Dear His Holiness Jayadwaita Maharaj, Prabhu As
promised, this email will discuss some further points regarding
my System Of Management analysis and then I will also discuss
selected points from you anti-Rtvik articles.
Let me begin by
again briefly explaining the System Of Management analysis
and the inherent conflict that arises with the current system
of initiations (diksha system) ISKCON has followed for past
3 decades.
I joined ISKCON
formally in the summer of 1973, in Los Angeles. At that time
Srila Prabhupad had already put in place a System Of Management
by which all the newer and the majority of the senior devotees
as well, no longer sought direct guidance from their diksha
guru, who was Srila Prabhupad. Rather, he had put into place
a System Of Management for his ISKCON ashrams which included
the local TP and local temple authorities, the local GBC,
the entire GBC body, and also included all senior devotees
in good standing and the sannyasis. The process was widely
in place and followed by the summer of 1973, in that devotees
would seek and take their guidance not from their diksha guru
directly, but via the above mentioned members within the System
Of Management.
In his letter to
Madhuvisa Srila Prabhupad delineated three areas of guidance
which cover all aspects of guidance in the society. These
were Managerial Guidance, Philosophical Guidance and Individual's
Personal Problems, Personal Issues Guidance.
It is to be noted
that this system was put into place by Srila Prabhupad as
one of the prime duties of the GBC and was implemented upon
forming and establishing the social duties of the GBC system.
In otherwords it is not that the GBC had long been set up
to perform completely other functions for the society and
that Srila Prabhupad only temporarily wanted to add the above
duties to their services, but rather these were the primary
duties for which the GBC was set up to carry out. To give
managerial guidance to the temples, to keep the philosophical
guidance and up to standard, and to give personal guidance,
handling the person issues of the devotees. These were not
"add-on" duties of the new GBC system of management,
these were the primary duties for which the GBC was formed
and put into action.
Thus, we cannot
accept the argument that later, on the physical disappearance
of ISKCON's Founder-Acharya that he wanted that automatically
these duties would be taken away from the GBC System Of Management.
We cannot entertain any such pre-sumption and must reject
it as absolute speculation in the absence of any substantial
and direct - explicit instructions by Srila Prabhupad that
this was to take place.
Therefore, the
System for giving and receiving guidance concerning management,
philosophy and personal issues (which is all encompassing
social guidance for the society) is that all devotees, new
and senior alike, are to abide by that process taking such
guidance from the GBC system. Not from their respective Diksha
gurus, just as we, the majority of Srila Prabhupad's disciples
did.
That is the basis
of my SOM argument.
And, it is obvious
that this system has been seriously disrupted and is not longer
promoted or followed by either the current GBC nor the temple
managers nor the devotees in general. This, in effect, has
totally weakened the authority and social respect that the
GBC system once held. It has weakened the head of ISKCON,
in that the head can be said to the GBC. With a weakened and
dysfunctional head (GBC), this has allowed so many other problems
to take hold and further weaken the society and mission that
Srila Prabhupad set up.
How has the system
changed? Simple. Today who follows that system of management
that Srila Prabhupad set up? At least in my observation I
have seen that most of the 'grand-disciples' do not. Especially
as it concerns personal guidance. They will seek this only
from their diksha guru, who is very often not their local
GBC, not their local TP or temple authority. Thus the local
aspects of the system of management are clearly undermined.
And this is itself a powerful disruptive force plaguing the
system Srila Prabhupad set up.
What is needed
is that we restore the original system of management by restoring
the original and fundamental duties of that system. ie: all
devotees are again directed to take all guidance not from
their diksha gurus, but from the GBC system that Srila Prabhupad
set up and instructed us to follow. Thus we restore the social
duties of the GBC system.
While this sounds
simple and direct enough, there is one problem. When this
is properly implemented and the grand-disciples no longer
approach their diksha gurus for such guidance, what then becomes
the real function and duties of the current diksha gurus?
Prior to giving initiation all such guidance and training
of the new devotee is handled by the System of Management,
Temple authorities, senior devotees, sannyasis, GBC. And after
the initiation the new devotee still takes all guidance and
training from that system. That is the ISKCON system that
Srila Prabhupad set up. So, then, what other duties would
the diksha guru perform. In my analysis there would be no
further duties to the ISKCON society. Those diksha gurus would,
at that point, in essence simply carry out the formalities
of performing the initiation ceremony on behalf of the GBC
authorities and basically that would be it. They would not
give any on-going guidance to the initiate.
The glaring problem
with this is that these are the same duties and functions
a rtvik priest or representative-acharya would perform.
Then, we are left
with 2 choices. We accept that Srila Prabhupad actually did
want us to continue with the Rtvik system as he had set up
and that it actually is bonafied and thus we restore the SOM
as it originally was set up and restore the duties to that
system of giving of personal guidance.
