A Word and a Staple, Part Two
BY: ROCANA DASA
Jul 19, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) —
Today we continue to address the statements made by Madhudvisa das in his recent article, "The Truth is Very Powerful". In order to give the reader a better sense of Madhudvisa’s position, let us offer a little background information about him. In an effort to dissipate confusion between the Rtvik Madhudvisa and an original Prabhupada disciple by the same name, Jayadvaita Swami published this webpage. We can add to his biographical sketch the fact that the Rtvik Madhudvisa prabhu was also previously known as Madhudvisa Swami and Mahasringa Swami, having given himself sannyasa initiation via a picture of Srila Prabhupada. He later renounced his self-appointed sannyasa status and reverted back to the name Madhudvisa das.
Madhudvisa has not personally taken a leadership role in the Rtvik movement up to now, although he is well known for his writings on the subject. He is best known for the work he's done to promote and distribute Srila Prabhupada's original books and his audio/video content – a service we greatly appreciate. But in the recent Prabhupadanugas forum thread we’ve been discussing here, Madhudvisa has provided us with an opportunity to see how his position differs from the majority of party line Rtviks. He has articulated his own perspective on Rtvik-vada, and he's quite outspoken. He's clearly not afraid to step on some big toes in the Rtvik community in speaking his mind, which is admirable. He even calls Krishnakant out for comments he apparently made to the effect that Srila Prabhupada ‘lied to his disciples’ about wanting them to be gurus.
Madhudvisa has made it clear that he thinks many Rtviks today are fanatics, and even liars, and they have thus damaged the public’s perception of Rtvik-vada, curtailing the conversion of others to Rtvik-ism. At the same time, Madhudvisa carries his own unique perceptions of Rtvik siddhanta, which are based in part on his notions of how Rtvik-ism came into being. Just as I disagreed in Part One of this article with Madhudvisa’s presentation of so-called evidence in support of the July 9th Letter, I also disagree with his characterization of Srila Prabhupada’s process for initiations and how it evolved over the years, as discussed below.
Although we disagree on siddhanta, the overall impression we get from Madhudvisa’s recent writings is that of all the Rtviks we've heard from over the years, in terms of perception of Srila Prabhupada, he's one of the closest to our own position. Many of the points I’ve made in my Sampradaya Acarya articles he also makes. And while we are always grateful to discover points of agreement with the devotees, we also feel it important to explore what is a significant divergence of thought on the Rtvik-vada conclusion. Therefore, “A Word and a Staple” continues.
We have already impeached Madhudvisa’s “facts” as they relate to the July 7th Conversation supposedly being a “dictation” of, and thereby proof positive of the notion that Srila Prabhupada wanted the July 9th Letter to serve as his final instruction on future initiations. So we cannot “stick to those facts”, as Madhudvisa suggests we should. It is good to hear Madhudvisa note that beyond the facts there is only speculation, although he doesn’t acknowledge that his own position is highly speculative.
Before we get into a detailed look at "The Truth is Very Powerful", in which Madhudvisa laid out contradictory arguments in support of both a post-samadhi Rtvik diksa system and acceptance of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples becoming diksa gurus, let us first address prabhu’s conception of how Srila Prabhupada’s system for initiations in ISKCON evolved while he was present and how that relates to the July 9th Letter. Madhudvisa's version follows:
"…Srila Prabhupada established a ritvik system in his physical presence and as the years went on he gave his ritvik priests more responsibility. First it was just performing the fire yajna--Srila Prabhupada would chant on the devotees beads and send them and the ritvik priest would perform the fire yajna. Then after some time it became difficult for sending all these sets of beads all over the world so Prabhupada empowered his ritvik priests to chant on the beads on his behalf, but still the temple president had to send his recommendation letter to Srila Prabhupada and Prabhupada would give the name of the disciple and write a letter back accepting that disciple. In the July 9th letter Prabhupada simply extended the already existing ritvik initiation system that had been going on for many years already in ISKCON. In the July 9th letter he empowered his ritvik priests to also give the name and also accept the disciples on Prabhupada's behalf.
These extensions to the already existing ritvik system in ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada were obviously in preparation for the time when he would be no longer physically present with us.
This is all very clear and it is a fact."
As he did with his statements on the July 7th Conversation, again Madhudvisa is putting forward in absolute terms what he says was the system for initiations that existed and evolved while Srila Prabhupada was physically present. But I disagree with several aspects of his rendition.
