On Re-initiation

BY: ROCANA DASA, SUN EDITOR

Srila Prabhupada Translating in Vrindavan

Oct 1, USA (SUN) — HG Danavir Goswami has gone to great effort in presenting his version of the present day ISKCON policy on re-initiation. On behalf of all the readers, I thank him. We can now begin to appreciate the necessary degree of importance this research has to ISKCON’s diksa guru policy. In fact, Danavir Goswami felt it best to concentrate on my statements in this regard before addressing the many other points made in my last editorial.

Considering the number of times ISKCON has had to apply this re-initiation policy, it is no wonder Danavir Goswami was able to present such a complete defence so quickly. When I made the statement which he claims is incorrect, I was well aware of the utilization of the frequently quoted verse from the Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta of Srila Narahari Sarkar. Of course, it is not possible that Srila Narahari Sarkar was referring to anything even remotely similar to the type of institutional milieu within which today's ISKCON applies its re-initiation policies.

I would also like to remind the readers that the very concept of disciplic succession is based on the most recent Acarya making the relevant adjustments according to time, place and circumstance. Of all the sastric quotes presented by Danavir Goswami, those holding the most weight did not originate with Srila Prabhupada. In fact, the sastric reference holding the most significance was translated into English by ISKCON diksa gurus, namely HH Hrdayananda dasa Gosvami, HH Bhakti Caru Swami, and other ISKCON supporters.

All but Srila Prabhupada’s short contributions were purported for our benefit and clarification by Danavir Goswami. How is it possible for any of us to practically apply the Guru, Sastra, and Sadhu principle to these writings? We are essentially being asked to have complete faith in their translation work, with the assumption that it is absolutely accurate. Considering that some of these “Sanskrit scholars” were active architects and overly-active participants in the Zonal Acarya fiasco, I believe it is within our rights to be sceptical.

We have witnessed the heated debate surrounding the re-editing of Srila Prabhupada's books. The greatest outcry has been about the major philosophical alterations surrounding this very issue, guru tattva. In the case of re-initiation, Danavir Goswami is highlighting endeavours of the English translation of highly advanced Vaisnava scriptures by relative neophytes, some with dubious pasts when it comes to these matters.

I have learned, the hard way, that it is very unwise to just indiscriminately accept as unalloyed truth such literary creations as Satsvarupa Goswami’s Lilamrita, HH Hrdayananda Swami's Srimad Bhagavatam commentaries and translations, and other personal biographies, memoirs, diaries and sentimental musings that have the outward appearance of glorifying Srila Prabhupada and the Sampradaya. Naturally, in many cases, the author’s image is simultaneously being publicly enhanced. It astounds me to discover the degree of wholesale unquestioning acceptance these kinds of books receive from practically everyone.

"It is not possible for a common man to write books on bhakti, for his writings will not be effective. He may be a very great scholar and expert in presenting literature in flowery language, but this is not at all helpful in understanding transcendental literature. Even if transcendental literature is written in faulty language, it is acceptable if it is written by a devotee, whereas so-called transcendental literature written by a mundane scholar, even if it is a very highly polished literary presentation, cannot be accepted. The secret in a devotee's writing is that when he writes about the pastimes of the lord, the lord helps him; he does not write himself. As stated in the Bhagavad-gita (10.10), dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te. Since a devotee writes in service to the Lord, the Lord from within gives him so much intelligence that he sits down near the Lord and goes on writing books."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila, 8.39

I return to one of the basic foundations of disciplic succession. The teachings of our “bona fide” Spiritual Master are to be the sum total of all previous Acaryas in our line. In our case, Srila Prabhupada's books are contemporary, written in English, elaborately purported, voluminous, practically applied and proven, and the Sampradaya Acarya, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, is decorated with spotless Vaisnava qualities.

"So if you want to understand Bhagavad-gita, then we must understand in the same way as the person who directly heard from. This is called parampara system. Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya."

