NEW YORK — Interviewer: The issue of initiations in ISKCON has divided devotees for several decades and appears to have evolved into a schism. What is your personal perspective on this issue?
Locanananda dasa: When I was President of the Amsterdam temple in 1977, I received a copy of the Summary Report of the GBC meetings held in Vrndavana that year from the 27th through the 29th of May. In that report, two of the three questions Srila Prabhupada answered on May 28th were included, but the answer to the question about future initiations was not. A few weeks later, I received a copy of the July 9th letter explaining the new initiation protocols. It didn’t seem as if much had changed. Initiations would resume despite Srila Prabhupada’s ongoing illness. The letter also addressed the selection of “rittik” representatives of the acarya and referred to the May 28th meeting with Srila Prabhupada, but there was no detailed explanation as to how the two were connected. We were really left in the dark for years as to what instructions Srila Prabhupada had actually given the GBC as a mandate for future initiations.
Interviewer: Would you say it was a cover-up and hijacking of the movement?
Locanananda dasa: There is no question that vital information was withheld from the devotees, information that was critical to the future of our society. But even after the transcript of the recorded conversation of May 28th, 1977 was released, Srila Prabhupada’s intentions were still not clearly understood, and therefore everything was subject to interpretation. Rather than carefully analyze the actual words of the spiritual master spoken on May 28th, the devotees who sought reform in the mid-80’s did so on the basis of general instructions contained in Srila Prabhupada’s books. This may be a subtle point, but devotees should know that Srila Prabhupada did not manage the Society through his books. He managed through written correspondence with the leaders and through conversations with them that addressed specific management issues. Also, on occasion, to ensure that certain standard management procedures were followed everywhere, Srila Prabhupada would have a letter sent out to all of the centers stating a policy that he wanted to introduce globally. The July 9th, 1977 letter was one such document.
It should be noted that His Divine Grace does not mention the Governing Body Commission (GBC) in any of his books, even though the GBC acts as the primary instrument for the execution of his will by overseeing the management of all ISKCON operations. The question of how initiations would be conducted when His Divine Grace would no longer be present was basically a management issue, and the answer is not to be found in his books, although his books can be used to philosophically substantiate his managerial directive. In other words, what we are looking for are his ISKCON-specific instructions concerning future initiations, and they can be found clearly stated in the May 28th discussion with the GBC.
Interviewer: So let’s take a look at the May 28th conversation and see what Srila Prabhupada’s words reveal about his intentions.
Locanananda dasa: That day, there were nineteen full GBC members present in Vrndavana. Also in attendance at the meetings were one acting GBC man and two non-GBC members. To ask the most delicate questions, a six-man committee consisting of those GBC members who were on the original GBC formed in 1970 went before Srila Prabhupada. The first question asked was about GBC members: “How long should they remain in office?” Srila Prabhupada’s answer was immediate, direct and succinct: “They should remain for good.” Then a few points of clarification were added and the next question was brought up:
“Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted.”
Srila Prabhupada replied immediately, directly and succinctly:
“Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.”
In answering this question, Srila Prabhupada introduced a new term, a term not found in any book or previous conversation he had ever had with his disciples. It was the designation he had chosen to fit the role of future initiators in ISKCON. I do not know why the GBC felt it necessary to hide this instruction from the devotees. Perhaps they themselves did not understand what it meant or how to explain it to others. Or perhaps it just wasn’t what they wanted to hear.
The Summary Report stated that some of the questions the GBC asked Srila Prabhupada would not be answered until later. We now know that to be untrue. We know he answered all of their questions that day, immediately and succinctly. The only question the GBC asked that was not included in the Report had to do with initiations. Srila Prabhupada’s answer to that question was that when he would no longer be present, initiations would be performed by officiating acaryas selected from among his leading disciples. The leaders did not like the sound of that at the time, nor do they like the sound of it now. Otherwise, somewhere along the way they would have asked, “So how does one act as an officiating acarya?” In his subsequent comments, Srila Prabhupada did not mention that any special worship would be offered to an officiating acarya. Nor did he say the officiating acaryas would become the topmost spiritual authority for those who would receive diksa from them. The GBC’s future gurus did not like the sound of that either.
The GBC clearly understood how long their term of office would last, that they would remain for good. When devotees insist that the Directions of Management calls for regular elections, the GBC counters with the above statement from the May 28th, 1977 conversation. They point out that during Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime, no such elections were ever held. They also refer to a letter written to Rupanuga on November 13, 1970:
“Regarding Bali Mardan, he has not resigned and until he or some other member does so, there shall not be any change in the members of the GBC.”
But the GBC has no clue as to what Srila Prabhupada meant when he said they would act as officiating acaryas. They have no faith in that instruction. The present GBC thinks it has everything figured out, but as long as they do not accept Srila Prabhupada’s nomenclature, they will be treading water in a sea of speculation. What they need to do is pass a resolution stating that “Henceforward, anyone who initiates in ISKCON will act as an officiating acarya.” This is something we should all be able to agree on since these are Srila Prabhupada’s exact words. It simply amazes me that the various camps all admit that Srila Prabhupada used this expression, officiating acarya, but they have all introduced other titles by which they think the devotee performing the initiation should be known. Srila Prabhupada certainly did not say, “I shall recommend some of you to act as diksa gurus,” nor did he say, “I shall recommend some of you to act as initiating spiritual masters, or ritvik gurus or ceremonial priests or anything else besides officiating acaryas.” So let’s make this our common ground and see if we can create a little more unity with a little less diversity by at least agreeing on our terminology.
Looking objectively at the flow of the May 28th conversation, one can easily see that the questioner was interested in a specific outcome which was that he and his GBC godbrothers would be gurus with disciples of their own. It was that blinding ambition that kept them from implementing Srila Prabhupada’s order for officiating acaryas. Since that time, for more than thirty years, no ISKCON “initiator” has ever referred to himself as an officiating acarya, nor has any GBC resolution ever mentioned the term.
The announcement that he would recommend some of his disciples to act as officiating acaryas was divinely inspired. On one hand, His Divine Grace had to arrange for the continuation of initiations in his worldwide movement without violating the law of disciplic succession. He also had to take into account the management structure that was already in place with its GBC men and temple presidents whose authority he did not wish to subvert. In a letter to Sivananda dated January 23, 1969, Srila Prabhupada had written: “The spirit of the disciplic succession may not be changed, but there may be adjustments made to suit the special circumstances.”
Never before in recorded history had a vaisnava acarya introduced the teachings of Vedic culture and the yuga dharma of Sankirtana to every continent, making devotional service available to the entire human society. The vehicle he had created, known as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, was meant to carry his universal message to every town and village as predicted by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The process by which thousands upon thousands of new converts would be initiated into our vaisnava sampradaya had to be established without creating factions, keeping Srila Prabhupada in the center as the devotees’ absolute spiritual authority and object of worship. Srila Prabhupada had called for “unity with diversity”, and the two would have to be in balance for ISKCON to remain a cohesive organization based on love and trust, managed under a spirit of cooperation.
Interviewer: How likely is the GBC to adopt the officiating acarya concept?
Locanananda dasa: I recently asked a member of the GBC why they would not use this term, and he said, “because it sounds too ritvik.” This is a big problem within ISKCON, that devotees do not take Srila Prabhupada’s words as final. They want to introduce their own idea, their own interpretation, their own method, their own culture. Even if you could provide ten quotes from Srila Prabhupada stating his opinion, they will still refuse to give up their attachment to a false idea. So without external pressure, I don’t see the GBC showing favor to Srila Prabhupada’s recommendation. They are thinking that if it were really that important, he would have mentioned it over and over again, but I have to ask, “How many times did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati instruct Srila Prabhupada to take Lord Caitanya’s teachings to the Western countries?” Did he have to tell him over and over again to get him to act? No. Srila Prabhupada immediately took that instruction and cherished it within his heart as his life’s mission. We should be able to do that, too. We should make the order of the spiritual master our life and soul without him having to repeat the same order ten times.
