submitted by Damaghosa dasa, Yasoda nandana dasa, Dravinaksha dasa and other Prabhupada anugas
Srila Prabhupada, Mayapur, February 19, 1976: [...] They are
mahajanas. So we have to follow Prahlada Maharaja. He is our guru,
purva-acarya. Narada is purva-acarya. He is disciple of Narada.
Therefore he is acarya, and his disciplic succession… There are
sampradayas: Brahma-sampradaya, Kaumara-sampradaya… Anyone who is bona
fide acarya, he can create his own disciplic succession, but one
disciplic succession and the other disciplic—they are not different.
They are of the same conclusion. The Vaishnava acaryas, just like our
Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, and Nimbarka, and who that?
Rudra-sampradaya? Vishnu Svami. They are all of the same movement.
Aradhyo-bhagavan vrajesa-tanayah, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam [SB 1.3.28].
That is their conclusion. There is no different conclusion.
Although they have got varieties of methods—suddhadvaita,
dvaitadvaita, vasistadvaita, like that—they present the same philosophy
in clear way. And Caitanya Mahaprabhu presented the same philosophy,
that acintya-bhedabheda. That is acarya. Acarya gives some way for
simple understanding. The same conclusion, but according to the time,
circumstances, they give a very easy method to understand. That is
acarya. Acarya is following strictly the previous acarya, but according
to the circumstances, he may make little changes. That is… That change
is not change from the original idea. No.
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 7: Lectures : SB 7.9:
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.12 — Mayapur, February 19, 1976
Sp re the acarya knows how to adjust things, at the same time keep pace with the spiritual interest
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 1: Lectures : SB 1.1:
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.9 — Auckland, February 20, 1973 :
730220sb.auc :
Prabhupada: But the directions should be taken from scriptures. But
there are many scriptures. So acarya means, just like Gosvamis, they
would read all the scriptures and take the essence of it and give it to
his disciples that, “You act like this.”
Because he knows what to give, how to manipulate, so that his
ekantatah sreyas will be achieved. Ultimate goal. That is acarya.
Therefore the acarya knows how to adjust things, at the same time keep
pace with the spiritual interest. It is not that the same thing to be
applied everywhere. He is eager to engage actually the people in the
real benefit of life, but the means may be different.
Just like my Guru Maharaja. He is the first time that he allowed the
sannyasis to drive in a motorcar. A sannyasi never drives in a motorcar,
you see? But not for sense gratification. Suppose we are going by
aeroplane. A sannyasi should walk. The Jain sannyasis they never ride on
a car, you know that. You know that. They will never ride on a car. But
now they are also riding. But suppose we are preaching now. I came from
India. If I were to say, “I am a sannyasi, I will not ride in a car or
aeroplane, I must walk.”
Then what kind of preaching there would have been? You see? So
therefore it depends on the acarya how to adjust things. So, my Guru
Maharaja, “Alright go on preaching on a motorcar, it doesn’t matter.”
These Gosvamis, they went to Vrndavana, severest type of austerities.
They used to life underneath a tree. Now if in this age I advise you
that you also live underneath a tree, then it will be difficult to
preach. You see? Nobody is accustomed in that way, such severe type of
austerity.
They must be given, as far as possible, comfortable accommodation
otherwise they will not come. They will not take. Now this…. This is
adjustment. The acarya knows how to adjust things. The real purpose is
how one will take to spiritual consciousness, or Krishna consciousness.
Keeping one’s aim to that point some concession may be given. As far as
possible, keeping pace with the time, circumstances. Then? “The sages,
therefore, inquired…” Huh.
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 1: Lectures : SB 1.1:
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.9 — Auckland, February 20, 1973 :
730220sb.auc
Srila Prabhupada re Vaishnava who is preaching, it may be in a
different way, according to time and place and the party—they have to
change something, desa-kala-patra—but we have to see the essence.
So misunderstanding of God… There is no misunderstanding of the
authorities. The misunderstanding, the common man… Just like in
Australia, when I spoke, there was no misunderstanding. There was
agreement by the priests and myself. There was complete agreement.
(aside:) You were with me? Or… No. You were not. They, after hearing my
lecture for one hour, they agreed and clapped for ten minutes. So there
cannot be any misun… Those who are actually…
They questioned, “What is your opinion of Lord Jesus Christ?” and I
said, “He preached God consciousness. He’s our guru. Anyone who preaches
the message of God, he is guru.” So they very much appreciated, and
actually it is so. Vaishnava who is preaching, it may be in a different
way, according to time and place and the party—they have to change
something, desa-kala-patra—but we have to see the essence. Wherever
there is God consciousness, wherever is there understanding.
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 1: Lectures : SB 1.8:
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.28 — Mayapura, October 8, 1974
Position of the pure devotee acarya, acarya is a good as Krishna
- One should never be envious of the acarya.