Madhudvisa says that Srila Prabhupada established a “ritvik system” in his physical presence, and as the years went on he gave his ritvik priests more responsibility. First of all, Srila Prabhupada never referred to his system for initiations as “ritvik”, until 1977. So he did not establish a “ritvik” system, he established his own system, which he did not give a name to.
Madhudvisa says that first, Srila Prabhupada had the “ritvik priest” perform the fire yajna, while he chanted on the beads and sent them. But this is incorrect. First, Srila Prabhupada did everything himself: he gave the name, chanted on beads, gave the mantra, and either performed or attended the fire yajna. When Srila Prabhupada did depute the performance of the fire yajna, he did not pass this ceremonial aspect off to some “ritvik priest”. Although Prabhupada didn’t put a label on it, the personality who began doing the fire yajnas on his behalf (but not in his presence) was almost always the local siksa guru – the person in the temple who had been training the candidate. This person was never referred to as a “ritvik”, by Srila Prabhupada or anyone else. And in fact, the person who was conducting the fire yajna had little resemblance to the “ritvik priests” described in sastra, although the Rtviks today talk as though they are synonymous. In Vedic times as mentioned in sastra, the “ritvik priests” are never found chanting elaborate mantras over a sacrificial fire to initiate a disciple for a diksa guru.
Next Madhudvisa suggests that Srila Prabhupada began to have his “ritvik priests” chant on the beads for him, and that this had something to do with the difficulty of mailing out all those beads. In fact, from quite early on, Srila Prabhupada had been having senior men and sannyasis in his entourage chant on the beads, although this was kept hush-hush by them for some time. Srila Prabhupada’s program was that his senior men served in the role as his secretary, on a rotating basis. So each month, or period, a new man serving as secretary would become responsible for tasks associated with initiations. This person took care of mailing out the beads, not Srila Prabhupada. So Srila Prabhupada did not depute the chanting on beads in order to free himself of the mailing duties.
The beads almost always originated from a member of Srila Prabhupada’s entourage. It was not that the beads were chanted on by a local siksa (temple president or leader). Although Tamal Krishna said in the July 7th Conversation that, “The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads“, such cases were the exception rather than the rule. Yes, in big temples like Los Angeles or Mayapur, the local GBC or sannyasi might be chanting on beads, but the great majority of disciples were flowing in from the smaller temples, where this was not the case. Beads for all those devotees were being chanted upon by the senior men in Srila Prabhupada’s entourage. So although Madhudvisa refers to the person doing the fire yajna as the “ritvik priest”, this was seldom the person chanting on the beads.
Madhudvisa says that while the “ritvik priests” were chanting on and mailing out the beads, still “the temple president had to send his recommendation letter to Srila Prabhupada and Prabhupada would give the name of the disciple and write a letter back accepting that disciple. “
It’s correct that the temple president or local leader of a program would send the recommendation letter to Srila Prabhupada. But again, this person was not acting as a “ritvik priest” in doing so, and their role was different from the men in Prabhupada’s entourage who were chanting on beads. It was representatives of the latter group who were named in the July 9th list of 11, not the temple presidents/local siksas who recommended names of initiates and later held fire yajnas. At what point Srila Prabhupada stopped picking names and had members of his entourage do it, I’m exactly sure, but it was quite early on. The process was this:
the temple president or local siksa sent the candidate’s karmi name to Srila Prabhupada in a letter of recommendation;
Srila Prabhupada or his secretaries would chant on the beads, pick a spiritual name, and send them back to the TP/siksa along with a letter accepting the candidate;
the local TP/siksa would then conduct the fire yajna and hand out the name and beads.
The main point is, there was a clear differentiation between the temple presidents/local siksas and their role, and the senior men/sannyasis/secretaries in Prabhupada’s entourage, and their roles. The two cannot be lumped together and called “ritvik priests”, as Madhudvisa does. That is a false construct.
While Madhudvisa doesn’t mention it in his statement about the evolution of the process, the next piece Srila Prabhupada handed off was the chanting of the Gayatri, which he began to give via tape recording.
So this was the system, and this was how it evolved. There were two distinct groups involved in assisting Srila Prabhupada. Personally, I think the most obvious term for one of these groups is “siksas”, because they were actively involved in training the aspirant. The other group of senior men/sannyasis/secretaries from Prabhupada’s entourage were just that – senior leaders. Never were either of these groups referred to as “ritviks” until the brief mentions in 1977, when Srila Prabhupada essentially ok’d the term Tamal Krishna had chosen to use, even though it didn’t match the sastric definition. It was a loosely used term, and Prabhupada let him use it. That was the extent of it. That is the reality behind the nomenclature of “ritvik”.