- OR - we absolutely reject the on-going rtvik system as being
bogus, and are left to have to justify the changes to the
System Of Management that Srila Prabhupad had set up. At that
point we will be forced to have to act outside of his instructions
and change the system against his will and instructions to
do so (as we have been doing for the past 3 decades). In doing
this we have several choices. We can simply take away the
duties of giving of personal guidance from the GBC/Temple
Authority system that Srila Prabhupad set up, and give those
duties to the diksha gurus - but only for their disciples
(as we are doing now) - OR we can go back to a type of Zonal-Acharya
system that has already proven disastrous by making all gurus
GBC, or all GBC gurus, so that devotees will seek their initiation
and personal guidance from the same person. However, as I
outline below, this is inherently disruptive to ISKCON and
is inherently in conflict with a GBC system of management
as Srila Prabhupad had set up.
As you see, to
follow the current diksha system by which their disciples
take personal guidance from them stands inherently in conflict
with the system that Srila Prabhupad had set up. It becomes
confrontational. You either give the duty back to the GBC
system to give personal guidance, or you take that duty away.
And, in all of Srila Prabhupad's teachings that I have seen,
I have not seen one single mention how this was to be changed
with the introduction of many diksha gurus in the mission.
Lacking any direct
and explicit instruction we can only accept that this system
was not to be changed. That those duties were not to be taken
away.
But, that reduced
the diksha gurus to no more then rtviks who simply perform
the ceremonial function of initiation, and really have no
other social duty or practical relation with their disciple.
If they give their disciple some personal guidance then they
are performing the duties meant for others. They will be undermining
that devotee's local authorities. This is inherently disruptive
to the management of the society. This is not the iskcon SP
set up.
But, if we are
convinced the rtvik system is bogus, how can we restore the
SOM to what it was originally set up by SP?
Up to this point
I am not arguing in support of the on-going rtvik process.
Rather, my personal analysis took this route. I had observed
years ago that the post of GBC was no longer respected and
no longer held the authority in the society as it did in the
mid 1970's. That is when I analyzed this and slowly came to
realize the underlying reason for this lay in the above understanding.
That the duty to give guidance had been taken away, and thus
the authority that follows that social duty had become lost
and disrupted. I then formulated different ideas how to restore
the original authority of the GBC by restoring those duties
and how to retain the authority of the diksha guru over his
disciple. But, I was left scratching my head because if you
take the duty away to give guidance, then what other duty
do the current diksha gurus perform, other then to take on
the karma of the initiate.
Other then this, their on-going social function and relationship
to their disciple becomes no more then that of rtvik. So,
I was left with no other alternative then to re-asses my views
on the on-going Rtvik process, as it clearly appears that
they only way to restore ISKCON's SOM and restoring the previous
glory and authority of the GBC post was to accept an on-going
rtvik process.
You see, there
is no conflict in having a GBC SOM and a rtvik process. There
is no conflict of authority. The GBC remains the authority
for all devotees, and all guidance is handled by that GBC
SOM. No conflict. But, when you have diksha guru authorities
giving guidance and you have a GBC SOM that is supposed to
give guidance, then you have inherent conflict. Re-assessing
the issue I have come down on the side that an on-going rtvik
system does not violate shastra, and does not violate SP's
instructions, and in so many ways it is obvious that Srila
Prabhupad wanted this to continue. This then forms the other
half of my argument supporting the on-going rtvik system.
The conclusion
of such analysis is that the rtvik system is, by default,
the most practical, and the most compatible with all of SP
instructions as far as the management and functioning of the
ISKCON ashrams and what he wanted us to continue doing.
**** However, what
about the very vivid instructions that we are all to become
acharya, that we are all to become guru and make disciples
- (if we qualify ourselves, via purity, humility and advancement
to properly do so, as one must not become a father, king or
guru unless one can take his dependents out of this material
world and back home back to Godhead)? These instructions are
essential to the continuation of the sampradaya. Yes, what
about those instructions?
I find it very
simple. You may not agree, at first, but I find the solution
very logical, and very simple. ISKCON is the name of Srila
Prabhupad's ashrams. In His ashrams the GBC system of management
is there to give all guidance to the immediate members of
the ISKCON ashram. Those who are initiated within ISKCON must
follow the system by which they will take all their guidance
from the GBC system of management, not from their diksha guru.
But, if one wants
to take up the responsibility to initiate directly, then,
yes, they should be encouraged to do so - but not within SP's
ashram. Not using his facilities to make and keep their own
disciples. Rather, they must open their own ashrams.
I find what Trivikram
Maharaj is doing in Orlando is fully acceptable and should
be followed. He has and maintains his own separate ashram
from the ISKCON temple. That is fully acceptable. He may come
to the ISKCON temple and give classes, etc. Let me explain
what I mean, though, about being separate from the ISKCON
temple...
As you know I have
long studied the issue of marriage in accordance with SP's
instructions. Forgive me for going off on what seems like
a tangent for a while, but just follow me on this.