- For preaching work, acarya may do something which is not consistent.
- Acarya may sometimes transgress the law.
- Vaishnava acarya’s activities are not understood even by the wisest man.
- Acarya has finished all business of material satisfaction.
“…But in devotion, there is no karma-bandha. As Krishna is free from
all reaction, similarly Krishna’s devotee who wants to satisfy Krishna
only, he is also free from all reaction.
Therefore Krishna says, acaryam mam vijaniyan nava-manyeta karhicit
[SB 11.17.27]. “The acarya is as good as I am”, Krishna says.
Nava-manyeta karhicit, “Never neglect him.” Na martya-buddhyasuyeta,
“Never be envious of the acarya, thinking him as anything of this
material world.” Acaryam mam vijaniyan [SB 11.17.27]. Therefore,
acarya’s position is as good as Krishna. Saksad-dharitvena
samasta-sastrair **. Acarya is always cautious that he may not be
subject to criticism.
But who criticizes acarya, he becomes immediately offender. Because
he is playing the part of acarya, he plays as far as possible. But
sometimes for preaching work, he might have to do something which is not
consistent. But if he is criticized, then that man who criticizes, he
becomes… Of course, he must be acarya, not a bogus. Ordinary man cannot
transgress the laws, but Krishna and His representative, acarya, might
be sometimes seen that he has transgressed.
Therefore Krishna says, acaryam mam vijaniyan [SB 11.17.27].
Vaishnavera kriya, mudra vijseha na bujhaya. In the Caitanya-caritamrta,
Vaishnava acarya, his activities is not understood even by the wisest
man. Vaishnavera kriya, mudra vijseha na bujhaya. Brahmany
upasamasrayam. Acarya, guru, he is completely surrendered to Krishna. He
has taken the shelter of Krishna, being completely freed from all
material affection. Brahmany upasamasrayam.
Everything… Everyone has got some material desire to fulfill, but a
guru or acarya has no such business. That is the symptom of acarya. He
has no more any material business. Brahmany upasamasrayam. He has
finished all business of material satisfaction. That is the symptom of
acarya. And sabde pare ca nisnatam. And he has taken full bath in the
ocean of transcendental knowledge. Sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany
upasamasrayam.
Tasmad gurum prapadyeta [SB 11.3.21], one should surrender to such
spiritual master. Jijsasuh sreya uttamam, when he is actually serious
about inquiring the transcendental subject matter. Otherwise there is no
need of accepting guru or acarya. He has no business. If one is not
interested in the transcendental subject matter …” Conversations : 1972
Conversations : March, 1972 : Room Conversation with John Griesser
(later initiated as Yadubara Dasa) — March 10, 1972, Vrndavana
From: DasDasDas@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:40:14 EDT
Subject: Direct instruction more important than book instruction
To: DasDasDas@aol.com
750327rc.may Conversations 376438/530501
Atreya Rsi: …I am degraded. “Very seriously, or may be given to me
from time to time directly, these directions, by my aforesaid Guru
Maharaja, or through his books, or…” In other words, direction
given, instruction given, directly by him or through his…
Prabhupada: Better directly.
Atreya Rsi: No “His books”?
Prabhupada: No.
Atreya Rsi: Not necessary.
Prabhupada: Because I may give direction according to the time.
Atreya Rsi: “Or” means both.
Prabhupada: Hm?
Atreya Rsi: “Or” can mean… All right. “Or through his
commissioners…”(?)
Prabhupada: Direct, direct instruction is important. Just like Krishna.
In the books He has given many instructions, but then He says,
sarva-dharman parityaja. If one says that “You gave me instruction
before like this. How can I give up this?” so that is not important.
The direct instruction is important.
This conversation with Srila Prabhupada and the GBC shows us how
important he considered his Direct Instruction over his book
instructions. Therefore his last instructions to us are more important
than ALL previous ones. He said to appoint ritvik priests and never
rescinded this order. Therefore it stands for as long as iskcon does.
Guru must be authorized by the bona fide Guru.
“Self-made guru cannot be guru. He must be authorized by the bona fide
guru. Then he’s guru. This is the fact…Similarly, bona fide guru means
he must be authorized by the superior guru.” (SP NOD Lecture, October
31. 1972)
Guru must be authorized by his predecessor spiritual master.
“One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in
the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual
master. This is called diksa-vidhana.” (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)
Srila Prabhupada explains how he became the leader of the KC movement.
Guru must be ordered by His guru.
“Indian man: When did you become spiritual the leader of Krishna Consciousness?
Srila Prabhupada: What is that?
Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krishna Consciousness?
Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.
Indian man: Did it…
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don’t go very speedily. A guru can
become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody
can become guru. “
(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75
TEXT
Translation
The Supreme Personality of=20 Godhead said to the brahmana: I am
completely under the control of My devote=s. Indeed, I am not at all
independent. Because My devotees are completely devo=d of material
desires, I sit only within the cores of their hearts. What to sp=ak of
My devotee, even those who are devotees of My devotee are very dear to
Me.
PURPORT
All the great stalwart personalities in the universe, including Lord
Brahma and Lord Siva, are fully under the control of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead is fully
under the control of His devotee. Why is this? Because the devotee is
anyabhilasita-sunya; in other words, he has no material desires in his
heart. His only desire is to think always of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead and how to serve Him best.
Because of this transcendental qualification, the Supreme Lord is
extremely favorable to the devotees—indeed, not only the devotees, but
also the devotees of the devotees. Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says,
chadiya vaisnava-seva nistara payeche keba: without being a devotee of a
devotee, one cannot be released from material entanglement. Therefore
Caitanya Mahaprabhu identified Himself as gopi-bhartuh pada-kamalayor
dasa-dasanudasah.
Thus he instructed us to become not directly servants of Krishna but
servants of the servant of Krishna. Devotees like Brahma, Narada,
Vyasadeva and Sukadeva Gosvami are directly servants of Krishna, and one
who becomes a servant of Narada, Vyasadeva and Sukadeva, like the six
Gosvamis, is still more devoted.
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura therefore says, yasya prasadad
bhagavat-prasadah: ** if one very sincerely serves the spiritual master,
Krishna certainly become favorable to such a devotee.FOLLOWING THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF A DEVOTEE IS MORE VALUABLE THAN FOLLOWING THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD DIRECTLY.
SB 9/4/63 TEXT 63
Nalini-kanta: Whatever the spiritual master says, that is also perfect?
Prabhupada: Yes. Because he says nothing concocted. Whatever he says, he says from sastra, and guru
Conversations : 1975 Conversations : April, 1975 : Morning Walk — April 8, 1975, Mayapur.
Bringing prior instructions given by Prabhupada to contradict a later
direct order – such as the letter of July 9, 1977, the formal directive
designating ritvik representatives – is crazy, insanity, madness.
SRILA PRABHUPADA: “I may say many things to you, but when I say
something directly, “Do it”, your first duty is to do that. You cannot
argue, “Sir, you said me like this before.” No, that is not your duty.
What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. If the captain of the ship
says “Five degrees starboard” and the first mate replies, “But captain,
before you told me ‘Ten degrees port’”, then it can be understood that
the first mate has gone insane.”
— Lecture by Srila Prabhupada on the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Hyderabad, India, April 15, 1975
From: “DasDasDas@aol.com”
To: yasoda1008@yahoo.com; vikramasingha@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 7:35 AM
Subject: Fwd: pass it on!
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:52:30 -0400
Subject: A nice post from “Mathius Sabji” on Facebook
From: georgiadis108@gmail.com
To:
ACARYA CREATES THE TRADITION NOT THAT TRADITION CREATES ACARYAS WAY TO PREACH !!!
“Every acarya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual movement
with the aim of bringing men to Krishna consciousness. Therefore, the
method of one acarya may be different from that of another, but the
ultimate goal is never neglected.”
( Caitanya-caritamrta purports Adi 7.37)
“Except for God, no one can establish the principles of religion.
Either He or a suitable person empowered by Him can dictate the codes of
religion.”
(purport, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.43)
Myth: “It cannot be the case that Srila Prabhupada intended to
operate a representational system of initiation within ISKCON, in which
he remained the diksa guru indefinitely, since it goes completely
against tradition.”
“Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, “Both the Supreme Personality of
Godhead and My spiritual master, Isvara Puri, are completely
independent. Therefore neither the mercy of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead nor that of Isvara Puri is subject to any Vedic rules or
regulations.”
(CC Madhya 10.137)
BUSTED: Srila Prabhupada most certainly did set up a representative
of acarya system, even the GBC admit as much, and there is no evidence
he ever ordered it to stop. Srila Prabhupada never taught that a
disciple can stop following one of his orders just because he thinks it
may not be ‘traditional’. In relation to the Spiritual Master, the
‘tradition’ we follow is to accept him as Krishna’s representative and
then do whatever he says:
“According to the Vaishnava tradition, we arrive at the truth through
the guru, the spiritual master, who is accepted as the representative
of the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead.”
(TQE = The Quest for Enlightenment 6)
“Disciple means there is no argument. Whatever the guru will say, you
have to accept. That is disciple. That is final. There is no argument.”
(Srila Prabhupada conversation 28.6.76)
By definition, such orders from the bona fide guru are always in
accordance with sastric (scriptural) injunctions, though not necessarily
with the traditional way in which such injunctions have been
exemplified or practised previously.