The GBC has already rejected Srila Prabhupada’s recommendation for the past thirty years. What would cause them to have an about-face now? It will only come from external pressure. When the guru reform movement arranged to meet with the GBC in New Vrndavana in 1985, the GBC was forced to make adjustments in its initiation protocols. Big vyasasanas, daily guru pujas and honorific titles were out. More gurus were voted in. The field opened up, but still no one thought to act as an officiating acarya. Everyone wanted to be jagad-guru and initiate disciples all over the world. And to this day, as a result of its ever-changing experimental system of initiations, ISKCON continues to suffer the constant dilemma of parallel lines of authority between the temple managers and the initiating gurus. I believe this conflict in authority is the principal reason why people do not live in ISKCON temples but prefer to live outside and visit the temples on Sunday. They simply want to avoid conflict.
There must have been 500 to 1,000 Prabhupada disciples at New Vrndavana and they were all full-time engaged in service. They had clout. There were many temple presidents, sannyasis and senior men clamoring for change. The GBC was backed into a corner and they had to bend. But who can apply that kind of pressure today? The GBC does not tolerate any opposition from the rank and file. Sannyasis, who are supposed to be independent of that sort of ideological tyranny, cannot object to the deviation lest they lose the right to initiate within ISKCON. Add to that an additional layer of management called the Deputy GBC’s, and you have maya’s perfect storm. There is no way for devotees who are looked upon as outsiders to bring about internal change in the way ISKCON is managed. What is the role of the Deputy GBC’s, anyway? Their expertise seems to be to act as a buffer between the outside devotees and the GBC men who don’t want to hear anyone’s suggestions or criticism. They figure that we are not accountable to them, so they are not answerable to us. But don’t they have to answer to Srila Prabhupada?
So, on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, we want to know who authorized the GBC to reject his recommendation that initiations be performed by officiating acaryas? And when did Srila Prabhupada say that those giving diksa in ISKCON would receive special worship from those they initiate beyond the simple offering of respectful obeisances? I recall one letter from Srila Prabhupada to Brahmananda (8-30-69) wherein he said,
“In our society, everyone, either a brahmacari or sannyasi or grhastha, who has dedicated his life and soul for this movement, they are all on the same level of sannyasi….Nobody should try to claim any extra honor on account of an official position.”
So we have to ask our guru godbrothers, “How can you keep Srila Prabhupada central as everyone’s object of service, worship and meditation when you are positioning yourself and accepting worship as the current link to the disciplic succession? By what right and on whose authority do you claim this special honor?”
The challenge continues: When did Srila Prabhupada authorize the GBC to introduce new forms of worship in his temples, particularly the worship of new gurus? And if you say it is vaisnava tradition, we must ask when did Srila Prabhupada authorize the GBC to introduce some tradition other than what he himself had personally authorized? When did Srila Prabhupada suggest that his disciples who did not give diksa could be referred to as “non-guru godbrothers” as the GBC has done in its resolutions. According to Lord Caitanya’s teachings, any vaisnava can be seen as guru, not only those who have formally initiated disciples. The GBC concoction of a two-tiered society in which some godbrothers are worshiped as guru and some are not goes against Srila Prabhupada’s order that everyone should treat his godbrothers as “prabhu” and act as the humble servant of the servant.
Interviewer: There is certainly a lot more to be said on the issue of initiations. We could go through the May 28th conversation line by line, but we’ll have to save that for another day. Would you like to add some concluding comments today?
Locanananda dasa: Yes. The problem is that today’s leaders, and hence their followers, do not take Srila Prabhupada’s words as absolute. They think they have to confirm what he said with scriptural references and the opinions of previous acaryas and even vaisnavas from other lines, but that is not the position of the disciple of a spiritual master who is a pure devotee of Krishna. Srila Prabhupada is our leader and if you try to bury his instructions, you have no authority and no empowerment. The current initiation protocols in ISKCON may appear to be bona fide because they are based upon whatever conclusions the GBC has drawn from scripture concerning guru-tattva, but if they do not agree with Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON-specific managerial instructions as described above, their conclusions are not to be applied. This principle was discussed in an exchange of letters with Professor Staal of the University of California – Berkeley in 1970. His Divine Grace wrote in a final note:
“We have to accept everything favorable to the circumstances. Rejection of other methods in a particular circumstance does not mean that the rejected ones are not bona fide. But for the time being, taking into consideration the age, time and object, methods are sometimes rejected even though bona fide. We have to test everything by its practical result.”
So, I ask you: What has been the practical result of the GBC’s three decade experiment, complete with fallen gurus, bogus re-initiations, luxurious life-styles, and all sorts of felonious activity? I think one word sums it up: devastation.
The GBC likes to reject Srila Prabhupada’s opening answer on May 28th favoring officiating acaryas and jump to his final comment about regular gurus, but you cannot correctly understand the final comment if you reject the opening comment. The whole conversation has to be understood line by line in relation to the original answer. If you reject even one word uttered by the spiritual master, how can you act as a transparent via medium and give diksa on his behalf? So we call upon all devotees to question the GBC and all ISKCON gurus on this point. “If Srila Prabhupada said he would recommend officiating acaryas to conduct initiations when he would no longer be present, why do you choose not to act as or refer to yourself as an officiating acarya?” Let the confrontation begin. Let them feel the weight of having ignored the direct order of the founder acarya for three decades. And if they want to discuss guru-tattva, we can do that, too. The guru/disciple relationship means you take the order of the spiritual master as your life and soul and you mold your life in such a way that you can always follow his order.
So what have you done with the order for officiating acaryas to initiate in ISKCON besides defecate on it for thirty years? Therefore, we say, “Fie on you for posing as maha-bhagavata acaryas and accepting worship although you were never free of material hankering. And fie on you for covering up Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to all of his disciples concerning future initiations and for thinking Srila Prabhupada’s words are not sacrosanct. And fie on you for allowing so many of your godbrothers to fade away into oblivion because they had no place in the new ISKCON where you must be a GBC/guru clone or ‘yes man’ to survive. Fie unto you!”
Cyavana swami and other devotees were initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada for years in Africa. Cyavana swami was there 8 years and spent much time with Srila Prabhupada. Naturally they asked him what should we do when you are physically gone and he said, “same thing”. Simple , unless one has other ideas. Instead of accepting worship of them selves if the original 11 gurus had passed all the adoration on to Srila Prabhupada 99% of the issues would not have happenned . The conditioned souls want power, prestige and money. so they naturally abused their high positions .
Satyahit prabhu, you have gone directly to the heart of the matter. Srila Prabhupada certainly spoke about how initiations would be performed when he would no longer be physically present, but one thing he did not authorize was the formal worship of “new gurus.” On the principle of acaryopasanam, the great acarya who is paramahamsa thakura should be worshiped as good as God. Other vaisnavas may simply be offered respectful obeisances. Everyone should be happy with that level of honor and no one should expect more worship than that, no matter what position they occupy.
It was not Srila Prabhupada’s intention that his disciples later be categorized according to a two-tiered system that differentiates between those who are worshipable gurus and those who are non-gurus. This is entirely bogus, but if you dig deep enough, you will find this was written into the GBC resolutions many years ago. The Caitanya caritamrita states that any vaisnava can be seen as a guru, but within the Hare Krishna movement, the practice of guru worship should always be reposed exclusively in the founder acarya, Srila Prabhupada.
I’m confused as to Locanananda’s understanding of “officiating acarya“. I understand that it means a priest who officiates on behalf of the acarya, who performs the ceremonial functions for the acarya.
Locanananda seems to agree when he says,
“If you reject even one word uttered by the spiritual master, how can you act as a transparent via medium and give diksa on his behalf?”
Yet he also says,
“And when did Srila Prabhupada say that those giving diksa in ISKCON would receive special worship from those they initiate beyond the simple offering of respectful obeisances?”
“When did Srila Prabhupada suggest that his disciples who did not give diksa could be referred to as “non-guru godbrothers” ”
“Nor did he say the officiating acaryas would become the topmost spiritual authority for those who would receive diksa from them.”
So there are 3 examples given whereby Locanananda claims that the “officiating acarya” is the giver of diksa and 1 example of the “officiating acarya” giving diksa on behalf of Prabhupada. Actually none of the examples given make any sense within the frame of ISKCON.
Also I was unable to find the following quote in the Vedabase ….
“Srila Prabhupada had called for “unity with diversity”,”
– “unity with diversity” where exactly?
Hare Krsna.
Even today in 2012 there are so many differing opinions on ;
1 Initiation.
2 Diksa Guru.
3 Shiksha Guru.
4 Sad Guru.
Mostly the chaos and confusion has come from Kanistha Adhikaris in iskcon since 1977 and after and before 1977.
The quotes from may 28th transcription of a conversation raise serious questions about validity and authority of the tape itself and whether the conversation happened in this way with those questions and answers in that order. There are well over 5 “bona fide” transcriptions of the same conversation. Why?
Which one do you believe? How do you know if you are being “transparent” ? Are you advanced enough to be transparent anyway. ? What makes anyone think that they understand the matter better than anyone else?
From my perspective it seems to me that we are all wrong all the time with most subjects. We cant even get Cow protection right and thats just an Agricultural matter! So what makes us think we have got the “Initiation” performance anywhere near right.
The GBC/ Gurus have it wrong but so do the ritviks. There are gaping holes in both camps and anyone who thinks there isnt is not being “transparent”.
Just read “The Final Order”, it has so many mistakes on every page how can we take that booklet seriously! And if you think the “Final Order” booklet is the authority on how Initiations are to continue then you must be totally un-transparent, positively biased, which is no good to anyone.
Once you begin to examine the evidence put forward by devotees from both camps then its possible to see the biasness in each presentation, no transparency whatso ever. Being truly transparent requires advancement in Krsna Consciousness which no-one seems to manifest. It seems as if everyone is just guessing and hoping that the idea that they present based on the evidence they bring forward is right, but it has not worked out right for any one camp to date.There are big holes in all the conclusions even though they all quote evidence from Srila Prabhupada and even sometimes opposite conclusions based on the same evidence.
As long as we know who is the Bona Fide Spiritual master , whether Diksa or Shiksa , then we should take shelter of Him. But we have to take shelter of an Uttama-Adhikari Spiritual Master-Diksa or Shiksa.Then our Spiritual Life will be successful. What is the problem?
Dusyanta dasa says:
The GBC/Gurus have it wrong but so do the ritviks.
How can the ritviks be wrong? We are simply repeating Srila Prabhupada. <http://rtvik.com/> makes the ritvik position (Srila Prabhupada’s position on future initiations within ISKCON) perfectly clear, and if there are any mistakes on that web page, please let me know.
Anyone who criticizes both the ISKCON “gurus” and the ritviks, IMHO, simply wants to be the next Acharya himself. Name even one person who criticizes both who has opened even one temple!
The ISKCON “gurus” are doing something, but they seem to be on the decline. The ritviks are doing something also, and are obviously making slow but steady progress.
What are the critics of both doing except trying to puff themselves up? Nothing!
Thank you, Bhakta Hugh, for taking the time to carefully read and understand all that has been said about the guru/initiation issue. As far as I am concerned, Srila Prabhupada’s instructions were quite clear. He was asked on May 28, 1977 to explain how initiations would be conducted when he would no longer be physically present and he replied that he would recommend some of his disciples to act as officiating acaryas. He said nothing about “ceremonial priests.” In fact, the phrase “ceremonial priests” does not appear anywhere in his written or spoken instructions (Check it out on VedaBase). If you study the May 28th conversation, you will see that throughout Srila Prabhupada accepts the interchangeability of the term he first introduced, “officiating acarya”, with the term “ritvik acarya.”
He was asked about when he would no longer be present and ritvik acaryas were giving diksa, those people receiving diksa at that time, whose disciples would they be? He did not say, “They will be MY disciples.” He said, “They will be HIS disciples, who is initiating (giving diksa).” There is no instance of Srila Prabhupada ever saying that he would continue to formally initiate disciples of his own after entering samadhi. Anyone initiated after his disappearance would be referred to as his grand disciple, as per the May 28th discussion. Anyone who knew Srila Prabhupada as the strict representative of the parampara system was aware that he would never introduce a concept that was not in the spirit of disciplic succession.
In the conversation, Srila Prabhupada said that the questions he was being asked dealt with formalities. When he was asked about people who were going to be initiated under the new protocols and whose initiation would be performed during the remainder of his lifetime, either by himself or by a ritvik representative, he replied they would all be his (Srila Prabhupada’s) disciples, because in the presence of the spiritual master, one should not accept disciples of one’s own.
For purposes of clarification, in this conversation, the phrase “on your behalf” was taken by Srila Prabhupada to mean during his lifetime. However, when we use that term, what we mean by it is to act as a representative, transparent to the spiritual master throughout OUR lifetime. To do something in his name, and for his honor. It reflects the inner mentality of the servant of the pure devotee. So when he was asked on May 28th whether the ritvik would be acting on his behalf, he said that was a formality to be observed while he was still physically present.
The terms officiating acarya and ritvik acarya only refer to that time when His Divine Grace would no longer be present and he would no longer be giving diksa himself. When they would be acting during his lifetime to conduct initiations, they would be referred to as ritvik only, and they would be acting on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, those devotees being initiated to be counted among Srila Prabhupada’s direct disciples.
These before and after scenarios are the two phases of the ritvik initiation system. To perform initiations according to these protocols, either before or after his entering samadhi, one must be transparent to the pure devotee founder acarya of ISKCON. The main point of this system is that all guru worship would be directed to Srila Prabhupada, and that he would be recognized as the supreme spiritual authority of all future generations of his followers as well as their deliverer from the cycle of birth and death.
Bhakta Hugh, I also wanted to answer your question about “unity in diversity.” Please refer to a letter written by Srila Prabhupada to Kirtanananda on Oct. 18, 1973. It is what I consider to be one of the most important guidelines for our movement and how we are supposed to interact as godbrothers. Srila Prabhupada first expresses his concern:
“Now this displeasing of godbrothers has already begun and gives me too much agitation in my mind. Our Gaudiya Math people fought with one another after the demise of Guru Maharaja, but my disciples have already begun fighting even in my presence. So I am greatly concerned about it.”
Srila Prabhupada went on to explain that our strength as a spiritual movement lies in our unity, and our unity depends upon us keeping Krishna in the center and our always remaining as tolerant as the tree and as humble as the blade of grass. “Without this mentality we cannot be successful.”
The letter continues:
“Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali yuga. But for this Krishna consciousness movement, its success will depend on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements…. In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement. In the spiritual world, there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is the difference….”
He refers to these varieties as “diversity” and to our agreement as “unity”. If we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material platform. But if we keep Krishna in the center of our great variety of engagements, we can have unity in diversity.
Let me know what you think.
Your servant,
Locanananda dasa
Thing is what I want to mention, that Vaishnavism never made it to the West before Srila Prabhupada. Western civilization is firmly established upon Christian values whereby Lord Jesus is their link to God. Lord Jesus is their guru who is above worldly defects.
Everything else is officiating priests who act on behalf of Jesus Christ. Thus Christianity works steadily since 2000 years.
In sum, Westerners don’t require any trial-and-error-method of neo-Vaishnavism. Questionable gurus who demand to be worshiped as good as God and nobody knows how they will end up. Unless such a guru is eighty it is a lottery.
If those “gurus” at least would manage to create wonderful projects for uplifitng suffering humanity then this wasting aspect of uncertainty – will he make it or will he fall down – would be balanced.
So far, what are present living as-good-as-God-gurus accomplishing? Especially in the West, yawning emptiness, gaping void!
Thus by presenting a conflict within a religion coming from India, it is already defeated. Am I right or not? Christians dont have this problem of appointing a new Jesus and will never have. Why do you introduce such diksa-guru controversy, there never was such kind of problem within Christianity.
In this way, Western scholars of theology argue, the Krishna religion once more is defeated and should stay where it came from, in India. Don’t bother us with a system of having living direct representatives of God who already fell down left and right. And even if they dont fall down, the unacceptable possibility of such scenario is always there. Especially in kali-yuga.