So the July 9th Letter was not the culmination of some evolving system Srila Prabhupada had designed for future post-samadhi diksa initiations. It was simply a process whereby several names were added to the list of men already assisting Srila Prabhupada with beads and names, and the mailing of beads and tapes. A few new names were added, with regional specificity, letters were to be directed to them in future, and the list was written down and made public.
So this notion that Madhudvisa and the Rtviks are putting forward, that the July 9th Letter memorialized a Rtvik system that had already be going on is simply false. The process had never been called “rtvik”, the participants didn’t vaguely resemble “ritvik priests” of sastra, it was local siksas doing the fire yajnas, and the whole July 7th conversation and July 9th Letter were specifically addressing the issue of alleviating a bottleneck caused by the senior men arbitrarily halting the ongoing process for initiations.
So we can see that Madhudvisa’s final conclusion -- that the progressive changes in Srila Prabhupada’s system for handling initiations were “obviously in preparation for the time when he would be no longer physically present with us” -- is predicated upon various faulty ideas, including:
his incorrect characterization that the July 7th Conversation was a “dictation” of instructions, and how it must supposedly inform one’s understanding of the July 9th Letter;
his assertions around the terminology of “ritvik”, including how and when it was used, and with what intention;
his rendition of how the process of handling initiations evolved during Srila Prabhupada’s presence;
and, most importantly, his conclusion that Srila Prabhupada’s adjustments to the process were “obviously in preparation for the time when he would be no longer physically present with us”.
To underscore the last point above and make it crystal clear, let us carefully consider Madhudvisa’s statement. When we study the actual contents of the July 7th Conversation, Tamal first describes how the system had been working: “The local GBC, sannyasis, were chanting on their beads, and they were writing to Your Divine Grace, and you were giving a spiritual name. “ Then he asks, “should that process be resumed“? Tamal explains in the conversation why the process had been stopped – because the devotees were concerned that more initiations would tax Srila Prabhupada’s health.
Asking if they should continue to wait (before processing more devotees through the initiation process), Srila Prabhupada say, “No, the senior sannyasis...”, and “give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will…“
Up to this point, Srila Prabhupada has simply instructed, ‘don’t wait’ – ‘senior Sannyasis can do’. Do what? The obvious answer is, do what they had previously been doing, which they had stopped doing allegedly over concerns for Prabhupada’s health.
Notice that there is absolutely no indication up to this point that Srila Prabhupada is putting plans in place “obviously in preparation for the time when he would be no longer physically present with us”. Rather, he is responding to the problem Tamal Krishna raised, that initiations were being held up by the arbitrary decision of the senior men, who were worried that Prabhupada’s health might be worsened. Srila Prabhupada resolves Tamal Krishna’s dilemma, instructing him to continue with initiations.
Now begins the listing of names of those ‘senior sannyasis who can do’, with some regional references: Tamal, Kirtanananda, Satsvarupa, Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Harikesa. “Five, six men, you divide who is nearest.” Letters recommending candidates should be written directly to someone nearby.
After the listing of names, and some clarification that this applies to first and second initiations, Srila Prabhupada says, “So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right... That will depend on discretion. “
Clearly, the only adjustments that have been instructed in this July 7th Conversation are the following:
continue to do what you had already been doing,
except now letters of recommendation should go to an expanded list of regionally-chosen men, instead of to Srila Prabhupada;
these men will give the spiritual names instead of Spiritual Prabhupada; and
the list of names assisting in this process should be written down and distributed.
That’s all Srila Prabhupada has instructed, and there is nothing that indicates he is, as Madhudvisa says, acting “obviously in preparation for the time when he would be no longer physically present with us”. This is complete speculation on Madhudvisa’s part, and on the part of all the Rtviks. Their conclusion simply serves to shore up their notion that the single word “henceforward”, written into the July 9th Letter by Tamal Krishna, instructs that an unprecedented transformation be made to the process for diksa initiations, for all time, resulting in the end of Srila Prabhupada’s line of the disciplic succession upon the death of the eleven men. It is a ludicrous proposition.
SEE ALL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
A Word and a Staple, Part One
A Word and a Staple, Part Two
A Word and a Staple, Part Three
A Word and a Staple, Part Four
A Word and a Staple, Part Five
A Word and a Staple, Part Six
The Truth is Very Powerful
Evidence and Clarification
Ritvik Lies and ISKCON Lies