Srila Prabhupada lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam, 12-08-73, Los Angeles

"To write about the transcendental pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not an ordinary endeavour. Unless one is empowered by the higher authorities, or advanced devotees, one cannot write transcendental literature, for all such literature must be above suspicion, or, in other words, it must have none of the defects of conditioned souls, namely, mistakes, illusions, cheating and imperfect sense perceptions. The words of Krsna and the disciplic succession that carries the orders of Krsna are actually authoritative. To be empowered to write transcendental literature is a privilege in which a writer can take great pride."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila, 8.72




"The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous acaryas will make one's comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious devotees. Because of false pride, every scholar and philosopher wants to exhibit his learning by interpreting the sastras, especially Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, in his own way. This system of commenting in one's own way is fully condemned by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya lila, 7.134 PURPORT

The fad or trend catching on amongst “higher-ups” like Danavir Goswami is to graduate upward towards what they consider to be more elevated writings of the past Acaryas. This practice carries with it the common assumption that the pandits translating, and sometimes purporting, these books have evolved into spiritually qualified devotees. In order to take these works as authentic, we would have to assume that these devotees are completely realized on all of Srila Prabhupada’s works. In this incidence, most of Danavir Goswami’s important sastric references are not originating from his own guru, Srila Prabhupada. This methodology projects the impression that his own Acarya, Srila Prabhupada's literary accomplishments are incomplete and/or less advanced.

I believe the very opposite to be true. I feel that, in this lifetime, Srila Prabhupada has left us all more than enough transcendental literary content. The answers to all my philosophical questions have been found by exclusively studying his writings. The only other Acarya I occasionally like to read is the Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s writings in English. By doing so, it furthers my deep appreciate and understanding of my Srila Prabhupada. But when it comes to solving philosophical dilemmas, I rely on Srila Prabhupada's instructions, wholly and solely.

On the matter now under discussion, namely re-initiation, I don’t feel it is required nor appropriate to look to other Acaryas for answers. This philosophy of focusing on the most recent Sampradaya Acarya has even greater significance on account of the unique cultural and time circumstances we now find ourselves in. Previous Sampradaya Acaryas preached exclusively within India’s cultural environment, wherein there are so many variations of Vaisnava traditions as well as Shankarites and a rainbow of localized gurus. Spiritually-minded persons of that era made mistakes when it came to accepting a less realized guru due to family and cultural influences. While certainly not in the realm of a 'mistake', Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's pastimes surrounding his original diksa guru stand as a perfect example.

Our cultural conditions in the West in terms of devotional life are so unlike India, in nature or quality. We are discussing the representatives of ISKCON playing the part of GBC approved diksa gurus, not society in general. ISKCON manifested from the transcendental vision of Srila Prabhupada, the latest bonafide Acarya in our eternal Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati only recognized in his list of 31 Acaryas the “nitya-siddha” parampara members. Our Srila Prabhupada truly qualifies to be placed in his company. We can rest assured there are no fallen gurus included on that list.

The above set of circumstances are unique beyond comprehension. As such, when examining this re-initiation issue we are required to focus upon the commentaries of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami rather than previous Acaryas. It is Srila Prabhupada who has been especially empowered and entrusted by all these previous bona fide Acaryas to bring about the necessary adjustments and thus make the correct interpretations of our siddhanta for here and now.

If we study Danavir Goswami’s section on Srila Prabhupada, we find that he introduces little relevant evidence by way of reference quotations:

"…Srila Prabhupada makes reference to the same Vedic evidences and authorities as cited before, primarily Mahabharata and Srila Jiva Goswami."

In other words, Danavir Goswami couldn’t uncover enough direct and clear statements originating from Srila Prabhupada, so he had to go back and make his own interpretations of the “same Vedic evidences and authorities”. The verses in question are the main supports to his theory, not Srila Prabhupada’s. The fact that Srila Prabhupada referred to them gives Danavir, in his mind, authorization to make his own appraisal, interpretation and give us his purport. He failed to provide us with the exact wording from the GBC decree on diksa “re-initiation” within ISKCON, but we can assume it is essentially the same as the contents of his article.

Upon studying the main supporting verse from SB 8:20:1, which Danavir Goswami points to as proof positive, we discover it is about Bali Maharaja’s disobedience to his family guru, Sukracarya. This pastime in itself isn’t very applicable to ISKCON’s guru fall down problem. Srila Prabhupada indeed quotes Mahabharata, Udyoga 179.25, but states that his rejection is based upon Sukracarya speaking against Visnu-bhakti, which isn’t the primary cause of ISKCON's diksa guru fall-down. Similarly, Jiva Goswami’s verse is referring to a family priest acting as a guru, which should be rejected. Again, not applicable.