At one point Western governments will ban by law neo-Vaishnavism with the obvious obsession of having living gurus who are “God’s direct representatives” – what opens the floodgates to cheat innocent people big style.
We live in the corrupt age of kali-yuga and the Krishna religion comes up with enforcing as good as God acaryas, absolute dictators, absolute monarchs so to speak, who already created thousands of betrayed disciples. And still the fight goes on and on.
If you want to fight the local champion, Christianity, you lost it already. Prepare yourself more scholarly! Don’t create hodge-podge and confuse people. Or, pack your bags and go back to India.
Many Indians, like at Puri, they believe that their religion only works when you are born in a Hindu family. Thats it, Christian authorities will argue, stay in India and dont bother Westerners with a religious war among Hindu splinter groups.
If you cannot establish nice projects to uplift suffering humanity and instead fight against each other like cats and dogs then please leave us alone and go back to your Indian-simple-living. Wasnt this the reason why many Indians came here?
You cannot deal with Western wealth because your karma is different and instead start fighting among each other. So this is very unfortunate but please draw consequences. You seem restless and wont stop fighting. You couldnt make it in the West. Theologically it is a miserable failure. Either stop fighting, admit defeat – you obviously dont have the right answers – or go to India, and dont bother Westerners.
Locanananda dasa says:
There is no instance of Srila Prabhupada ever saying that he would continue to formally initiate disciples of his own after entering samadhi.
The July 9th letter, which supersedes the May 28th conversation, clearly states that Srila Prabhupada “would continue to formally initiate disciples of his own after entering samadhi.” This was understood immediately by Hansadutta Prabhu:
I distinctly remember when I received the July 9, 1977, letter in Śrī Laṅkā that it was clear to me that this letter was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s arrangement for initiations for the future. I also remember feeling some disappointment with the obvious conditional authority that the “Ṛtvik representative of the Ācārya” designation implied, because I actually had a great desire to be a Guru like Śrīla Prabhupāda, and I think many of the leaders did have similar desires. (<http://pratyatosa.com/?P=3m&TP=2839>)
It’s like Hansadutta Prabhu says on his own website:
But Prabhupada never gave instructions to his worldwide ISKCON movement through vague, hissing tapes. Prabhupada wrote letters (7,000 at least) and recorded trust documents, and ultimately he left a last will and testament. Why should we focus on a vague, hissing tape? (<http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/prSPMAY05.html>)
Hansadutta Prabhu, a former member of the GBC, a former BBT trustee, and one of the original 11 ritviks, is in a much better position to understand Srila Prabhupada’s true intentions than any of us are.
Pratyatosa prabhu — Please do not be misled. An emergency meeting of the GBC took place in Vrndavana from May 27-29, 1977. It was thought that Srila Prabhupada had returned to Vrndavana because he was in his final days with us. On May 28th, Srila Prabhupada spoke to six of the original GBC members in his room about how things would go on when he would no longer be physically present. He said that he would recommend some of his disciples to act as officiating acaryas and that those who would receive diksa from them would be their disciples and his grand disciples. This was understood by all of the GBC members present in Vrndavana at the time and was written into the GBC minutes and signed by all. This is not about a hissing tape. it is about Srila Prabhupada’s final instructions to the managers of ISKCON.
As far as the July 9th letter is concerned, you have clearly embraced a mistaken idea. First of all, the letter was written and signed by Srila Prabhupada’s secretary who later explained that the instructions contained therein were meant to be followed during Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime. Nowhere in this letter is there any reference to that time after Srila Prabhupada would enter samadhi. There is only mention of the May 28th conversation which means that the instructions given on the 28th serve as the reference point for all subsequent orders. The May 28th instructions were therefore never superceded. Srila Prabhupada gave his stamp of approval to the July 9th letter.
The July 9th letter explains phase one of the ritvik initiation system (see my earlier comment) which was explained to the GBC committee on May 28th. The letter corresponds to Srila Prabhupada’s May 28th explanation that ritvik representatives would perform initiations on his behalf during his lifetime, and that those initiated during his lifetime would be counted among Srila Prabhupada’s initiated disciples. Phase two of the ritvik initiation system would begin after Srila Prabhupada entered samadhi. At that point the initiators would be known as officiating acaryas or ritvik acaryas. In terms of the formalities of initiation, those who would receive diksa from them would be their disciples and Srila Prabhupada’s grand disciples.
I think you will agree that to follow the parampara system was always emphasized in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. He even referred to this as the “law of disciplic succession.” Srila Prabhupada was not a law-breaker. To the contrary, he embraced this law, but as Krishna’s representative he was also empowered to make slight adjustments according to kala-desa-patra — time, place and circumstance — to facilitate the spreading of Krishna consciousness. The ritvik system presented by His Divine Grace, if followed, would have allowed for the continuation of the guru parampara. The adjustment was that the GBC’s ritvik acaryas would be officiating at initiations without becoming the object of worship of those they had initiated. Giving diksa would be another of their services and would not establish anyone other than Srila Prabhupada as the ultimate spiritual authority in anyone’s life. Completely ignoring the spiritual master’s intentions, these practices were introduced by the GBC, which soon led to the mass exodus of the majority of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples from ISKCON.
As a final note, I would suggest that any individual’s subjective feelings about a specific instruction given by the spiritual master should not be accepted as proof of anything.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Locanananda dasa
Srila Prabhupada said “diksha” means: Divyam jnanam (di) which destroys sins (ksha). He thus said he would live forever in his books, which will be the source of that divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha). We are thus still giving people his books, and they are reading his books, and thus they are getting the divyam jnanam aka diksha, and as a result their sins are being destroyed and they are feeling happy, so they are getting diksha even now. Thanks,
puranjana dasa
Thanks, Puranjana prabhu. I always appreciate your realizations and comments. Absolutely, the transmission of transcendental knowledge is one of the sacraments of initiation. If we consider how Arjuna received knowledge from Lord Krishna Himself after accepting Him as his spiritual master, to say that he received diksa from the Lord at Kuruksetra would be a mistake. Srila Prabhupada teaches that Lord Krishna was acting in the role of siksa guru when He spoke the Bhagavad-gita, not diksa guru. Arjuna had received diksa from someone else, but it was his pledge of full surrender and his non-envious nature that made him eligible to receive transcendental knowledge directly from the Lord.
By way of reply to Locanananda dasa’s: 14. June 2012 at 11:11 pm, post.
Ceremonial priest is a functional description for an officiating acarya. Whereas officiating acarya is the titular description. The term “ritvik acarya,” was introduced by Tamal, but Prabhupada corrected this misnomer with, “Ritvik. Yes.” Though TKG did not understand this correction and continued to use the term latter in the conversation. Check the Vedabase there is no record of Prabhupada using such a term as “ritvik acarya.”
“The significant point here is that terms such as rtvig-guru and rtvig-acarya simply do not exist. There is no such term in any Sanskrit dictionary, nor in any recognised Vedic literature, to my knowledge. There is no such term because there is no such concept. In other words, our friends are proposing something that does not exist in Vedic culture. This is the main problem with it.”
(Hridayananda Swami, [sanskrit scholar])
The giver of diksa is Srila Prabhupada the “officiating acarya” performs the ceremony, “officiating” on the gurus behalf. The initiator is Srila Prabhupada, thus when TKG asks “No. He is asking that these ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, .. the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?” Note the question is asked in the plural but the answer given by Prabhupada is singular. “They are his disciples.”…”Who is initiating …” The initiator is Prabhupada, the giver of transcendental knowledge is the intiator, not the priest who shows the disciple how to throw the bannana in the fire.
In reply to Locanananda dasa’s post: 14. June 2012 at 11:41 pm
I asked on 13. June 2012 at 10:27 am:
“Also I was unable to find the following quote in the Vedabase ….
“Srila Prabhupada had called for “unity with diversity”,”
— “unity with diversity” where exactly?”
In your reply you give the correct quote:
“unity in diversity”
Are you the same Locanananda dasa who has propagated “a no change policy”?
Hare Krsna.
Yes i must agree with some of Bhakta Hughs observations.
TKG used the term “ritvik acarya” not Srila Prabhupada.