Therefore it is quite ‘traditional’ to follow the representative of
acarya ( ritvik-priest) and siksa-guru system since this is what Srila Prabhupada ordered us to do:
“Now you have got a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a
great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field and
continue to be ritvik and act on my behalf.”
(Srila Prabhupada to Hansadutta, July 31st, 1977, Vrindaban)
“The GBC should all be the instructor(siksa)gurus. I am the initiator
(diksa) guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I
am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must
actually come to this platform. This I want.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, August 4th, 1975)
Following initiation, it is accepted that the diksa Guru may also not be physically present:
“Sometimes a diksa-guru is not present always. Therefore one can take
learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the
siksa-guru.”
(SP Lecture, 4/7/74)
Representative of acarya system is not in sastra ?? NO!! It is in sastra! Here:
It is argued that before initiation can be granted to a prospective
disciple, the Guru must be physically present on the planet so that he
can personally meet the disciple and examine him. Indeed, this is the
traditional method, whereby the Guru and disciple would associate for an
extended period, so they could check each other’s qualifications.
However, in ISKCON the system for fulfilling this requirement was
different, as explained by Srila Prabhupada below:
“Similarly, a disciple’s qualifications must be observed by the
spiritual master before he is accepted as a disciple. In our Krishna
consciousness movement, the requirement is that one must be prepared to
give up the four pillars of sinful life-illicit sex, meat-eating,
intoxication and gambling.
In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential
disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles. Then he is
given the name of a Vaishnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare
Krishna maha-mantra, at least sixteen rounds daily. In this way the
disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual
master OR his—-representative—( RITVIK-PRIEST)-for at least six months
to a year.”
(Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya lila, 24:330, purport)
This observation, as Srila Prabhupada states above, was to see if the
prospective disciple was following the 4 regulative principles, and as
Srila Prabhupada states this observation could be done either by Srila
Prabhupada or his representative. In practise, this observation was
carried out almost exclusively by his representative ( ritviks), the
Temple President, and indeed this was the standard system in ISKCON
right from the early days of the movement.
Somebody would join a temple, a few months later the Temple President
would send a recommendation for initiation, and the devotee would be
initiated via the mail, having never met Srila Prabhupada.
And of course this has been the case in practise also, since none of
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples have had his personal association for the
last 35 years, and many of them never met him at all even when Srila
Prabhupada was physically present on the planet.
NOTE: Ritvik-Representative of acarya-system are Sastra confirmed but
our Iskcon GBC rubber stamped GBC 2/3 hand-vote in guru system is NOT!
The word “ritvik” (meaning “priest”) and its derivatives actually
have 31 separate references in Srila Prabhupada’s books, only slightly
less than the word “diksa” and its derivatives, which has 41 separate
references in Srila Prabhupada books. Certainly, the use of ritvik
priests to assist in ceremonies is a concept fully sanctioned in Srila
Prabhupada’s books:
Ritvik :
4.6.1 / 4.7.16 / 5.3.2 / 5.3.3 / 5.4.17 / 7.3.30 / 8.20.22 / 9.1.15 .
Rtvijah :
4.5.7 / 4.5.18 / 4.7.27 / 4.7.45 / 4.13.26 / 4.19.27 / 4.19.29 / 5.3.4 /
5.3.15 / 5.3.18 / 5.7.5 / 8.16.53 / 8.18.21 /8.18.22 / 9.4.23 / 9.6.35
Rtvijam :
4.6.52 / 4.21.5 / 8.23.13 / 9.13.1 .
Rtvigbhyah :
8.16.55 .
Rtvigbhih :
4.7.56 / 9.13.3 .
(all these references are from the Srimad-Bhagavatam)
Although spiritual principles were covered extensively by Srila
Prabhupada in his books, the specifics concerning those principles would
often not be given (for example in the area of Deity worship). These
specific details would usually be communicated by other means such as
letters, and practical demonstration. Thus, one needs to distinguish
between the principle of diksa or initiation, and the details of its
formalisation. Srila Prabhupada never defined diksa in terms of any
ritualistic ceremony, but as the receipt of transcendental knowledge
that leads to liberation:
“In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living
entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Vishnu.
This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving
the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness.”
(C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)
“Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental
knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
(C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)
In addition to ISKCON’s current guru system not having any order from
Srila Prabhupada to justify its existence, the GBC’s official “brain”,
the “Sastric Advisory Council” (SAC), has said that the process by which
it does authorise gurus, via voting them in, is not based on “guru,
sadhu and sastra”:
“Our present system has institutionalized a process of senior
devotees voting or offering no-objection to prospective gurus. But we do
not find that this institutionalized blessingseeking process is
mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra as the way that one is authorized to
become a guru.”
(Balancing the roles of the GBC and the disciple in Guru selection, SAC)
We see…..ritviks are authorized in Sastra and from guru like Srila
Prabhupada ,But we do not find that this institutionalized rubber
stamped GBC 2/3 hand-vote in bogus gurusystem is authorized by sastra
,Guru or sadhu !
