and they “solved” it by the same criminals allowing more into their group. Thus the same situation continues to this day.
Only in such an atmosphere of corruption could more than 500 former Hare Krishna gurukulis have had to endure such abuse as to push them to sue ISKCON, the institution they grew up in, for $400 million. That shows a complete failure of ISKCON leadership, and it was not even the first time.
Tamal Krsna Goswami, Dec. 3, 1980: “Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He didn’t appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years [since 1978] because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.”
Doing the greatest disservice to Srila Prabhupada’s movement immediately after his disappearance should mean you have to step down, several steps down, or just get the f- out. Obviously. You do not get to remain the big leaders and choose how to share your power. Forcing devotees to accept such scoundrels as gurus and serve their feet is offensive and disgusting.
Very happy to see that you are writing again, Paul. It’s been a while.
Four objections to the ritvik system that has been put forth in this article. Here are some answers to such objections.
FIRST OBJECTION: supporters of Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order are denying him his right to reject aspiring disciples.
ANSWER: On July 7th, when setting up the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada states that the ritviks could accept devotees as his disciples without consulting him. Thus, Srila Prabhupada was not involved in the process of screening, or approving new disciples. The ritviks had full authority and discretion. Srila Prabhupada’s physical involvement was not required.
Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion.
Tamal Krishna: On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
(Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)
Furthermore, the names given by the ritviks would be entered by Tamal Krishna Goswami into the “Initiated disciples” book. Thus, externally at least, Srila Prabhupada would not even have been aware of the disciple’s existence. Consequently, the process now would be the same as it was then, since the ritvik has full power of attorney.
SECOND OBJECTION: that if we can be initiated as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples even now, then that means we could just as well be initiated as disciples of any past acarya.
ANSWER: Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:
1. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorise a ritvik system to run “henceforward”.
2. We must approach the current link:
“…in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.” (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)
It is self-evident that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore our current link, and is thus the correct person to approach for initiation.
THIRD OBJECTION: Others present the idea that somehow a guru cannot accept disciples after his disappearance.
ANSWER: There is nothing in the July 9th Final Order letter that says the instruction for ritviks was only meant for whilst Srila Prabhupada was physically present. In fact, the only information given supports the continuation of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. It is significant to note that within the July 9th letter it is stated three times that those initiated would become Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The GBC in presenting evidence for the current guru system have argued vigorously that Srila Prabhupada had already made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, it was an inviolable law that no one could initiate in his presence. Thus the necessity to state Srila Prabhupada’s ownership of future disciples must indicate that the instruction was intended to operate during a time period when the ownership could even have been an issue, namely after his departure.
For some years Srila Prabhupada had been using representatives to chant on beads, perform the fire yajna, give gayatri mantra etc. No one had ever questioned whom such new initiates belonged to. Right at the beginning of the July 9th letter it is emphatically stated that those appointed are “representatives” of Srila Prabhupada. The only innovation this letter contained then was the formalisation of the role of the representatives; hardly something which could be confused with a direct order for them to become fully-fledged diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada’s emphasis on disciple ownership would therefore have been completely redundant were the system to operate only in his presence, especially since as long as he was present he could personally ensure that no one claimed false ownership of the disciples. As mentioned above, this point is hammered home three times in a letter which itself was quite short and to the point:
“So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final.” (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los Angeles)
The July 9th letter states that the names of newly initiated disciples were to be sent “to Srila Prabhupada” – Could this indicate that the system was only to run while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? Some devotees have argued that since we can no longer send these names to Srila Prabhupada, the ritvik system must therefore be invalid.
The first point to note is the stated purpose behind the names being sent to Srila Prabhupada, ie., so they could be included in his “Initiated Disciples” book. We know from the July 7th conversation (please see Appendices) that Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with entering the new names into this book, it was done by his secretary. Further evidence that the names should be sent for inclusion in the book, and NOT specifically to Srila Prabhupada is given in the letter written to Hamsadutta, the very next day, where Tamala Krishna Goswami explains his new ritvik duties to him:
“…you should send their names to be included in Srila Prabhupada’s ‘Initiated Disciples’ book.” (Letter to Hamsadutta from Tamala Krishna Goswami, 10/7/77)
Their is no mention made here of needing to send the names to Srila Prabhupada. This procedure could easily have continued after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure. Nowhere in the final order does it state that if the “Initiated Disciples” book becomes physically separated from Srila Prabhupada all initiations must be suspended.
The next point is that the procedure of sending the names of newly initiated disciples to Srila Prabhupada in any case relates to a post-initiation activity. The names could only be sent after the disciples had already been initiated. Thus an instruction concerning what is to be done after initiation cannot be used to amend or in any way interrupt pre-initiation, or indeed initiation procedures (the ritvik’s role being already fulfilled well before the actual initiation ceremony takes place). Whether or not names can be sent to Srila Prabhupada has no bearing on the system for initiation, since at the point where new names are ready to be sent, the initiation has already occurred.