In a SB purport
(I can look up reference if you need it) SP remarked how in
the early days of ISKCON he requested that those who marry
must live outside his ashram. Grhastas are to get their own
separate ashram and no longer live in the ashram of the guru.
However, in the early days the devotees were not strong enough,
the maya in West was very strong. It was seen that too many
who moved outside and got their own grha-ashrams wound up
falling back into maya. Thus, Srila Prabhupad said that he
began allowing grhastas to remain in the ISKCON ashram. But,
he said that this is not the proper system, that when a student
gets married normally he takes leave of his guru's ashram
and takes up his own separate grhasta ashram.
Else where he has
said that grhastas are to remain always under the direction
of their guru.
Even though they leave the guru's ashram and get their own
ashram and living facilities they still remain under the direction
and guidance of their guru.
Srila Prabhupad,
himself, never lived in his guru's ashram, the Gaudiya Math,
because that ashram was for the unmarried men. Srila Prabhupad
was grhasta, married man, so he did not live in his guru's
ashram.
Thus we find two
aspects of what we call ISKCON. Technically ISKCON really
applies to just Srila Prabhupad's ashrams. Then there is the
greater ISKCON and greater community of followers of Srila
Prabhupad. Srila Prabhupad was not directly a Gaudiya Math
(ASHRAM) member, yet he was a member of SBSS's greater mission.
And he was welcome to come and give classes in the math's
temple, etc. He was a member of the greater mission of SBBS,
but not a member of the ashram. This is the same for ISKCON
grhastas who may no longer (or may never have) lived in the
actual ISKCON ashrams, they live within a larger community
of devotees, are followers of Srila Prabhupad and try to abide
by his teachings and the system of management that he set
up. They are considered ISKCON devotees, they consider themselves
ISKCON devotees, yet they are not living in the ISKCON ashram.
Look at it in the
traditional sense. The ashram of the guru is where the brahmacari
students and the teacher lived. Some sannyasis may also reside
there, generally brahmacari students who took up sannyas,
but it was mostly the brahmacari students. In 1977 I was desiring
to get married and I had just read in the Krsna Book that
the proper system was for the brahmacari disciple to go to
his guru and offer him dakshin and ask permission to take
leave of his guru's ashram so that he can marry and start
his own grhasta ashram. So, in 1977 I sent SP a letter along
with dakshin and asked his permission to take leave of his
ashram so that I could enter the grhasta ashram. SP replied,
via Satsvarup, and gave his permission and thanked me for
asking him properly in this way.
The proper system
is that when a disciple marries he takes leave of his guru's
ashram and he lives in his own ashram.
How is this related
to our discussion? Srila Prabhupad's ashram is called ISKCON,
but that ashram is not the entire movement nor the entire
community of devotees that SP set up. ISKCON is, in the official
sense, simply the brahmacari or temple ashrams, as the Gaudiya
Math was for SBSS. Our SP never lived in the Gaudiya Math
ashram, yet he became the most successful and prominent of
SBSS's disciples. He lived outside his guru's ashram, living
in his own grha-ashram. His living outside his guru's ashram
was not a fallen situation for SP. It was not a lesser position.
And it was not a position that SBSS considered inferior or
fallen.
For grhastas to
take leave of the ASRHAM of ISKCON and start their own grhasta
ashrams is not a fall down. They are not blooping when they
do so. They are not acting independent of their guru's instructions
to live in their own ashram. The grhasta has not actually
left his guru nor his guru's mission any more then SP was
considered not a part of SBSS's mission even though he never
lived in the Gaudiya Ashrams of his guru. To live outside
of the ashram of the guru and maintain one's own ashram separately
is not a fall down for the grhasta!!!
And neither is
it for a DIKSHA guru!!!!!!!!!
SP wanted us to
become QUALIFIED to become Guru. Yes, you can Become Guru.
Yes, but just like the brahmacari who takes leave of his guru's
ashram so that he can go outside and start his own grhasta
ashram, those who feel they are sufficiently qualified to
accept disciples they can do so, but simply they should also
take leave of their guru's ashram and open their own ashram.
Has Srila Prabhupad
specifically stated this? He has in regards to the grhasta.
It is the same principle. A grhasta does not live in the ashram
of the guru. That is the proper system. While Srila Prabhupad
was physically with us, what if he had allowed some devotees
to take on discples (I know, he did not, but lets look at
it theoretically). It would have been very disruptive. A new
bhakta comes, he is attracted to Sannyasa dasa, so he takes
him as guru, but sannyasa dasa is living in Srila Prabhupad's
ashram, so where does sannyasa dasa's disciples live? In SP's
ashram? Hmm, then what authority do they follow? Who do they
go to for guidance? Their diksha guru, or Prabhupad's ashram
authorities? It would be very disruptive to the ISKCON ashram
authorities to tend with this, and some system delineating
who is this bhakta's authority would need to be worked out,
but it would inherently be very disruptive and there would
be constant conflict. Now, image 11 - 20 - 80 - 100 different
sannyasa dasa's living in the same LA ISKCON Prabhupad ashram
and yet they each have their own disciples. Now, where does
SP's ashram authorities stand, who is the authority for these
men, who do they seek guidance from, who is to engage them,
who is to feed them, where does their dakshin and collections
go???? On and on.
