Dealing with the Inevitable
BY: Rocana dasa, Sun Editor
Aug 1, USA (SUN) — This first Counterpoint article is in response to today's editorial, “Process of Initiation”, by His Divine Grace Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaj of the Sree Chaitanya Gaudiya Math.
When launching the Sampradaya Sun, I knew it was inevitable that I would have to deal with the predicament of applying editorial judgment to broadcasting articles submitted by the various Gaudiya Matha camps. As I have made abundantly clear in my presentation of Srila Prabhpuada as the Sampradaya Acarya, I have personally never been attracted to anyone other than Srila Prabhupada to be a guru of any kind - siksa, diksa, or otherwise. Regardless, in my editorial capacity for the Sun, I will be faced with many articles promoting other gurus.
We are familiar with the history of Vaisnava news sites, which began with VNN.org VNN launched as a neutral independent reporting venue, but morphed into a news site that was essentially a conduit for the various Gaudiya Matha camps. Over the last few years, VNN became less and less willing to publish articles I submitted wherein I criticized one of their revered preceptors, B.V. Narayana Maharaja. I haven't always have flattering things to say about Sridhar Maharaha either, which also likely skewed me out of editorial favour with VNN. Just prior to their January freeze, VNN apparently made an editorial policy decision to reject all my articles, regardless of the topic. Today, I find myself in the position of having to consider for publication an article submitted by the present head of the Sree Caitanya Gaudiya Matha.
Because of my lack of interest in the various Gaudiya Matha branches, due primarily to Srila Prabhupada's warnings for me not to be interested in them, I am, by admission, not expert in being able to discern who the various Gaudiya Matha individuals are. I seldom read their articles, don't listen to their lectures, and therefore am not qualified to know which personalities might be closer to Srila Prabhupada than others. Consequently, I will need to rely, in part, on the comments and feedback my Godbrothers offer on articles such as the one published today. The Sun Blogs platform should facilitate that dialogue nicely.
I read the article by HDG Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami from the standpoint of my conclusion that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya. I don't characterize the author as being on the same level as Srila Prabhupada, since I don't recognize him to be a Sampradaya Acarya of equal standing to other Sampradaya Acaryas like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, or the others included on the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas going back to Lord Brahma. I am not suggesting, however, that the esteemed author is not an Acarya in his own right, or a qualified diksa guru, etc.
As I read HDG Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami's article, the first few paragraphs sent up warning signals for me, because the author is making the distinction that initiation in the west and diksa in India are not synonymous in terms of the words used to describe them. Of course, he's indicating that initiation means diksa, and that there's no other way to be initiated other than through diksa. I disagree with that conclusion.
Srila Prabhupada frequently used the word ‘initiation' instead of ‘diksa', and Srila Prabhupada didn't typically refer to his disciple as ‘gaining diksa', but rather referred to them as becoming ‘initiated'. Consequently, we see that the author's statements in this regard could be seen as a subtle form of criticism of Srila Prabhupada, suggesting that he didn't use the right word. An uninformed reader could easily come to that conclusion.
The author also indicates that Vedic culture - or what's left of it in India -- is spiritual, whereas western culture is material by nature, and that's why there are not more words in the English language to define initiation. However, one of the beauties of the English language is that a single word can be used for various meanings, as is the case with Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, you can have dozens of meanings for the same word, depending on the context the word is used in.
In the context of our philosophy, I think the word ‘initiation' in its broadest sense is more applicable to being initiated into the Sampradaya than is the word ‘diksa'. One can be initiated into the teachings of the Sampradaya -- the philosophy, the siddhanta of the Sampradaya -- by means of contacting a Sampradaya Acarya. In fact, that is the real pre-requisite. Many of the Gaudiya Matha representatives and ISKCON itself would like you to believe that there must be an intermediary guru between you and the Sampradaya Acarya in order for you to be initiated, and that's what parampara, or disciplic success means. I personally don't adhere to this conclusion. I believe that one can be introduced to the Sampradaya Acarya by various gurus, which includes the standard definition of vartma-pradarsaka, by which one can be introduced to the Sampradaya and the Sampradaya Acaryas.