Srila Prabhupada corrected TKG by saying “Ritvik. Yes.”
The term “ritvik acharya” is just a speculative conception that showed TKG misunderstanding of the matter.
The terms “ritvik acharya” and “officiating acarya” are therefore not equal, according to this may 28th conversation transcription.
But the “officiating acharya” is not instructed to perform the ceremony,in the conversation.
In the July 9th letter the Temple Presidents are instructed to perform the fire sacrifice/ceremony after they have recieved the name and thread from the “rittik”-representative of the acharya.
All the “officiating acharya(s)” are instructed to do is receive letters of recommendations from the Temple Presidents, and consider them, then to send letters to Temple presidents with names and threads contained therein.
In the July 9th letter the “rittik” is appointed by Srila Prabhupada for the purpose of performing initiations by accepting the recommendations from the Temple Presidents.In the letter there is no consideration of the process of Diksa but just the Initiation ceremony, the giving of names and threads, and thats all there is.
The word “henceforward” being an adverb only refers to the verb “send” in the sentence it appears in.
The new instruction in the July9th letter is the change from sending letters to Srila Prabhupada to sending letters to the newly appointed “rittik”-representative of the acharya.
So it reads like this;
“In the past temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada, recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives(11), Temple Presidents may from now on send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these representatives are nearest their temple…”
Thats what the word “henceforward ” is used for in this context in this sentence in this application.
The process of Diksa is not even mentioned ,talked about or referred to in this letter .
The process of Diksa does not depend on any of these points made in the July 9th letter nor the May 28th transcription.
The original question asked by SDG was only concerning “initiations in the future” and how they were to be “conducted”, not the process of Diksa.
In the Nectar of Instruction Text 5 Srila Prabhupada writes that 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas can also accept disciples. This accepting of disciples can mean either Diksa or Shiksa and Srila Prabhupada authorises in this Book NoI Text 5, that this is the case.
But His qualified statement for all disciples,not spiritual masters, is they must be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari spiritual master, which can also be either Diksa or Shiksa.
The need for an Uttama-Adhikari is unquestionable for a disciple. But this Spiritual master whom is Uttama for the disciple can be either Diksa or Shiksa according to text 5.Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would not have written that 2nd and 3rd class vaisnavas can also accept disciples.
We have to accept ALL of Srila Prabhupada’s statements and understand them together.
here in Text 5 Srila Prabhupada authorises 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas as Spiritual Masters, even though they have insufficient guidance .
But the disciples are instructed in a different way.The disciple MUST be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari Spiritual master.
Spiritual master= Diksa or Shiksa Guru.( Cc Antya Lila Chapter 2, Text 1.)
Sri-Guroh translates in word for word as “of my initiating spiritual master or instructing spiritual master.”
The significance of this is the singular “Sri-Guroh”specifically mentioned in this verse may be either shiksa or diksa guru.
If a disciple has accepted a 2nd or 3rd class Vaisnava as Diksa Guru then the disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari Shiksa Guru.
Of course ideally we disciples need to accept an Uttama-adhikari Diksa and Shiksa Guru but either will assure us of our journey back to Godhead.
In Iskcon Srila Prabhupada is all disciples Shiksa Guru.(Thats also a GBC resolution for what its worth).
In Iskcon today therefore if any 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas are offering Diksa, disciples may accept them as 2nd and 3rd class Diksa Gurus as authorised in Text 5 of Nectar of Instruction.And as instructed by Srila Prabhupada disciples may also accept Srila Prabhupada as their Shiksa Guru Spiritual master .
Thanks Locananada, yes you are correct: Krishna gave Arjuna the divyam jnanam, no actual diksha ceremony is required in our process. We are also opening many Prabhupadanuga centers around the world, we just got a new one in New Zealand. And we are making many new disciples of Srila Prabhupada every day based on his own principle, he said his books will give the divyam jnanam which destroys sins (the essential components of diksha). Visvanatha also accepted Narottama as his guru, despite they were not on the planet at the same time, and there are many similar gaps, because the system is carried on by the transmission of the divyam jnanam which destroys sins, that is the real process, not by the smarta brahmana “living links” programs. The May tape is also quite clear, after he departs he will appoint officiating proxies, which may be called officiating priest or ritviks, and the tape says — when these ritviks deviate, they will have to be replaced, because they are not self realized, so people who will deviate are not acharyas. Anyway, now we have probably thousands of new Prabhupada devotees in India, and they are vastly more advanced than almost anyone in corporate ISKCON, because for starters they know that deviants are not, were not, could not have been, members of the parampara. So our new Prabhupada disciples are way superior because they have accepted the actual divyam jnanam. There are also a number of ritvik tapes that are missing, according to Gauridasa who was there at the time. I only got the May 1977 tape in 1984, from Sulochana, this tape was hidden for a reason, on December 3, 1980, Tamal admitted that the tape only appoints ritviks and not gurus. ys pd
Thanks Dusyanta pr. – you seem a real staunch supporter of leaving everything like it is right now, neophyte gurus should go on and whenever there’s a falldown we just put it away. For you 41 fallen diksa-gurus of the western branch of Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya is thus the toll they have to pay in order to go on with the ancient tradtion of having vedic gurus who are alive, physically present.
Prabhupada’s final conclusion is, the strongest vedic evidence is sabda-pramana. If one can give evidence from the quotation of the Vedas, then it has to be accepted. After having studied all books of vedic knowledge it concludes, Guru cannot be a conditioned soul. Guru must be liberated.
Now there is clause that also neophyte gurus can do the job and of course, there might be occurrence of fallen gurus. Dusyanta pr thus concludes, this has to be tolerated – people have to be warned this might happen. But they happily accept and things somehow or other will go on.
There is an important aspect to be considered many devotees neglect but Prabhupada wont. Krishna consciousness is spread in the West where we have a two thousand years Christian background.
Why is this important to mark, because within Christianity there was never and will never be that scenario of a fallen diksa-guru. Their diksa-guru, Lord Jesus is so to speak above suspicion. And also considered as bona fide by previous acaryas and Prabhupada himself. (“We offer our all respect to Jesus Christ. Yes. We call “Lord.” We offer our sincere respects to him. That is all right. His teaching is all right.”)
In sum, what scholar of theology will argue that this is an upliftment of Western culture to spiritually advance and to base the whole thing upon neophyte gurus who might fall down? Again, there never was and never will be that problem within Christianity of having fallen gurus, neophytes trying to take up the succession of Lord Jesus.
Therefore, teach the Christians to follow the 4 regs and have them chant the Holy Name on beads and thats the perfect religion. All problems solved. This is what Prabhupada said repeatedly: “You remain as American. You remain as Christian.” They simply require a precision adjustment of properly following rules and regulations.
If, according Dusyanta pr. things go on as ever, after 35 years already 41 fallen gurus – this simply will lead of having how many fallen gurus after 10,000 years? 10,000, 15,000? It cannot be that this is the yuga-dharma, producing such huge pile of fallen gurus.
Intelligent Westerners already don’t consider that present Vaishnavism is giving them spiritual enrichment, and ISKCON, GM rather focusing on places where lots of Hindus live. Why this trend?
Do they feel rejected? Obviously yes, they can see that no visitors are coming and people won’t accept their presentation. Conclusion therefore is, watered down Vaishnavism wont make it here, temples remain empty, this type of Vaishnavism has not enough potency to compete with Christianity. Probably same with Islam.
Bhakta Hugh — It sounds like your inclination is to play word games instead of trying to understand the intentions of the spiritual master. If you were really familiar with the way Srila Prabhupada spoke and answered questions, you would know that if he ever disagreed with something, even one word of what had been said in a conversation, he would begin by saying “No,” but in this all-important conversation, when TKG asks if ritvik acarya is the same as officiating acarya, Srila Prabhupada does not say “No,” to show disagreement. In fact he says “Ritvik. Yes.” If what you are saying were true, if he did not approve of the term ritvik acarya, he would have said something like, “No… ritvik. Not acarya.” TKG then mentions the term “ritvik acarya” a second time. If he was repeating something that was incorrect in this all-important conversation, don’t you think Srila Prabhupada would have corrected him when he said it again? No? Then you don’t know much about how Srila Prabhupada instructed his disciples.