Well, those happen to be the same issues we have struggled
with the past 30 years.
No, lets change
the story, lets say that Srila Prabhupad told these Sannyasa
dasa's - yes, become guru, yes take on disciples, but, as
any respectable grhasta must do, go start your own ashram,
take leave of my ISKCON ashram. Do NOT take leave of my mission,
do not act independently from my instructions, do not leave
our greater society, as with any grhasta who leaves the guru's
ashram and starts his own grha-ashram, go start your own ashram.
There you will be the guru and authority for your disciple.
Now, there is no
conflict of interest, or conflict of authority. Those who
take initiation from that guru will live in his ashram(s)
and they can seek direct guidance from that guru. No conflict
with ISKCON or SP's ashram authorities. Yet, just as the grhasta,
do not leave the greater mission. Just like SP was invited
to come and give class in the Gaudiya Math and he worked closely
with the devotees, so too a guru must do. Come to the main
ISKCON temple, and start your own ashram nearby, just as the
grhastas do.
This is the simple
- TRADITIONAL - solution to the argument that the instruction
is there for us all, grhasta - sannyasi, doesn't matter, to
become Guru... yes, become guru, take leave of ISKCON's (Prabhupad's)
ashrams and start your own ashram. Not independently, but
in full co-operation and with the full blessings and co-operation
of the ISKCON ashram authorities. Just as the grhastas do.
That is both the Traditional system, and is supported by shastric
and traditional evidence.
But, then, what
about the formal ISKCON ashrams? Here, the only logical recourse
that is in accordance with Srila Prabhupad's instructions
and is fully compatible and complements the GBC SOM is that
Srila Prabhupad must remain the only acharya, and the GBC
is now the only authority for which devotees will seek and
obtain their guidance from.
However, only now
do we come to the issue of weather the on-going rtvik system
is actually bonafied and if it actually is what Srila Prabhupad
wanted for us to continue to implement.
Now I will address
certain points from your Rtviks Wrong articles.
(I would prefer
to have sent this with html formatting, it would make it easier
to differentiate your text, mine and quotes from SP, etc -
but the email you sent to me was plain text, so I will play
it safe and sent as plain text with plain text formatting.]
Your first article
began:
If Srila Prabhupada
didn’t clearly and definitely say it,
and if it first came up after 1977,
whatever it is, don’t trust it.
—Rule of
Thumb Agreed.
JS wrote:
//
Some people seem to think that merely offering more and more
evidence that Srila Prabhupada set up a rtvik-guru system
somehow makes the case for a post-samadhi rtvik-guru system
stronger and stronger.
//
I have done so
in my articles to clarify for those who do not have good knowledge
of the system he had set up. Several years ago I had an email
based debate on the issue with a number of devotees that included
"grand-disciples", including ones that were on GBC
appointed committee to deal with the Rtvik issue, and during
that discussion it was found that many of the grand-disciples
did not have a good understanding as to the extent of the
rtvik system that SP had set up. Some were in total disbelief
that appointed rtviks had made the decision who was qualified
for initiation, then chanted on initiate's beads, chose the
names, etc., they at first rejected this as being 'bogus'
and that Srila Prabhupad would never had authorized such a
thing, even before SP's disappearance. Thus, the first part
of my article is for the benefit of those who are ignorant
about that, to establish the full extent of the rtvik system
that SP set up.
JS wrote:
//
At a meeting in Topanga Canyon in 1980, Tamal Krishna Maharaja
stated that Srila Prabhupada had never appointed the eleven
rtviks to be anything more than rtviks. “If it had been
more than that,” he said, “you can bet your bottom
dollar that Prabhupada would have spoken for days and hours
and weeks on end about about how to set up this thing with
the gurus, but he didn’t. . .”
The same point
about how Srila Prabhupada let us know what he wanted is relevant
here. If he had wanted a rtvik-guru system to continue after
his departure, would we have expected him to have said so
merely once in private to his secretary, or would he have
spoken about it with his leading devotees “for days
and hours and weeks on end”?
//
I see this as an
evasive tactic Prabhu, not acceptable. You did not address
the other side of the argument, you attempted to evade it
by assuming, in your perspective, there was 'also' just as
much unspoken about a continued rtvik system. You seem to
be arguing that Srila Prabhupad did not give sufficient guidance
on either path. However, as I will elaborate latter on, the
lack of explicit instructions stand on the side of HOW TO
SET UP THIS THING WITH THE GURUS - in Tamal's words - not
on how to continue an already set up and functioning system
(the already well established rtvik system).