In Srila Prabhupada's case, he has left a huge wealth of information, and it can easily take many years, if not a lifetime, for one to become knowledgeable in his teachings. But after reading Srila Prabhupada's literatures or hearing from him, one may come to the point of recognizing him as a pure follower of the pure Sampradaya. The point is reached where you accept that everything that is produced by him - everything that comes from his lotus mouth -- is completely pure. There is no question that there's any fault. When there is no doubt that one is ready to surrender to and follow the pure Sampradaya Acarya, at that point one is initiated.
These Sampradaya Acaryas are the ultimate authorities in our siddhanta. If you accept all that is written by them, and especially that which is presented by the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, then essentially you're initiated. Of course, the inclination of any student or searcher is that they want to have association. They prefer to have association with and instruction from one who is more advanced than themselves. They want to know that someone knows and loves them, and is concerned about their spiritual life. This is only natural. Therefore, a person who doesn't have that kind of association hankers for it, and is always looking for “the guru”. For that reason, there will always be persons who are willing to present themselves as guru. They will make themselves available for various reasons and with various motives, not always pure. This is true whether it be diksa, siksa, vartma-pradarsaka, prabhu, or whatever. Consequently, there's no point in trying to ban that type of relationship, or saying that it shouldn't or couldn't happen, or that Srila Prabhupada didn't want it to happen. It's a Vedic injunction, part of our culture, philosophy and siddhanta, so there's no question of ever forbidding it to happen.
There is a big difference between when Srila Prabhupada was personally here, and now. When Srila Prabhupada was physically present, regardless of whether you appeared to be ready for initiation, you were allowed to be initiated. There was no risk on your part of being initiated by someone who wasn't of the highest spiritual standards. As we've seen history unfold, we know that a healthy percentage of those initiated into diksa by Srila Prabhupada didn't actually have full faith in Srila Prabhupada. Some of them left Srila Prabhupada, and some are even taking shelter of people who are criticizing Srila Prabhupada. Others just became overwhelmed by Maya. There's every example under the sun.
In the case of HDG Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami's article, which discusses the difference between ‘initiation' and ‘diksa', we can see that the author's message may be easily interpreted in various ways. One of the points I often make about various Gaudiya Matha preachers is that they are very expert at saying things which could be interpreted one way or the other. If you interpret in a way which is critical of them, or you interpret that they're being critical of Srila Prabhupada, they'll say that's not what they meant, and you're really the one that's critical of them because you're interpreting incorrectly. Of course, they're fully aware of the dynamics and ongoing conflict that exists between followers of Srila Prabhupada's, both within and outside the institution, and various Gaudiya Matha followers who don't share the same conclusions as to Srila Prabhupada's elevated status. I assert that even ISKCON doesn't have a full appreciation of who Srila Prabhupada is as a Sampradaya Acarya, what to speak of his Godbrothers and their disciples, who are in no way inclined to consider that their guru is on a lesser platform than Srila Prabhupada.
Of course, none of that is acknowledged in the article under discussion. The author is saying that diksa is the only way you can become initiated into our Sampradaya. I disagree with that. Secondly, he says ‘initiation' is an inferior word, even though it's used by Srila Prabhupada to refer to taking initiation into our Sampradaya. The author does not acknowledge any other types of gurus, particularly the siksa concept, which is very much highlighted and emphasized as part of our tradition by the previous Sampradaya Acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur. The article is full of commonly accepted truths within our siddhanta, and we can understand what they mean because we've been trained by Srila Prabhupada, but all in all, there is no mention of Srila Prabhupada, and there are obvious indications of subtle criticism. At least that's the way I see it.