Opponents of the representative of acarya ( ritvik-system) and
siksa-guru system need to show which specific sastric injunction ritvik
violates, not simply mutter the word ‘tradition’ as though it
encapsulated some sort of profound argument.
2) MYTH:But such a ritvik system has never been used before.
BUSTED: Anyone making this assertion is simply bluffing, since they
cannot possibly know what every single Acarya in every single previous
age has done. Even if they did it would still be an irrelevant argument
since nowhere did Srila Prabhupada say an Acarya cannot change various
formalities and details according to time, place and circumstance,
indeed he taught the very opposite with specific reference to
initiation:
“Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of
the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candelas
(people of low birth), or conditioned souls who are born in lower than
sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The
formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them
Vaishnavas.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.8.54 purport)
The use of priests to perform formal initiations in the physical
absence of a guru is certainly nothing more that a change of
‘formality’. The onus is on those who insist it is a change of principle
to state what that principle is and where it is stated by Srila
Prabhupada.
Similarly the following quote shows, that since every acarya may
employ different specific methods to bring persons to Krishna
consciousness, there cannot be a set tradition that every acarya must
adhere to:
“Every acarya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual
movement with the aim of bringing men to Krishna consciousness.
Therefore, the method of one acarya may be different from that of
another, but the ultimate goal is never neglected.
(Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi 7:37)
3) MYTH: We follow historical precedent, and therefore since we have no evidence that it has been done, we cannot do it.
BUSTED: Everyone agrees that Srila Prabhupada set up a representative
or ritvik acarya system to be operated prior to his departure, yet this
system was also completely unique so far as we know. So by this logic
the system should never have been implemented at all since it is not
mentioned previously; yet even the GBC accept that Srila Prabhupada
implemented it.
There is no historical precedent for a disciple to reject an order of
his guru purely on the basis that it has no historical precedent,
therefore the whole argument suffers from self-referential incoherence.
4)Myth :The Acarya always follows past tradition in all respects and never deviates from it.
BUSTED: Srila Prabhupada never taught this axiom in any of his books,
nor did he follow it since he did many things that were not traditional
(such as give gayatri mantra by magnetic tape, setting up a ritvik
system, only 16 Rounds chanting on beats (64) etc.)
The very introduction of formal initiation ceremonies within our
disciplic succession was an innovation introduced only relatively
recently by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Srila Prabhupada never said
that we should reject Srila Bhaktisiddhanta just because he broke with
tradition.
By this logic Acaryas could only do and say exactly what had been done and said before. Clearly this is ludicrous.
To even sensibly discuss this ‘tradition’ argument one would first
need to do a comparative study showing exactly what initiation system
all previous world acaryas, who appeared just after the Golden Avatar in
previous kali-yugas during the mini-golden age, left in place for their
missions just prior to their departure. Yet we have no authorised
information to even begin such a study.
“No. Tradition, religion, they are all material. They are also all designation.”
(Srila Prabhupada conversation 13.3.75)
“Our only tradition is how to satisfy Vishnu.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture 30.7.73)
However, as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed the GBC immediately
exceeded their brief, kicked Srila Prabhupada out from his position as
diksa-Guru, and became diksa-gurus themselves instead siksa-gurus and
representative of acarya. Here we see some instructions from Srila
Prabhupada prophetically warning of these deviant tendencies in the GBC.
“The GBC should all be the instructor( siksa ) gurus. I am the
initiator (diksa) guru, and you should be the instructor guru by
teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a
title, but you must actually come to this platform. This I want.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, August 4th, 1975)
GBC dictatorship condemned
“GBC members are simply to see that things are going on. Other
centers have got president, secretary, etc. and they are managing
separately. That is the formula. So how is it that the GBC are the final
authority? They are simply to examine that things are going on nicely,
that is all.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, July 9th, 1971)
If Srila Prabhupada is shaktavesha avatar (which we do recognize that
he factually is), he can do anything, and it becomes LAW. Because the
fully liberated soul is always in touch with Krishna, whatever he does
or says is shastra, law, absolute, non-different from Krishna. Because
we do not understand does not mean it is incorrect.
Many things were never done before. Ramanujacharya engaged dacoits
for collection, then had them killed. Madhvacharya pummeled his
opponents. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu sang and danced in public-never done
before by sannyasis. Buddha rejected the Vedas. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Prabhupada created a GBC to manage his preaching mission, leaving no
successor acharya, as was traditionally done.
Srila Prabhupada made the same arrangement. In both instances, the
order was disobeyed, and in both instances the result was the
same-chaos, confusion and disintegration of the Acharya’s mission. Great
acharyas like Srila Prabhupada do establish the principles of religion
according to time, place and circumstances.