Let me elaborate:
>>> Previously there was a FULL - Complete - Tested
and Functioning Rtvik system set up that included:
a) pre-initiation
instruction and guidance - clearly it was to come via the
System of Management as I state in my recent article.
b) there was the process of determining qualification for
initiation - decided by the local GBC and TP
c) there was the process of performing the actual initiation
ceremony - the rtvik system, in place
d) there was the post-initiation system of on-going guidance
- given by the existing system of management that included
the TP, GBC, sannyasis and senior men.
In all the above
- these aspects were - by November of 1977 - well and long-time
established and all needed instructions on how they were to
go-on functioning had already been given - in full.
In fact, it is
a well known fact that Srila Prabhupad had removed himself
from the active management of ISKCON - going to Hawaii and
other places to concentrate his full time and energy on his
translation work. But, there was also another reason for his
removing himself from active management of ISKCON, and that
was to TEST OUT the GBC System Of Management that he had setup.
Srila Prabhupad removed himself from active participation
so that he could see that the system, as he had set it up,
could go-on functions, as it was set up, without the need
for his physical presence.
This alone is very
valid and substantial evidence that it was Srila Prabhupad's
desire that the system, as it had been set up, was to continue
as it was setup, unchanged, after his disappearance.
If he had wanted
any other system he would have set that system up and had
removed himself from it to test it out first. But, this, the
System by which the GBC-system would provide all Managerial
guidance to the society, set the philosophic standards and
guidance and provide all the Personal guidance to the followers,
this is the system he had set up, and this is the system he
had fully tested out by removing himself from active participation
for some period. This system coupled with the rtvik process
of giving initiations.
Therefore, we now
come near to the end of his physical presence with us, and
we find no further instructions how this system was to continue
on in his absence. This is not at all surprising nor is it
at all evidence that he did not want the system to continue
as he had set it up. Simply, it had already been long-time
fully established, operational, and fully tested to work sufficiently
without the need for his physical presence. Simply, there
was no need for any further instructions about how it should
continue in the future, that had already been well established
as being what he set the whole thing up for, and tested it
for !!!!
Rather, the fact
that we do not find any instruction on how that fully - long-time
- well established fully tested out system was to be CHANGED
after his disappearance is MOST Significant. How the new guru's
fit into that system, what their authority will be over their
disciples, how this is to be shared with the authority of
the GBC system, who was to give what sort of guidance. There
are NO instructions - AT ALL - on how ANY of it - NOTHING
was to change. It was to remain AS IT IS, as it had been well
tested and established.
To Assume anything
different is pure, 100% pure speculation and mental concoction.
Since there is a total lack of even one instruction detailing
or even hinting at any change to that well established system,
and there is the well understood evidence that Srila Prabhupad
had removed himself from active participation in order to
test how well the system performed in his absence, there is
no other conclusion then to accept that Srila Prabhupad's
desire was for the complete system, the management, the giving
of guidance, and even the process of rtvik initiations, was
to continue just as he had set it up. NO CHANGE. No instructions
support that there was to be any change, thus to have made
changes is the real deviation.
The GBC and devotees
have been struggling for the past 3 decades trying to figure
out exactly how to implement a system that SP had not given
ANY explicit instructions on how to implement it. How the
system he had set up is to be changed, how to accommodate
the previous authority of the GBC, the previous duties of
their giving guidance to the new diksha gurus. All of which
are changes made outside of, and totally lack any direct support
by Srila Prabhupad's instructions.
It all stems from
the simple "assumption" that an on-going system
of diksha gurus is the only right path to follow - The "assumption"
that the rtvik system was to End at SP's disappearance automatically
- Despite any direct instruction by Srila Prabhupad supporting
this.
The "assumption",
on the part of the GBC, is that the rtviks were to now become
diksha gurus of their own right, yet there isn't any direct
or explicit instruction by Srila Prabhupad stating this.
The lack of instructions
is on the side of the path the GBC has followed, there is
No Lack of instructions on to support that the system that
was in place, including the rtvik system, was to continue
as it had been established and fully tested out.
Let me reiterate
this again. The path the GBC has followed for the past 3 decades
is founded not on explicit instructions given by Srila Prabhupad,
but, rather, on the mental and speculative "Assumptions"
of the GBC that the changes they were making were needed.
They "assumed" that the rtvik system must come to
an end on his disappearance, and due to this proceeded to
make so many changes to the system of management to accommodate
this.
In contrast, those
who uphold an on-going rtvik system are not 'assuming' or
speculating about anything. They are not "assuming"
that this is what Srila Prabhupad wanted, rather, this IS
the system that Srila Prabhupad had already set up, fully,
and had already fully tested it out. There is no speculating
or assuming on this point.
It is the GBC who
have "assumed" that he wanted something totally
different after his disappearance then what he had set up
and tested out. And the lack of instructions lending support
to this lay on the path the GBC have been following. Not on
the path of continuing an on-going rtvik and GBC management
system that worked seamlessly together and complemented one-another.
View the above
items in this light:
a) pre-initiation instruction and guidance -
if someone joins in guru A's temple or zone, is guru A responsible
for that devotee's pre-intiation training, or said other wise,
is that person to automatically accept as guru who ever is
initiating in that temple. If more then one guru, is he/she
to decide on basis of what established ISKCON policy? Thus
the need for the GBC to establish some clear policy, as SP
never gave any instructions at all prior how these new changes
were to be made. Thus the need over the past 3 decades for
the GBC to pass and revamp and rescind ruling after ruling
on this matter - all without any support of any direct instruction
by Srila Prabhupad to guide them in making all these changes.
From the rigid Zonal-Acharya days to the more relaxed present
system - the GBC has passed and rescinded and modified so
many rules, all in areas where SP had Not Given ANY explicit
instructions on how this was to Change in his absence. In
contrast, if No Changes had been made, then we find that ALL
needed instructions on how to carry forward were ALREADY given,
in Full, prior to SP's disappearance.
b) there was the process of determining qualification for
initiation - decided by the local GBC and TP - that also has
changed - a TP may still be involved, and optionally a GBC,
but mostly this is today decided by the diskha guru himself
or the Diksha and TP. Another CHANGE to the system SP had
established.
c) there was the process of performing the actual initiation
ceremony - It was 'assumed' that the rtvik system was to end,
so a new and different process was established. Again, there
was no EXPLICIT instruction by SP that this was to change.
d) there is the post-initiation system of on-going guidance
- Previously this was given by the then existing system of
management that included the TP, GBC, sannyasis and senior
men. The GBC was seen as the ultimate authority of that system,
in SP's absence. Today, most 'grand-disciples do not approach
their GBC for such guidance, but only look to their diksha
guru, unless their guru is also their GBC. But, again, these
are major changes to the system of management that SP had
set up, changes made by the GBC over the past 3 decades that
were made without any basis or support from any explicit instructions
by SP that any such change were to be made - At ALL. Rather,
ALL these changes defy his last will that THERE IS NO NEED
OF ANY CHANGE in the system of ISKCON's management.
The great deviation
in ISKCON has been the GBC's path of changing what Srila Prabhupad
had set up. Of making the "assumptions" on their
own that such changes were needed in order to fulfill Srila
Prabhupad's instruction that we should all qualify ourselves
and become guru.
Yes, do that, you
are fully encouraged to do that. But do so as any responsible
grhasta would do, take leave of your guru's ashram and start
your own ashram, in full co-operation and with the fully blessings
of the ISKCON ashram authorities. Just as a grhasta starts
his own ashram with the blessings and co-operation of Prabhupad's
ashram and temple authorities. And as with the grhastas, the
temple authorities should welcome your participation in the
temple functions, giving classes, etc.
The logic is clear:
We say that there were NO explicit instructions by SP on how
the Guru system of initiations and giving of guidance was
to Change and how it was to be implemented side-by-side with
the established GBC system.
And, you did not
refute this, but rather you made an attempt to discredit it
by arguing that there were also no direction instructions
asking that the rtvik system that was setup and operational
be continued without change. Your argument is not accepted,
as there was no need for Srila Prabhupad to have given any
further instruction on the matter, it was already long established.
-- Thus, I do not accept your conclusion on this point. It
is a very pivotal point.
JS wrote:
//
Therefore, the argument continues, since no one else is fit,
the only person of whom we can safely take shelter is Srila
Prabhupada himself.
Srila Prabhupada
knew the limitations of his disciples, and he must have known
what would happen. Therefore, the argument concludes, he must
have set up the rtvik-guru system.
The response to
this argument is simple: It is speculative and should therefore
be rejected. A speculation may be reasonable or unreasonable,
but Srila Prabhupada taught us to rely on authority, not on
speculation.
//
Prabhu, the Assumptions
and speculations are on the side of the GBC, as I have noted
above. We are not "assuming" Srila Prabhupad wanted
the system to continue as he had set it up. This is obviously
WHY he set it up in the first place, and why he fully tested
THAT system. There is no assumption on our part, the unsupported
assumption to change that system lies on the path the GBC
has been following.
JS continued:
//
Moreover, this speculation is logically defective. To dispose
of it, we need not decide whether Srila Prabhupada’s
disciples are fit or unfit, or whether they “received
the order” to become guru or not. Nor do we need to
discuss what the credentials of a bona fide spiritual master
should be. (These are important topics, but they are not the
topic at hand.)
Suppose for the
moment that Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are all indeed
unfit. It does not therefore logically follow that Srila Prabhupada
must have (note the speculative language) set up a post-samadhi
rtvik-guru system.
Instead, if he
found his disciples all unfit he could have blessed one or
more to quickly attain spiritual perfection. Or he could have
declared that henceforward Krsna Himself, or the Bhagavatam
itself, or the holy name itself would be the spiritual master.