Considering the historical reality that ISKCON’s diksa gurus have been falling down regularly and in great numbers starting within a year of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance to the present day [28 yrs], the apologists have had plenty of time to thoroughly research Srila Prabhupada's teachings in order to uncover some guru-sastra justification for the GBC policy under discussion. And this is all they can come up with, in comparison to the many crystal clear references wherein Srila Prabhupada states emphatically that “bona fide” gurus in our Sampradaya do not, in fact, fall down.

It appears to me that HH Danavir and company are consciously and deceptively exploiting the grassroots membership's ignorance of sastra, complacency, faith and trust in order to institute and implement an unauthorized program. Granted, there seems to be little or no objection on the part of a complacent populace, but that doesn’t make it right.

It is a self-serving policy under which only the elite benefit. They give the appearance of being pro-active in handling what has turned out to be a chronic problem. Other diksa gurus get to re-initiate the disappointed disciples and thus increase their personal and institutional power position. By making it appear, as Danavir Goswami does, to be historically commonplace, predictable, and manageable they are not obliged to struggle with addressing the real root causes of this serious “disease”. Of all the serious challenges facing the movement, I believe this ranks as one of the most damaging. It strikes at the very heart of the “faith” issue. This was the theme on which I spoke in my last article addressed to HH Danavir Goswami. The very tone of his response gives the impression that it’s no big deal. 'We’ve [GBC] got this relatively small problem under control. Our re-initiation solution is bona fide because it is satirically covered. I don’t see it as a major problem, why are you making it into one?'

We don’t have any hard statistics as to how many diksa gurus have fallen, what to speak of the number of disciples who have left ISKCON’s ranks on account of their diksa falling down. ISKCON doesn’t maintain a database nor conduct professional polls. We can logically assume many prospective recruits have not joined on account of discovering the facts in regards to the copious diksa guru fall downs. Those who have undertaken due diligence tend to be the more intelligent. Could this be one of the primary reasons there are so few ISKCON recruits from developed western countries, as Danavir Goswami admits is the case?

HH Danavir Goswami and those of his ilk blame persons such as myself for taking full advantage of the Internet. From his point of view, our motivation is primarily to undermine his sincere effort to serve Srila Prabhupada. Asking tough questions and telling historical truths is, by its very nature, institutionally counter-productive. But, 'a blind uncle is better than no uncle' is the paradigm supporting HH Danavir Goswami’s vision of ISKCON, and it is this theme he has chosen to live his life by.

For many, the question is whether or not one is personally better off following in Srila Prabhupada's footsteps in regards to his lifetime choice not to intimately associate with his Guru Maharaja’s fragmented Gaudiya Matha. One either gets initiation from them, or chooses to join ISKCON, becoming initiated by a GBC approved diksa guru and buying into the notion that they are now a part of the Founder’s original preaching movement.

As in every decision we are forced to make while in our embodied condition, there are tangible trade-offs. When making the choice, one ultimately comes to depend upon individual motives, needs, expectations, karma, and so on. My goal is to provide the information necessary for someone to make a more informed choice. This principle is the backbone of freedom of the press/speech. Without an individual having access to as much information as possible, they are not in the best position to make a “democratic” decision.

HH Danavir Goswami and other GBC members don’t hide the fact that ISKCON is in no way a democracy, both institutionally or in terms of initiation. A siksa guru scenario leaves the student with the choice of bowing out of the diksa guru/disciple relationship without incurring any reaction, so long as it’s done in an inoffensive manner. Diksa on the other hand, as defined by the GBC, is absolute in every way, meaning it's eternal, full of knowledge and the source of all happiness. What we are discussing in these exchanges is what transpires when the unqualified 'absolute' guru violates these 'absolute' conditions. This is when ISKCON’s weasel clause, so kindly provided by the institutional elites, kicks into place.

If after hearing from both sides you don’t see anything wrong with the ISKCON picture and you conclude that Srila Prabhupada is pleased with this arrangement, then by all means you can go along to get along, without fear or loss of faith.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |