Tue, Aug 17, 2010, As usual the article below has been first published in the IRMs official magazine Back To Prabhupada. BTP is being distributed for free to ISKCON devotees and people interested in Srila Prabhupadas teachings worldwide. If you would like to receive BTP as well, simply send us your full name and street address via yahoo or the following email address: irm@iskconirm.com.
Also, we welcome all correspondence, so if you have any questions, comments or criticisms, please write to us via one of the two methods mentioned above.
Thank you & Hare Krishna.
1) MYTH:
“There is a fundamental difference between the terms ‘spiritual master’ or ‘Guru’ and the term ‘acarya’.”
BUSTED:
According to Srila Prabhupada, the terms “Guru”, “acarya” and “spiritual master” are all interchangeable:
“…a teacher or spiritual master is liable to be rejected if he proves himself unworthy of the position of a guru or spiritual master. A guru is called also an acarya…”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.43, purport)
2) MYTH:
“There are three types of acaryas: one who teaches by example, one who initiates disciples (but who may not be fully liberated), and one who not only initiates but also heads up an institution and is worshipable by all as a fully liberated spiritual master.”
BUSTED:
According to Srila Prabhupada, there are just two categories of acarya or spiritual master, one who instructs (siksa) and one who initiates (diksa):
“The first manifestation described is the spiritual master, who appears in two plenary parts called the initiating spiritual master and instructing spiritual master.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1, ‘The Spiritual Masters’)
The acarya who initiates disciples is defined as follows:
“In the Vayu Purana an acarya is defined as one who knows the import of all Vedic literature, explains the purpose of the Vedas, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-lila 1.46, purport)
Srila Prabhupada never taught that there were two types of initiating acarya, one who could head up an institution and one who, through some unspecified disablement, could not. He only defined “acarya” as above.
3) MYTH:
“Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as “acaryadeva” etc by his disciples only.
Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples.”
(Pradyumna Das, 7/8/78)
BUSTED:
This definition of the word “acaryadeva” is completely at odds with the one given by Srila Prabhupada:
“…when we speak of the fundamental principle of Gurudeva, or Acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application (…) he is the Jagad-Guru, or the Guru of all of us…”
(Srila Prabhupada’s homage to his spiritual master, February 1936, emphasis added)
Thus Pradyumna’s letter completely relativised the absolute position of the true initiating acarya, implying as it does the unauthorised philosophy that initiation (diksa) could be given by people who had not reached the topmost platform of devotional service, and were therefore only to be respected by those few unfortunates he was somehow able to dupe.
4) MYTH:
“But the GBC would never have adopted Pradyumna’s ideas if they had not originated from Srila Prabhupada.”
BUSTED:
Pradyumna himself admits in his own letter:
“Much of the knowledge written here is not found in sastra.”
(Pradyumna Das, 7/8/78)
He also gave a clear indication of the source of his ideas:
“Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya …”
Certainly his relativised, minimised initiating acarya theory is nowhere to be found within Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. As we continue to document in BTP, these bogus ideas have proven disastrous for ISKCON.
Speak Your Mind