“GBC does not mean to control a center. GBC means to see that the
activities of a center go on nicely. I do not know why Tamala is
exercising his absolute authority. That is not the business of GBC. [.]
GBC is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute
authority. That is not in the power of GBC. Tamala should not do like
that [.] A GBC member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, August 12th, 1971)
Hansaduta Prabhu wrote this:
In Ravindra Svarupa’s “Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts, Reform and
Renewal in ISKCON,” he admits that both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati
Thakur and Srila Prabhupada broke the Vedic tradition of appointing a
successor acharya to take charge of their missions after their
disappearance in favour of a modern institution of management known as
the GBC (Governing Body Commission), a term and concept borrowed
directly from the British management of the Indian railway system.
Ravindra writes, “With its corporate form of organization, ISKCON thus
represents a modernization of a religious tradition.” Ravindra then
writes:
Upon the demise of his predecessor, the successor acharya would take
the seat at the head of the institute. That successor acharya would be
ritually elevated over all other disciples of his guru (his
god-brothers), and all of them would bring new members to him for
initiation.
ISKCON, however, represents a departure from this archaic form of
organization. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly stressed his intention that
ISKCON would not, after his departure, be managed by a single acharya,
but rather by the board of directors, the Governing Body Commission that
he formed and began to train in 1970.
Srila Prabhupada’s intention and his departure from the tradition of
the institutional acharya is shown in a striking way in his will.
Traditionally, it was in the first article of his will that an acharya
named his successor, passing on his institution to his heir, as if it
were his personal property.
The first article of Srila Prabhupada’s will reads: “The Governing
Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority for the
entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”
Ravindra next writes the various suggestions and proposals for “Guru
Reform” made in 1986. By that time it had become abundantly clear that
the guru-acharyas and GBCs simply could not resolve the two conflicting
concepts of absolute authority to which each felt they were entitled.
The GBC, as ultimate managing authority of ISKCON, felt they should
be the authority, and the guru-acharyas felt they were the absolute,
divine authorities over not only their own disciples, but even over the
god-brothers, including the GBC. The institution was disintegrating over
the clash of absolute power each group claimed as its right.
Ravindra writes:
It was my conviction that we could retain in ISKCON the full-fledged
position of guru as delineated by the scriptures, a position that did
not essentially involve being the autonomous, autocratic head of an
institution, did not essentially disallow discussion, consultation,
revision and adjustment and did not forbid collegial decision-making as a
kind of lese majeste.
Does anyone know what lese majeste means? My guess is it means “to have your cake and eat it too.” I’m open for reader response.
The zonal acharya position had asserted it was intrinsic to the
position of guru to be absolute, and it professed that the gurus would
voluntarily sacrifice that position for the sake of the movement. This
implied that by working with a GBC the gurus were doing something
unnatural or artificial, and of course their “voluntary sacrifice”
seemed increasingly pro forma. To counter this conception of the guru I
argued that there was a significant way in which it was essential for
the bona fide guru to be relative.
After all, that there was a significant way in which it was the
essential qualifying characteristic of a guru is that he strictly follow
the order of Srila Prabhupada, who had decreed that all of us must
serve co-operatively under the authority of the GBC. Accepting the
authority of the GBC board was not a voluntary
option. Because it was Srila Prabhupada’s order, it was necessary to guru-hood itself.
What is guru-hood? Is it something like Robin Hood? Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Reader response requested. Help!
If Srila Prabhupada broke the traditional arrangement of appointing a
successor acharya (as Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu has so clearly pointed
out) by establishing a board of management (GBC) as the ultimate
management authority of ISKCON, then it just stands to reason and is
plain common sense that Srila Prabhupada would not create a competitive
authority to clash with his ultimate managerial authority, the GBC, by
appointing eleven guru-acharyas.
If he did not want a single acharya, why would he appoint eleven
acharyas? Rather, he again broke with tradition and appointed eleven
rittvik representatives of the Acharya, who would continue initiating
new disciples after his departure under
the authority of the GBC (ultimate managing authority of ISKCON), just
as they did for years in the presence of Srila Prabhupada and the GBC.
Instead of accepting this completely self-evident, logical and
authorized arrangement, Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu and other ambitious
devotees continue to juggle words like “reform” and “renewal” in an
attempt to maintain their mistakenly assumed postures and prestigious
titles of “guru-hood”.
In other words, the fact that Srila Prabhupada so strongly stressed
the GBC as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON proves that Srila
Prabhupada intended his rittvik arrangement to continue functioning
after his departure exactly as it functioned so successfully under
himself and the GBC while he was present.
This formula-Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acharya, the GBC as
the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON and the rittvik
representatives as initiators on behalf of Srila Prabhupada (Sampradaya
Acharya)-is clear and perfect. It can be confusing only to those who
have mistakenly assumed that after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance
ISKCON leaders must automatically become guru-acharyas in imitation of
Srila Prabhupada (which is exactly what happened).
Seventeen years later, everyone admits that this assumption was a
colossal mistake. Instead of seeing the simple truth in Srila
Prabhupada’s personal letter of July 9th, 1977,
wherein he appoints eleven rittviks to initiate on his behalf, Ravindra
Svarupa et al are still trying to find a way to “have their cake and eat
it too”.
Ravindra Svarupa plainly admits Srila Prabhupada departed from the
Vedic tradition. Why not simply surrender to the order of the spiritual
master and stop all this wrangling, speculation, reform and renewal,
which aims at nothing more than maintaining the mistakenly assumed
posture of guru-acharya by men whom Srila Prabhupada authorized to act
as rittvik acharyas?
The Vedic tradition is created by the acharyas, and therefore Srila
Prabhupada’s (the Sampradaya Acharya’s) arrangement for the GBC to act
as head of the institution and consequently rittvik representatives of
the Acharya for continuing the disciplic succession is perfectly in
keeping with Vedic tradition. It is the acharyas who set the precedents
which become the tradition, or it is the acharya who creates the
Sampradaya; not the Sampradaya which creates the acharya. Just as the
king creates the kingdom; not the kingdom creates the king. And the king
can do no wrong.
The conclusion is if we accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya
Acharya, pure devotee, shakti-avesa avatar and his writings as the law
books for the next 10,000 years, then we should have no difficulty in
accepting his arrangement of ritvik representatives, initiating on
behalf of the Acharya, Srila Prabhupada !!
“Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus, he appointed eleven
ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have
done the greatest disservice to this movement for the last three years
because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of
gurus. [...] Srila Prabhupada said: ‘All right. I will appoint so many
…’ and he started to name them.
He made it very clear that they are his disciples. At that point it
was very clear in my mind that he were his disciples. [...] You cannot
show me anything on tape or in writing were Prabhupada says: ‘I appoint
these eleven as gurus’ it does not exist. Because he never appointed any
gurus. This a myth. “
(Tamala Krishna Goswami: Pyramid House Confession December 3rd 1980)
Referring to the letter to Tusta Krishna quoted above where the “law” is mentioned, Jayadvaita Swami states:
“I accept that this quotation doesn’t “prove” that a departed acarya can’t initiate. I never said that it does.”
(Jayadvaita Swami, 4th June, 2004)
Previous acaryas have remained current for long periods of time,
thousands (Srila Vyasadeva) or even millions of years. 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 accessi ble.
“Prescription Takes Precedence Over Book Knowledge I am aware of the
fact that devotees will bring so many quotations from Srila Prabhupada’s
books to support conclusions contrary to the rittvik representative
system prescribed by Srila Prabhupada in the July 9, 1977 letter.
To such devotees we must point out that Prabhupada’s books are the
standard books for everyone in the Brahma Gaudiya Sampradaya, just as
the law books or medical books are standard books in their field. Still,
when the judge hands down a judgment or the physician writes a specific
prescription for the patient, that takes precedence over the book
knowledge. Although Prabhupada wrote so many books, his prescription for
his immature disciples in the last days was “Act as rittvik
representative of the ACHARYA, DEPUTIES and MONITOR of the ACHARYA.”
Having run the full course of this race, this point is very clear by
realisation born of the fire of ordeal. I am not philosophising these
are my realizations by the grace of Prabhupada and Krishna.”
(Hansadutta dasa, June, 1993)
As a general point, later instructions from the guru will always
supersede previous instructions; the final order is the final order, and
must be followed:
“I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to
you, you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue – “Sir
you said to me do like this before”, no that is not your duty, what I
say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue.”
(Srila Prabhupada S.B. Lecture, 14/4/75, Hyderabad)
Just as in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna gave so many instructions
to Arjuna, he spoke of all types of yoga from Dhyana to Jnana, but all
this was superseded by the final order:
“Always think of Me and become My devotee”- should be taken as the final order of the Lord and should be followed.”
(Teachings of Lord Caitanya, chapter 11)
The final order given by Sankaracarya,”bhaja Govinda”, was also meant
to supersede many of his earlier statements – all of them, in fact. As
mentioned in the introduction, the GBC itself recognizes this as an
axiomatic principle of logic:
“In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance.” (GBC
Handbook , p. 25)
It is not possible to have a “later” statement than the last one.
July 9, 1977 worldwide final order to all GBC and TP
July 9th, 1977
To All G.B.C., and Temple Presidents
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of
the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila
Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior
disciples to act as “ritvik”-representative of the acarya, for the
purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second
initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples
who will act in that capacity:
. His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
. His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
. His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
. His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami
. His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
. His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
. His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami
. His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
. His Holiness Harikesa Swami
. His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
. His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari
In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada
recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila
Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may
henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to
whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple.
After considering the recommendation, these representatives may
accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by
giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by
chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The
newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting
as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from
these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can
perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name
of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who
has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His
Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book.
Hoping this finds you all well.
Your servant, Tamala Krsna Gosvami
Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
[Srila Prabhupada's signature appears on the original]
(Note: There is a reference to the May 28, 1977 meeting in Vrindavan
in which Srila Prabhupada replied to a specific question from the GBC on
what to do for iniitiations after his physical disappearance.
“Now you have a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a
great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field and
continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.”
(Srnla Prabhupmda to Hansadutta : July 31, 1977)
The July 9, 1977 worldwide final order to all GBC and Temple
presidents and this Letter to Hansadutta Prabhu July 31, 1977 are the
last and final orders/instructions from Prabhupada for Iskcon !!!!!!
“I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly to
you, you do it. Your first duty is to do that, you cannot argue – “Sir
you said to me do like this before”, no that is not your duty, what I
say to you now you do it, that is obedience you cannot argue.”
(Srila Prabhupada S.B. Lecture, 14/4/75, Hyderabad)
Excerpt from Srila Prabhupada’s Declaration of last Will
“The executive directors who have herein been designated are
appointed for life. In the event of death or failure to act for any
reason of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors
may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director
IS MY initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and
regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as
detailed in my books, and provided that there are never less than three
(3) or more than five (5) exeutive directors acting at one time.”
Especially this point: ….” provided the new director is MY initiated disciple”…….!!
“the will is signed by Srila Prabhupada, and it clearly says that
each successor director should be Srila Prabhupada’s initiated
disciple.”
(Where the Ritvik People are Wrong, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)
This of course can only happen if the ritvik system is in place for
all times in ISKCON, and therefore every future devotee becomes “Srila
Prabhupada’s initiated disciple.”
Challenging this direct evidence for the ritvik system in
ISKCON, Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja states the following:
“And ultimately one can become not only his disciple in spirit but his “initiated disciple” through the guru-parampara system.”
(Where the Ritvik People are Wrong, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)
Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja states that one becomes Srila Prabhupada’s initiated disciple through the guru-parampara system.
In a subsequent paper Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja states the ritvik system brings:
“an end to the parampara system”
(Where the Ritvik People are Wrong Again, Jayadvaita Swami, 1998)
confusing …….
This Prabhupada’s final will can only work in the future after
Prabhupada’s physical departure, if these Ritvik-system instruction are
followed and this instruction also:
“The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru,
and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and
doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come
to this platform. This I want.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, August 4th, 1975)
Consequently, for a disciple to stop following this order, with any
degree of legitimacy, demands he provide some solid grounds for doing
so. The only thing that Srila Prabhupada actually told us to do was to
follow the ritvik system. He never told us to stop following it, or that
one could only follow it in his physical presence. The onus of proof
will naturally fall on those who wish to terminate any system put in
place by our acarya, and left to run henceforward. This is an obvious
point; one can not just stop following the order of the guru
whimsically:
“…the process is that you cannot change the order of the spiritual master.”
(C.c. Adi 7.76-81, Lecture, 2/2/67, San Francisco)
A disciple does not need to justify continuing to follow a direct
order from the guru, especially when he has been told to continue
following it. That is axiomatic – this is what the word “disciple”
means:
“When one becomes disciple, he cannot disobey the order of the spiritual master.”
(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 11/2/75, Mexico)
Supporting Instructions
There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his
secretary, in the days following the July 9th letter, which clearly
indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without
cessation:
“…the process for initiation to be followed in the future.”
(July 11th , 1977)
“…continue to become ritvik and act on my charge.”
(July 19th, 1977)
“…continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.”
(July 31st, 1977)
In these documents we find words such as “continue” and “future”
which along with the word “henceforward” all point to the permanency of
the ritvik system. There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even
hints that this system was to terminate on his departure.
Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja Prabhupada:
“Therefore having a bona fide spiritual master and serving him and
pleasing him and getting his mercy is essential. Otherwise there can be
no advancement in Krishna consciousness. And unless the spiritual master
is a pure devotee of Krishna then he has no potency to give you
Krishna. He is simply a cheating rascal.
So in fact above all the rules and regulations and offenses I have
mentioned the most important thing, the essential thing, which is
required if you want to come to the stage of purely chanting the Hare
Krishna mantra is you must have a bona fide spiritual master who is a
pure devotee of Krishna. Without having a bona fide spiritual master you
can chant Hare Krishna forever but you will not be able to advance
because Krishna does not reveal Himself in this way. He only reveals
Himself to those devotees who surrender to and serve and please His pure
devotees.”.
( SP Letter to his London disciples, July, 1969)