Or he could have simply left everything up to Krsna.
The point is that
it’s not enough to talk about what Srila Prabhupada
could have done or must have done. We have to see what Srila
Prabhupada actually did.
To argue that Srila
Prabhupada must have set up a rtvik-guru system and that the
evidence for this is so scanty only because it must have been
suppressed and covered up is merely to take the speculation
one step further.
//
Your (the GBC)
Speculative Assumptions are that SP did NOT want the system
that he had set up to continue after his disappearance. Then
why the hell did he set up such a system and then go to the
bother of fully testing it out without his active participation
if he wanted it to be completely changed after his disappearance???
And on top of that - he gave not one instruction on what changes
were to be made, or where to make them, etc., etc. The presumptive
speculations lay with the GBC's assumptions that they system
HAD to changed. They "assumed" that it was not bonafied
for the rtvik process to continue, and they "assumed"
that those who were appointed rtvik were now to assume the
position of actual acharya and diksha guru all while still
using the facilities of their guru's ashram.
JS wrote:
//
And speculating is not the way Srila Prabhupada told us to
do things. One who wants to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada,
therefore, should avoid taking shelter of speculations.
//
Jai - JayaAdwaita
Prabhu!! All Glories to your intelligence. I am glad to see
that we at least agree on this point. Now if we can agree
which side has actually been the one engaged in the dangerous
and devious speculations and making all the unsupported assumptions,
then we will be getting somewhere.
JS wrote:
//
But we must follow Srila Prabhupada as he himself instructed
us to follow. We must follow Srila Prabhupada and those who
follow Srila Prabhupada, not the speculations of others.
//
Then FOLLOW the
system that He personally Set Up, follow the instructions
pertaining to how that system was to function, follow the
system that he personally tested to see that it operated fully
without the need of his physical participation. And stop speculating
that he wanted us to change the whole system into something
totally different in regards to initiations and giving of
guidance to the devotees. Stop speculating how the new guru
system is to work within the system that SP set up, stop speculating
which duties to usurp and take away from the GBC system of
giving of guidance to the devotees by speculating which of
those duties are to be given to the new gurus, and restore
the system that SP had worked hard to set up.
I am not assuming
or speculating what system SP had set up, nor am I speculating
or assuming that he wanted that system to be changed after
his disappearance. Those are the speculations and assumptions
of the GBC.
JS wrote:
//
5. Argument from a lack of counter-evidence.
We now come to
another argument we can deal with quickly.
Where, it is demanded,
has the sastra or Srila Prabhupada said that one can’t
approach an acarya for initiation merely because he has physically
departed? Where do the authorities tell us that a post-samadhi
rtvik system is no good? Can you show me a verse? Can you
point to a purport? How then can you say it’s not valid?
//
You 'quickly' dealt
with this... way too quickly. Your way of dealing with a serious
point was to try to turn it into a tasteless joke.
The fact remains
that there is no shastric evidence that supports the speculative
assumption that when the temporary form of the guru disappears
from our presence that a rtvik system of initiations becomes
automatically bogus, and that anyone who claims differently
is to be seen as the worse sort of Deviant, and should be
kicked unceremoniously out of Prabhupad's temples and ashrams
(which has been rhetoric and action called for by a number
of fanatic anti-rtvik devotees).
The point I make
in my article pertains to what Empowers the rtvik process.
What empowers the rtivk process is the Eternal Vani of the
Guru, not the temporary vapu. When the form of the guru disappears
from our presence his Vani lives on Eternally. The fact that
there is no explicit shastric reference explaining how and
on what basis an on-going rtvik process is only empowered
when the physical form of the guru is present is a serious
one, for in the absence of such direct shastric explanation
one can only assume and speculate WHY an on-going process
is to be assumed to bogus.
Lacking any direct
supportive shastric evidence, then lets analyze why you would
"assume" that the rtvik process becomes bogus after
the physical disappearance of the guru?
During SP's physical
presence, even his physical presence was not required for
the rtvik process to be performed. He had delineated all aspects
of the process - from making the decision who was qualified,
to chanting on the beads, to selecting the name, to performing
the fire yajna. All of this he set up so that it could be
performed without his active participation, without the need
for his physical presence. Then, if we "assume"
that this process automatically becomes invalid and bogus
on the demise of his physical presence - excuse me, more correctly
stated his physical presence somewhere on the planet - then
we must examine what then really empowered the rtvik process
to begin with. Lacking any direct instruction from the spiritual
master that the process was to end at his disappearance, then
we must assume that it was not his instructions that empowered
the process, for if that were accepted, then we are left to
deal with the fact that his instructions live on eternally,
and that would mean that the rtvik process that he had instructed
to be set up would in fact still be empowered. So, we must
assume that the process was not empowered by his eternal instructions.
Since we are assuming that the process becomes bogus after
his demise, then the only logical deduction is that his physical
presence is what empowered the process, for as soon as you
remove that physical presence, we assume the process has become
un-empowered. Prabhu, think about it, there is no other conclusion.
Don't sidestep this by trying to throw it off with some other
argument. Deal with this, what empowered the rtvik process,
past, present and future. And, even we are assuming that it
is not the physical presence of the guru at the place of the
initiation that empowered the rtvik process, since SP was
often no where physically present, so we must assume that
it is the presence of his physical vapu-body somewhere on
the same planet. Well, even that has to be further defined,
since Prabhupad's physical vapu still remains in the Samadhi
in Vrndaban, then we must further define that what empowered
the rtvik process was his WARM physical bodily form that was
present somewhere on the planet. The real point is that to
support the idea that the rtvik process automatically becomes
bogus after the disappearance of the guru's warm physical
form, we have to totally reject the idea that the process
was empowered via the Eternal Living Instructions of the guru.
If you think my
logic above is faulty, then please explain, with some shastric
evidence, what empowered the rtvik process before, and why
it is no longer empowered now. What is that which empowered
the process?
The above logic
DEFIES scriptural support. Whereas shastra does support the
basic idea that a process can be empowered by the eternal
living instructions of the guru and that such instructions
carry on fully even after the disappearance of the warm physical
vapu-body of the guru.
This is not a point
to simply sluff (slough?) off by trying to associate such
logic with off-color jokes about taking somebodies mother's
ghost as guru or trying to disprove someone beats their wife.
This is a serious point that commands serious discussion.
JS wrote:
//
Again, a simple argument.
Srila Prabhupada
usually did what was done by the predecessor acaryas. And
never in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, nor any other
form of Vaisnavism, have we found any instance of a post-samadhi
rtvik-guru system.
Yes, Srila Prabhupada
could have put in place an unprecedented system. He could
have done anything. But the lack of precedent gives a good
reason to doubt that he did.
//
I dispute several
points made here. He 'usually' did what was done by predecessor
acharyas does hold much value, but there are many things Srila
Prabhupad did that were "unique" or "different".
My understanding is that very few acharyas ever accepted women
as direct disciples in which they performed fire sacrifices
for. Yet, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did have some directly initiated
female disciples, it is also my understanding that these matajis
were of 3 main types. 1) elderly mataji's whose family life
was over, their husbands had died, and they were now dedicating
their lives to live practically as that as a sannyasi. 2),
they were wives of his male disciples 3) they were daughters
of initiated disciples. This can be examined further, but
if he did take on unwed girls who were not daughters of his
disciples I would think it was a very rare exception. HH Bhakti
Vikash maharaj should be aware of this point.
Yet, Srila Prabhupad did this very widely, taking on 100's,
even 1,000's of unwed girls. Something no past acharya has
done. And he even went so far as to give 1,000's of unwed
girls shelter even in his ashrams by setting up "brahmacarini"
ashrams, which he told us was 'artificial'. He, as a sannyasi,
arranged and performed marriage ceremonies. He gave women
"Brahmin" initiation [NOTE: he was not going to
originally, but on the weeping request of his early female
disciples, he came up with a solution - actually shastra forbids
women from taking Brahmin initiation - so Srila Prabhupad
agreed to give the women second initiation, but with one exception,
he would not give them the thread. One day Shyamasundar (the
astrologer) sent me a quote from some Vedic text that states
that unless one receives an actual thread from his guru, he
is not considered to actually have received the gayatri initiation.
Such initiations are not empowered - just see how Srila Prabhupad
did this].
And, one of the
biggest differences that we do not have any evidence that
other past acharyas have done (other then maybe Madhva) is
that Srila Prabhupad set up a GBC system of management for
his many ashrams so that that system would function after
his disappearance. This is not Traditional, and we do not
find Mahaprabhu or any other acharya in our line doing this,
not on a world-wide basis. Yet we accept as bonafied SP's
doing this.
And, as for we
do not see any other past precendence for an on-going rtvik
system, I beg to differ. Evidence that an on going rtvik system
is bonafied is given by Srila Prabhupad himself, and I quoted
this in my full article, in regards to accepting Jesus as
one's guru, even now, 2,000 years after his disappearance.
Srila Prabhupad clearly states that by taking shelter of the
instructions and books of the guru one is accepting that guru,
and that one does not need any other guru. One may take help
from a "representative priest", but the actual guru
will be Jesus. Please see my article for full explanation.
Maharaj, it is late, I have run out of time, it is today the
Auspicious day of Nityananda's Appearance day, Feb. 9, 2006,
and I must stop to attend to our home programs, then off to
Orlando center for their programs. I will be busy for some
days, but will try to read the rest of your articles and if
needed make other comments on them. But, for now I will send
this as it is.
I invite participative
response on your side, and it may take days for replies, that
is alright.
Your servant, in
the service of Srila Prabhupad, ameyatma das
|
