BY: ROCANA DASA
Jan 30, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) — This is a follow-up to my recent article, One Should Know that They Are asara, Useless”, in which I pointed out the fact that both Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja and Srila Prabhupada, as confirmed in his purports, have informed the Vaisnavas that one’s opinion cannot be different than the Spiritual Master’s opinion.
And if it is, then you become useless. We’ve been engaged in a back and forth debate for the last few weeks with supporters of the Gaudiya Matha – meaning the umbrella concept of the Gaudiya Matha, i.e., Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers and the mathas and branches that comes from them – and we find there is a significant difference of opinion between us.
One has to appreciate the fact that Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers, who for the most part are now departed, were very advanced in Krsna Consciousness and were aware of the import of what Srila Prabhupada was communicating in his purports to Caitanya-caritamrta Adi lila 12.8 to 12.12.
Consequently, they needed to let their followers know, or make them believe that their opinion and Srila Prabhupada’s opinion were actually the same. To support that notion they’ve done extensive research, presenting us with their supposedly conclusive arguments.
No matter what camp you go to – B.V. Narayana Swami, or Srila Puri Maharaja, or B.R. Sridhar Maharaja, or Tripurari Swami’s camp, they all stick to the same hymnbook. They tell us that Srila Prabhupada, in the course of preaching, appeared to commit offenses but he really didn’t commit offenses because he apologized for these offenses — the offenses being that he told his disciples not to have anything to do with his godbrothers.
A disciple who is naïve, inexperienced and neophyte needs to be protected from being confused. The confusion comes, of course, when such inexperienced neophytes come in contact with someone of advanced spiritual status who has a different mood or a different perception of Krsna Consciousness than Srila Prabhupada. When they hear such differing opinions, the confusion will cause doubts in their mind.
After Srila Prabhupada left, his movement was taken over by the Zonal Acaryas, who were then free to ignore his orders, which they did on several fronts. In retrospect, that’s very clear. I recall some of the letters that Rupanuga das received from Srila Prabhupada on the subject of the godbrothers.
Rupanuga was Prabhupada’s number one GBC. Rupanuga took these letters as an order, and some of them he was obliged to pass around to all the temple presidents, so we all heard the contents, and which we passed down to the devotees in the temples. So we heard Srila Prabhupada’s order, and we accepted it.
The orders of Srila Prabhupada – or even the orders of the GBC in those days were instantly accepted, with almost military precision. We did not question. Srila Prabhupada’s orders on his godbrothers were later reinforced by other letters, and when the Caitanya-caritamrta came out, it solidified our conceptions on the subject.
So we had this opinion. In other words, we knew what Srila Prabhupada’s opinion was. And the flimsy or conjured up evidence that’s supplied by those who feel we should give up this opinion, give up the Spiritual Master’s order, does not sway us. It’s not strong enough for us to abandon Srila Prabhupada’s order and opinion.
However, that is not the situation faced by those who are aligned with, or are taking shelter as siksa or diksa disciples of gurus who hold another opinions — an opposite opinion to Srila Prabhupada’s, like some recently expressed here in the Sun.
Those individuals are obliged, according to Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s instructions in the Caitanya-caritamrta, to obey their guru. So our discussing the matter back and forth is not going to resolve anything, because the same order holds for them as it holds for us. They must accept the opinion of their Spiritual Master.
There are all sorts of controversial topics to be discussed, even within ISKCON, what to speak of amongst the other Gaudiya Vaisnava branches. And even on this particular subject, there are persons within ISKCON who don’t share the same opinion we do. So this is a problem for them. Many of my godbrothers have differing opinions on the origin of the jiva.
They may have a different opinion than Srila Prabhupada about the qualifications for being a diksa guru. There are so many different opinions, but one has to make sure if one is a follower of Srila Prabhupada, either diksa or siksa, that he’s in line with Srila Prabhupada’s opinions.
That is our duty. This is our position as followers –we have to make sure we have the same opinion as Srila Prabhupada. Of course, to have the same opinion as Srila Prabhupada is not as easy as it may sound.
Thus we have the controversy created by the Gaudiya Matha and by disciples who do not understand or appreciate this principle, and by those who are Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, but who are also attracted to these other authorities.
Many such devotees have been convinced by these authorities that it’s fine to take shelter of them, and that you require a siksa guru, or a living guru. Those who fall for this deception are not told by their new authorities that they now have to adopt the opinion of their newly found guru – that it’s an obligation on their part.
But they expect them to do so, of course, and when their opinion differs from Srila Prabhupada’s opinion, the devotees are put in a quandary. Many of my godbrothers have been put in that position, and many have sided with their new living authority and guru, going against the opinions of Srila Prabhupada. Today this applies to so many of Srila Prabhupada’s own initiated disciples.
Even within ISKCON this same principle applies. If you have discovered, as a disciple of one of those who are supposedly representing Srila Prabhupada, that your guru’s opinion is different than Srila Prabhupada’s opinion, then you have to make a very serious decision.
So I just wanted to make this point abundantly clear. I’ve already stated that I can’t change my opinion, regardless of how many slokas are presented by our Gaudiya Matha friends, because none of them address the clear and simple instructions from Srila Prabhupada.
They ignore Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, which conflict with their own. So this is the position we’re in, and there is only one solution – to follow Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, and his alone – the ultimate opinion.
It is a question of faith and chastity.
Thank you Rocana for being so chaste and faithful to Srila Prabhupada. That was always Prabhupa’s own spiritual prerogative. He repeatedly stated that if there was any success in His transcendental mission, than it was only because he was a chaste a faithfull disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, His revered Gurumaharaj. He simply wanted to please his Gurumaharaj -- nothing more, and nothing less. That was His Divine Grace’s “secret of success”.
[Reply]
Hare Krishna Rocana Prabhu;
I enjoyed your presentation, but am just a little surprised to see your name here, of all places.
You said, quote, “I hate the ritviks”. So, exactly what sort of unity are you backing?
Or is it the albeit scholarly usual talk and no cooperative action, thus actually, instead of helping, diffusing the energies meant to conteract the usurpers and poisoners, and rebuild Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON As It Is ?
[Reply]
In the Cc Adi Lila 12.8-12.12 Rocana has interpreted the meaning of the english content of the purports in his way.That is to say there is more than one way to understand the meanings.
Where the word “useless” appears in these purports are as follows.
1) “But just after His passing away, His leading secretaries made plans, without authority to occupy the post of Acharya, and they split in two factions over who the next Acharya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the Spiritual Master.”
The word “useless” here can be applied to different subjects in the context of the sentence. Rocana has just applied the word “useless” in one definition and application, that it applies to persons, ie devotees.
But if you look carefully at this sentence the way the sentence is constructed the word “useless” applies to the “factions”(both), so it’s applicable to the actions of the devotees not the devotees themselves. We can separate the action from the performer of the action and there is a massive difference to the meaning of the sentence.
2) “The members of the self-appointed acarya’s party who occupied the property of the Gaudiya Matha are satisfied, but they could make no progress in preaching. Therefore by the result of their actions one should know that they are asara, or useless.”
This example is even more clear. Rocana emphasised the words “one should know” but that did not clarify the sentence or meaning and understanding any better, it just emphasised the point Rocana himself wanted to make. But if you again read the sentence carefully the meaning is different to Rocana’s idea.
What is “useless”- “they” are useless- and what is the “they” referring to-their actions are useless.
Again, what is being said in this sentence is that the actions of the devotees are useless not the devotees themselves. The difference is between the person and the action performed by the person.The action is not the person, as it is said in the Bible -- Hate the sin not the sinner. And so it is here.
The “they” that is used in the sentence is referring to the actions, so the meaning of the sentence could also be,
“One should know the result of their actions are useless.” What are they useless in -Their preaching activities.
So finally we come to the conclusive meaning which could read like this. “One should know the result of the preaching activities are useless.”
Then Srila Prabhupada compares the Gaudiya Matha’s preaching efforts to that of Iskcon, which is successful and at that time was increasing daily.
Clearly the subject of this is the preaching activities not the uselessness of devotees in the Gaudiya Matha.That idea has come from Rocana’s mind not from the text of Cc 12.8-12.12.
Iskcon was successful because of Srila Prabhupada. Since Srila Prabhupada disappeared is Iskcon equally successful?
Can’t we see a mirror image of what happened to the Gaudiya Matha after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta disappeared and in Iskcon after Srila Prabhupada disappeared?
If we take Rocana’s piece to its logical conclusion then he is admitting uselessness as well. So Rocana prabhu are you useless too?
[Reply]
Most Sun readers and submitters are unaware of Rocana’s anti-ritvik opinion as he works it from the shadows of his website, filtering out pro-ritvik submissions on an individual basis.
Guru Krpa stated, “Prabhupada ordered ritvik†and Krsnakanta made the case, humiliating ISKCON; yet Rocana “hates the ritviks”.
I think Rocana is skating on thin ice, in this article, criticizing others, and assuming that his opinion, “The Church of Rtvik,” is Prabhupada’s opinion.
[Reply]
I’m convinced that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately vague about who would succeed him.
Rocana das
[Reply]
SG Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Interesting Rocana Dasa, now you should explain how you were convinced and why Srila Prabhupada
was deliberately vague about who should succeed him.
[Reply]
Rocana prabhu, you are “deliberately vagueâ€. Please put a sign on your website that says, “NO RITVIKS ALLOWED”.
[Reply]