The point is not whether Srila Prabhupada spoke the words “ritvik acarya” in this conversation or if someone else did. The point is that he did not object to its use, neither the first time it was mentioned nor the second time. There are so many missing tapes from that period in time, so how do you know he never uttered the term “ritvik acarya” on any occasion? And there were conversations that were not recorded, so how do you know he did not use the term ritvik acarya at other times? You don’t. So sometimes we have to learn by studying what was NOT said, as in this conversation. Because Srila Prabhupada did not object to TKG’s use of the term in two instances (by emphatically saying “No.”), we can conclude that it was acceptable to His Divine Grace, and therefore, it is acceptable to us.
Next, you quote a Sanskrit scholar who says, “to my knowledge,” which is an admission that his knowledge is limited. Srila Prabhupada was a much greater Sanskrit scholar than he, so he should not be trying to limit Srila Prabhupada’s use of Sanskrit terminology to describe future initiations within our movement. If this so-called scholar were true to Srila Prabhupada, he would have immediately accepted the title of officiating acarya, which was clearly the term His Divine Grace coined to refer to those who would conduct initiations when he would no longer be present. The fact that this ISKCON scholar proceeded to perform initiations while rejecting the title chosen by Srila Prabhupada makes all of his Sanskrit knowledge null and void, in my opinion. He has helped to mislead the whole society by diminishing Srila Prabhupada’s stature as the supreme authority in the lives of his followers, so why are you quoting him?
And finally, referring back to the May 28th, 1977 conversation, when Srila Prabhupada was asked
“… These ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa… the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?”
If, as you say, Srila Prabhupada was going to continue to initiate disciples after entering samadhi, he would have said, “They are MY disciples.” Again, if you were familiar with how directly Srila Prabhupada always spoke, you would never suggest such a convoluted explanation based on more word jugglery like plural versus singular and Srila Prabhupada referring to himself in the third person. This is hogwash, plain and simple. You just don’t want to accept that Srila Prabhupada would never have violated the rule of disciplic succession and the precedent set by the previous acaryas in every one of the vaisnava lineages. Srila Prabhupada never said, “I will continue to initiate disciples of my own after entering samadhi.” He always adhered to the spirit of disciplic succession and based his teachings on the concepts taught in revealed scriptures. He was not a speculator like you. Therefore, as a mental speculator and word juggler, you could not possibly have any idea what Srila Prabhupada’s position would be after he left this world.
And, yes, you are correct that “unity in diversity” is the exact quote from the October 18, 1973 letter to Kirtanananda.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Locanananda dasa
pamho prabhus agtACBSP, so many so called kali yuga avataras “by protocol” already disappeared – from the self proclaimed raga acharya (BVNM) to the eleven appointed ritviks after SRILA PRABHUPADA physical disappearance.
Prabhupada: “First of all, you have to know who is guru. If you accept one rascal as guru, how you can be helped? First thing is who is guru. That I have already explained. Guru is he who repeats the words of Krishna. He is guru. Otherwise he’s a rascal. This is the test. Krishna says that,
So tattva-darsi, one who has seen the truth, you have to accept him as guru. Tattva-darsi. Darsi means who has practical experience. Take, for example, just like Arjuna. Arjuna is directly receiving the knowledge from Krishna. He’s guru. What he said, we accept that.”
(Toronto, June 20, 1976)
It’s more easy to surrender to SRILA PRABHUPADA who can tell us who we really are and show us things as it is because HE is a tattva darshinah, a seer of the truth therefore it is better to follow SRILA PRABHUPADA instead of going on to speculate by taking shelter in pretenders based on nebulous initiation protocols.
agtys ys
haribol
Hare Krsna.
I dont support the way iskcon is being managed by the iskcon/Gbc. That is not what i said.
I was just pointing out what Srila Prabhupada wrote in His Nectar of Instruction Text 5 purport.
“A neophyte Vaisnava (3rd class) or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate(2nd class) platform can also accept disciples,but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be carful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.”
Srila Prabhupada authorises that 2nd class and 3rd class Vaisnavas can also accept disciples. Not me authorising thats from Srila Prabhupada’s BOOK, Nectar of Instruction Text 5, purport.
When we read Srila Prabhupadas words and hear Him then thats when we have to be transparent or else its easy to interprete and interpolate what Srila Prabhupada has written and what conditioned souls like myself have written.
Of course 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas will fall down because they have not escaped the material influence of Maya. I dont support falling down as you have suggested, but Srila Prabhupada warns at an earlier stage of that purport thus,
“One should not become a Spiritual Master unless he has attained the platform of Uttama-Adhikari.”
Thats Srila Prabhupada instructing the spiritual master to attain Uttama-Adhikari and then become a Spiritual master. But that does not pre-clude the lower platformed Vaisnavas of the 2nd and 3rd class also accepting disciples as Srila Prabupada also instructs.I dont say and Srila Prabhupada also does not say that we support the 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas falling down.
But the fact of the matter is that the three different classes of Vaisnavas can accept disciples.
That may not sit well with the “ritvik” philosophy that the Spiritual master HAS to be Uttama, as Good as God,… but thats what Srila Prabhupada writes in His BOOKS.
Who has the power to stop 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas accepting disciples, do you.?
But the instructions to the disciples is that they have to be careful to accept an Uttama-Adhikari as spiritual master.
Srila Prabhupada uses this more general term “spiritual master” which can be either Diksa Guru or Shiksa Guru equally. Srila Prabhupada defines the word “Spiritual master” or “Sri Guruoh” as “of my initiating spiritual master or my instructing spiritual master”.(Cc Antya Lila chapter2 .1.)
So if a disciple has accepted a spiritual master from the 2nd or 3rd class of Vaisnavas then thats not too clever but all is not lost for that disicple because Srila Prabhupada instructs from N of Instruction Text 5 that a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.
So what is left to a disciple in this case is that he cant accept another Diksa Guru because that is forbidden but he can accept a Uttama-Adhikari Shiksa Guru Spiritual master.No problems. And via this route that disciple can progress back to Godhead .
For all disciples that read Srila Prabhupada’s Books they can accept Him as their Uttama-Adhikari Shiksa Guru Spiritual Master.So that connection is always open via the Shiksa Guru route which is actually what our Sampradaya is built on.
So yes i dont support the Iskcon system as it is i never say i did that was just an interpolation of my words.But i also dont say that all Gurus HAVE to be Uttama in line with Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.
Once you withdraw yourself from the iskcon/Gbc ideas and also the “rittvik” ideas then more transparency will creep in.Then it is more possible to read Srila Prabhupada’s words as they are.
I dont support the GBC, and i dont support the “rittviks” but i dont have anything against either of them.
Its just that they are both wrong,there are holes in both the conclusions and any neutrally thinking devotee will agree with that conclusion. We have had enough time to assimilate both the arguements and different conclusions, thats the Gbc conclusion and the rittvik conclusion. Both have their merits but both have their holes.
Why would i want any Vaisnava to fall down? I know as much as all the devotee readers know that Srila Prabhupada is the Jagat-Guru saviour of the whole universe not just earth . So really theres not that much between us i speculate.
I love reading Srila Prabhupada’s books and find them ever fresh with more and more realisations. And i would love to say thanks to the Gbc and to the rittviks for the debate because it has helped me dive more into the Guru-Tattva issue.
But my conclusion to date is the Gbc are wrong and the ritviks are also wrong and i also think that more and more Vaisnavas on all sides and camps are beginning to realise the same conclusion.
Srila Prabhupada is right.
In January of 1977, Srila Prabhupada suspended sannyasa, he said they were making a laughing stock out of sannyasa, and so — no more sannyasa, because he said his followers were not fit for sannyasa. If these people are not fit for sannyasa in January of 1977, how is it possible — they could have been fit to be acharyas in May of 1977, a few months later? This makes no sense whatsoever. Worse, the GBC then made over a hundred sannyasa ACHARYAS after 1978, after being told to suspend the order. Worse, the varnasrama program based on householders that was ordered in January of 1977 was also scuttled in the process and most of the householders were ejected from ISKCON. Worse, the idea that Srila Prabhupada made conditioned souls into messiahs is an insult to him personally, it means they are saying he could not discriminate who is acharya and who is not. As for the word ritvik, it was used in previous conversations, that is what they said in May, we had previous discussions on this issue, and those tapes are now — missing. ys pd
It is interesting, qualification of diksa-guru seems the Achilles heel of Vaishnavism and therefore it all circles around this one topic.
You repeatedly state that you don’t agree with ISKCON’s way of appointing neophytes who meanwhile make this movement look like spiritually stricken, spiritual reputation tarnished due too many fallen gurus.
But this is exactly what ISKCON does, appointing conditioned souls who after some time cannot properly perform their duties as spiritual master anymore. How exactly does this differ from your understanding?
You repeatedly state that this is what is philosophically written in Prabhupada’s books, neophytes can also accept disciples. However, you don’t mention that Prabhupada also states that diksa-guru has to be ordered by previous acarya: “Try to understand. Don’t go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he’s ordered by his guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.”
“Authorized guru”, “authorized spiritual master”, “one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master”.
If it is that simple that anyone out of his own free will can become a diksa-guru, then what is the point, anybody can do it without even asking?
Although there were many disciples born in Vaishnava families, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja did not appoint anyone as his successor. Why did he not liberally chose some of his disciples born in Vaishnava family? Figuring that also neophytes can become guru? Obviously for him things were not that liberal.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja insisted upon that only this diksa-guru candidate who has come out victorious in spreading Lord Caitanya’s Sankirtan movement should be his successor. In other words, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja only wanted the best preacher to be next acarya. Since 1936 this wasnt clear yet, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja rather decided to not appoint anyone. What a strong statement!
There were dozens of naistika brahmacaries born in pure Vaishnava family and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja did not consider to appoint anyone.
And Srila Prabhupada of course following strictly that line. “But I am speaking not my manufacture. I heard it from my Guru Maharaja.” And this is what Srila Puri Maharaja als said, Prabhupada simply followed his guru’s example in every respect.
Hare Krsna.
I was not focussing on Diksa Guru. If you read the Text 5 from nectar of Instruction there is no mention of Diksa,the Diksa process and the Diksa guru.
The text is about accepting disciples,either Diksa or Shiksa.
This text authorises that all classes of Vaisnavas can become spiritual master accepting disciples.
yes there are many many texts that i have not mentioned thats true but i cant mention every text that Srila Prabhupada has written and spoken!!!
But in this Text 5 Srila Prabhupada is definitive about all three classes of Vaisnavas concerning accepting disciples. Accepting disciples is either through the Diksa route and the Shiksa route which our Sampradaya is based on, the Shiksa route,the strongest route.Through Uttama adhikaris from Krsna to Srila Prabhupada.
There are examples of the Shiksa relationship in the Disciplic Succession where devotees did not even meet.
Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Narottama dasa Thakura being one example.
The Diksa route was argued against by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. So thats not our strongest path or marg.We follow the Bhagavata-marg through the Shiksa Guru route so disciples can always accept an Uttama-Adhikari Spiritual master whether there are any Uttama-Adhikari Diksa Gurus or not.Some times there are no Uttama-Adhikari Diksa Gurus present so our only route left to us as disciples is to follow the Bhagavata-marg through the Shiksa Guru route to accept an Uttama-Adhikari Spiritual master as in the examples in the Disciplic Succession, the best examples available to us.
the point raised about Iskcon is easy to answer.
Just because they do it all wrong does not mean the process is wrong.
Of course we can all be spiritual masters as much as we have surrendered to Krsna and Guru and as we all preach to conditioned souls we are acting as gurus.You, me and all Vaisnavas.
But its up to each disciple which route he takes and Srila Prabhupada writes about those routes but unquestionably we disciples have to have an Uttama-Adhikari Spiritual master either Diksa or Shiksa.
So for another quote from Srila Prabhupada about the Diksa Guru and the Shiksa Guru and how the disciple responds to the instructions and his responsibility as disciple .
S. Bhagavatam 4.12.32 puport by Srila Prabhupada.
“It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between the siksa guru and diksa guru, and generally the siksa guru later on becomes the diksa guru.”
Thats a great text . The “process” that the disciple accepts from either the siksa guru and diksa guru comes from either of them but the disciple needs to execute that process.Srila Prabhupada explains that either the siksa guru or the diksa guru can instruct the disciple in the process and there is no difference between them.And the siksa guru can become the diksa guru for the disciple later on. How great is that?
And resolution 35 1994 from Gbc,
” Srila Prabhupada IS the foundational Shiksa Guru for all iskcon devotees…….”
They actually use the present tense “is”. How great is that?
This all ties in together with Text 5 from N of Instruction.
I agree that iskcon has taken the institutionalisation of the Guru way too far but there can be nothing wrong with the principle of any class of Vaisnava being a spiritual master, appointed or not. There are loads of letters specifically addressing this point with particular disciples. And also general instructions as in the Text 5 N o Instruction statement.
We have to include all His axiomatic instructions and assimilate them to formulate what he actually wants for His Iskcon. i know the Gbc have got it all wrong but Srila Prabhupada wants a Gbc. They just have to get it right thats all. But the rittviks have also got it wrong and they have to get it right as well. Both those camps need to become more transparent to understand the conclusion for the disciples.
When the rittviks agree with the Gbc and when the Gbc agree with the rittviks then we will have reached our goal and will be united under Srila Prabhupada. If there is no chance with the Gbc and rittviks agreeing then what chance does Iskcon have, just another blown out Vaisnava matha.
@”This text authorises that all classes of Vaisnavas can become spiritual master accepting disciples.”
The GBC is having it wrong and in the same breath you state ritviks are having it wrong too?
What are the ritviks guilty of? All ritviks are having the same guru, Srila Prabhupada – a spiritual master who is an uttama adikari, mahabhagavat, current link of Brahma-sampradaya, and founder of Lord Caitanya’s Sankirtan movement going global. What is your problem with this?
Did you take the effort to visit ISKCON Bangalore and see how nicely these Prabhupada devotees are doing there? No camps, no anxieties, all godbrothers and godsisters. What is wrong with this?
“Ritviks are having it wrong” sounds rather like an insult, sorry to say.
And your idea is that all kind of neophytes down to their whims should take up the position of diksa-guru? Isn’t this once more a slap in the face of thousands of betrayed devotees?
Did you check ex-disciples at United Kingdom? How are they doing? What happened with all those ex-disciples guess they rather hoof you out when stating such proposal, neophyte gurus?
After 41 falldowns still having kanistha-gurus who initiate their own disciples, are you serious? Since you repeatedly are posting such foolish proposal not sure whom you want to teach such ideas? It somewhat looks like spamming this website.
You obviously didnt research of what happened with the lifes of thousands of devotees who were cheated by false gurus, how ISKCON lost all influence as a spiritual movement. But still you pose as expert to join in a conversation whats out of your league.
Did you ever read Bhagavad-gita? Try to first get the basics of Krishna consciousness. Such topic isnt important for you at the present moment.
Hare Krishna dear devotees.
We should accept the Srila Prabhupada´s ritvik conclusion as the only one siddhanta available; although we understand it. The GBC was never authorized to appoint acharyas; further this is not their position. The position of a spiritual master is not to be subject to a group (NOI 6p). When one join to ISKCON, one is joining to an institution and not to an administrator of it. The only one spiritual master to be accepted in ISKCON is Srila Prabhupada and no one else.
Locanananda is saying: Srila Prabhupada never said, “I will continue to initiate disciples of my own after entering samadhi.”
But; is said that: “The lack of evidence is not an evidence.”
Dandavats, AGTSP.
The GBC is sort of going in the direction of the ritviks. Their SAC has said their gurus are “pancaratrika” ok, sort of like a brahmana. Bhakti Vikas swami says ISKCON cannot liberate anyone because it is evolving as a Hindu-ized business. Danavir says guru voting is bogus. Sivarama just lectured that he was voted in under the “no fall for 5 years” idea, which even he admits is not a very high standard for gurus. So there is a sort of growing idea that their gurus are sort of proxies, aka ritviks. They cannot admit to this fully because then, how will they have ten servants cooking them 25 course meals so they can get ready for the sauna at the health club? Who will pay for their new Mac book pro and the Town car? So they cannot come to a full stop, so its sort of like — leaking our slowly. ys pd
@ Locanananda dasa.
I will not embarrass you further, if you wish “to learn by studying what was NOT said”. Then so be it.
Needless to say, most intelligent people learn by studying what WAS said.
The July 9th letter was also not circulated as was ordered, many folks complained they never saw a copy until we began to publish it widely in 1985. The May tape was also not circulated, until we began to publish that in 1984. The letters were also not being circulated, and when we got a microfiche of the letters in 1984, Sulochana told me he got a call from Ramesvara saying we (me and Sulochana) would be “dead meat on a hook” if we published. Well we published the letters, and Sulochana was then assassinated for doing that, just as they said he would be. And without the help of the police, I would have been assassinated too, they arrested the person who killed Sulochana who was “doing surveillance” on my car. I also got a copy of the will out of Hansadutta’s safe, the will was not being circulated. None of the 1977 conversations were being circulated until a limited edition came out in 1990, and there was many gaps in the tape sequence. In sum, the words of Srila Prabhupada were being suppressed. I read in the 1990 edition of the conversations “conversation about poison in hindi,” I had to pray to Krishna for 7 years to get those tapes, these tapes were not being circulated at all, ok until I circulated them. Locananda’s biggest problem is, these things were all being suppressed violently, so how could the people doing that have any authority at all? ys pd
I agree with you, Puranjana prabhu, that those who follow the current initiation system in ISKCON are
deviating from what Srila Prabhupada ordered them to do and have been from day one. When the GBC
mailed out its newsletter after the May 27-29, 1977 meetings in Vrndavana, they mentioned in detail the
questions Srila Prabhupada had answered on the 28th, all except the question dealing with future initiations. It was a conspiratorial cover-up by the GBC, apparently because they were not happy that they would not receive any special worship as successor acaryas when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be present. I first saw the transcript of the May 28th conversation at the Temple President’s meeting in Sept., 1985 in Towaco, New Jersey. I was there to represent the New York temple. It was only because of your courageous effort that we finally found out what Srila Prabhupada wanted: a ritvik initiation system whereby only he would be worshiped as guru in ISKCON temples. Well done, prabhu.
Sorry, Bhakta Hugh, that my explanation of the two phases of the ritvik initiation system is too subtle for you to handle.
Bhakta Hugh, you are juggling words again, because I never said we should not study what Srila Prabhupada actually said. I think you would agree, though, that those who were going to conduct initiations within the ritvik system were not to receive special honor or formal worship. We accept that because we are able to understand what Srila Prabhupada’s intentions were. In his explanation of future initiations, he did not say, as far as we know, that these ritvik acaryas who will be giving diksa will not be worshiped, nor did he say they would be worshiped. However, we can understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted without having heard him directly address this subject. I hope you are now better able to grasp this subtle point, that we can learn from what was not stated, in the present case, that His Divine Grace did not say those eleven disciples he would recommend would be worshiped, and that to introduce such worship was a deviation from what he intended to take place in ISKCON.
It is said that one must choose a spiritual master and that by mutual examination, the disciple will be accepted by the guru when the guru sees that the disciple has surrendered to Krishna.
If someone joins the Hare Krishna movement, he will seriously hear and assimilate the philosophy and apply it in his daily life. He or she will follow the four regulative principles, chant sixteen rounds a day and engage in Sankirtana activity on a regular basis. Bowing down to offer obeisances, reciting prayers and worshiping the Deity form of the Lord — all in the association of other like-minded devotees — these are the characteristics of a sincere student of a bona fide spiritual master. It is my understanding that when someone comes to this point, he or she has accepted Srila Prabhupada as the worshipable spiritual master. In other words, when someone seriously takes to the process of Krishna consciousness as taught by Srila Prabhupada, that student has recognized and chosen Srila Prabhupada as his eternal spiritual master.
The arrangement made by His Divine Grace for initiations to be conducted after he would enter samadhi was to leave these formalities in the hands of the senior disciples he named in the July 9th, 1977 letter.
There was no mention of them receiving worship either during or after the end of Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime. Neither was it mentioned that future disciples would have to choose the person who would perform the formalities of their initiation, or that the person performing the initiation would be the ultimate spiritual authority of the initiate and was empowered to take the initiate back to Godhead.
The choice of spiritual master is made when one accepts Srila Prabhupada as his deliverer and eternal guide. When the symptoms of surrender are present, the representatives of the spiritual master such as the temple president, GBC secretary or other senior devotees will recommend the disciple to the officiating acarya who will formalize the connection with the guru parampara by conducting the initiation.
I believe that when devotees say “Srila Prabhupada is my siksa guru and so-and-so Swami is my diksa guru,” they have not properly cultivated their relationship with Srila Prabhupada. They should have the same sense of gratitude and commitment towards Srila Prabhupada as those who were initiated by His Divine Grace during his lifetime. In fact, they may become greater servants of Srila Prabhupada than we ever were.
So if a new initiate is asked, “Who is your spiritual master?” he or she can reply, “Srila Prabhupada is my eternal spiritual master and I am his eternal servant.” “And what about your initiation?” “My initiation was performed by Srila Prabhupada’s representative acting as officiating acarya.” This is the ritvik initiation system phase two in practice. It glorifies Krishna’s pure devotee as the Lord’s empowered emissary. It also does not deny that the link to the eternal spiritual master is solidified by the formal process of initiation performed by the officiating acarya.
Let us remember that any vaisnava can be seen as guru, according to the Caitanya caritamrita. But the vaisnava must always remain meek and humble if he is to act as the representative of the great acarya. I have heard ISKCON gurus say at initiation ceremonies, “I will take you to Prabhupada and Prabhupada will take you to Krishna.” In this way, the initiator is taking credit for having powers greater than other vaisnavas as if only he could take the initiate to Prabhupada’s lotus feet.
How does a newcomer connect with the Founder Acarya? First of all, Srila Prabhupada said, “If you want to know me, read my books.” Secondly, according to sastra, a devotee can have many siksa gurus and all of them can and should help you attain the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada. The ISKCON gurus have for all intents and purposes excluded their godbrothers from preaching to their disciples by implying that their services are not required, thus turning the movement into a personality cult jubilee.
The initiation system followed in ISKCON may appear to some to be bona fide, but how could it be, considering there has never been a discussion about the role of the officiating acarya, which is what Srila Prabhupada said he wanted instituted in ISKCON thirty-five years ago.
It would be best if everyone would simply do two things;
1. Be thoroughly honest
2. Accept Srila Prabhupada’s instructions as they are.
BAS
Reading this discussion it is clear that Srila Prabhupada is a genuine representative of Krishna. Devotees who interpret their instructions are conditioned souls. Srila Prabhupada not authorized to give diksa to anyone of his disciples and disciples should follow the movement with Srila Prabhupada in the center, unfortunately donkeys as intellectuals have diluted everything.
Formal initiation in ISKCON is not worth anything if the student has no interest in fulfilling the mission of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada remains the only light in the dark scenario of speculation that say Srila Prabhupada may or may not be diksa guru.
Srila Prabhupada in his letter of July 9 is declared as the formal initiated should continue in motion. Through the system Paratriki viddhi this system does not follow the tradition of the Vedas.
Srila Prabhupada knowing that rascals seek to ruin all, so turned to writing books in which the candidate for spiritual life seriously get under shelter by of Srila Prabhupada his words and teaching . So anyone who surrender to Srila Prabhupada’s disciple is of Srila Prabhupada with or without that formality institutional. Anyone follower of order of Srila Prabhupada is disciple of Srila Prabhupada. On the other hand if a donkey received formal initiation and does not follow or understand Srila Prabhupada he is useless.
Hare Krishna ! Glories to Srila Prabhupada!