The last point is that if sending the names to Srila Prabhupada were a vital part of the ceremony, then even before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the system would have been invalid, or at least run the constant risk of being so. It was generally understood that Srila Prabhupada was ready to leave at any time, thus the danger of not having anywhere to send the names was present from day one of the order being issued. In other words, taking the possible scenario that Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet the day after a disciple has been initiated through the ritvik system, according to the above proposition, the disciple would not actually have been initiated simply because of the speed by which mail is delivered. We find no mention in Srila Prabhupada’s books that the transcendental process of diksa, which may take many lifetimes to complete, can be obstructed by the vicissitudes of the postal service. Certainly there would be nothing preventing the names of new initiates being entered into His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book even now. This book could then be offered to Srila Prabhupada at a fitting time.
FOURTH OBJECTION: It is absolutely clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted the disciplic succession to continue and not terminate with him.
ANSWER: The disciplic succession, or guru parampara, is eternal; there is no question of it stopping. According to Srila Prabhupada, the Sankirtan Movement, (and hence ISKCON), will only exist for the next 9,500 years. Compared with eternity 9,500 years is nothing, a mere blip in cosmic time. This would appear to be the time period during which Srila Prabhupada shall remain the “current link” within ISKCON, unless he or Krishna countermands the July 9th order, or some external circumstance renders the order impossible to follow (such as total thermo-nuclear annihilation).
Previous acaryas have remained current for long periods of time, thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even millions of years (see quote below). We see no reason why the duration of Srila Prabhupada’s reign as “current link”, even if it extends right till the end of the Sankirtan Movement, should pose any particular problem.
“Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps [...] we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system – namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him [...] We have to pick up from the authority of the acarya in whatever sampradaya we belong to.” (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 12/4/68)
The July 9th order is significant since it means that Srila Prabhupada shall be the prominent acarya, at least for members of ISKCON, for as long as the Society exists. Only the direct intervention of Srila Prabhupada or Krishna can revoke the final order (such intervention needing to be at least as clear and unequivocal as a signed directive sent to the entire Society). Thus until some counter-instruction is given, the science of devotional service shall continue to be transmitted directly by Srila Prabhupada to successive generations of his disciples. Since this is a common phenomenon in our disciplic succession, there is no cause for alarm. The succession can only be considered “ended” if this science of devotional service is lost. On such occasions, Lord Krishna Himself usually descends to re-establish the principles of religion. As long as Srila Prabhupada’s books are in circulation, this “science” shall remain vigorously intact, and perfectly accessible.
One question for Krsna dasa: Since, according to you, we can’t have Srila Prabhupada as our guru, then WHO are we supposed to take shelter of? Who is your guru, Krsna dasa?
Second question: Where did Srila Prabhupada ever authorize or order anyone to become diksa gurus? He only authorize them to become ritviks. So, unless you can present evidence to the contrary, I will stick with the system of initiation that Srila Prabhupada DID IN FACT establish, the ritvik system.
Good luck finding such evidence, because according to Tamal Krishna, it does not exist:
“You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: “I appoint these eleven as gurus.” It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.”
-Tamal Krishna Goswami, December 3, 1980
Dear Paul/Pandu prabhu,please accept my humble obeisances.All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Rocana prabhu forwarded me your link..so here i am.
I am indeed flatered that you consider me clever.
ys mahavidya das.
Very lucidly put, Pandu prabhu.
I just read some of Rocana prabhu’s criticism of Gauridasa Pandita prabhu at the Bhaktifest, and I’m honestly disgusted. Rocana comes across as an envious snake. Why does he not apply his considerable intelligence to organizing an ecstatic harinama rather than denigrating someone else’s sincere efforts? I sincerely doubt his diatribe is pleasing to Srila Prabhupada.
Mahavidya prabhu,
For quite some time now, I have been reading your posts on Rocana prabhu’s site. I have not read much there lately, as in general, his site has ceased to inspire me. Obviously you have been wounded by the bogus GBC. This much is clear and my heart goes out to you. However, I cannot help but feel that you seem to be wallowing in your wounds and perhaps justified criticism of others – with the resultant bodily suffering this mentality produces – rather than moving on joyfully with your life in Krishna Consciousness.
If Srila Prabhupada had become a bitter, twisted old sadhu, haunting Radha Damodara with his legitimate gripes against his godbrothers, where would we all be now?
I pray you do not take offence to my honest words. I am also struggling to carry on with my own spiritual life in the midst of injustice and the complaints of the mind. I wish only the best for you and all my senior godbrothers and godsisters.
your aspiring servant,
Tulasi devi dasi