A Word and a Staple, Part Five
BY: ROCANA DASA
Jul 25, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) —
In Part Four of "A Word and a Staple", we began to address the essential points made in Madhudvisa prabhu's article, "Evidence and Clarification". We will provide some final remarks on that article today, before moving on to his latest installment, "Ritvik Lies and ISKCON Lies". "Evidence and Clarification" was Madhudvisa's reply to our inquiry. We wrote:
"Madhudvisa is making what appear to be contradictory statements…[ ] On one hand he says that Srila Prabhupada established a system for rtvik diksa initiations after his departure, for all time. On the other hand, he says the Rtviks are wrong to promote the notion that Prabhupada didn't intend any of his disciples to go on to become qualified diksa gurus. We wrote to Madhudvisa prabhu and asked him to explain this seeming contradiction, and he kindly replied with a detailed explanation."
In his reply, Madhudvisa gets into an analysis of ISKCON's chain of command and parallel authorities. I'm in agreement with him for the most part, that ISKCON has demonstrated that it's floundering and ineffectual, and one of the main factors is the parallel lines of authority. Those who know politics within ISKCON know it to be a fact, that the GBC is essentially competing with and fighting with the traditional chain of command, which is guru and disciple. The GBC is losing the fight, because they can't bring the disciples, and in many cases the gurus, to accept the arrangement Madhudvisa says has never been proven to work: many gurus working cooperatively together under the same organizational or institutional framework.
In the second half of his "Evidence and Clarification" reply, Madhudvisa makes the following essential points (paraphrased and indented). Our responses follow.
Madhudvisa wrote:
"As far as your question as to what Srila Prabhupada would want if his disciples became qualified gurus. At the time they were not qualified, he called them children. So the question did not come up at the time."
The thing is that ISKCON as Prabhupada created it is designed for his disciples. There is no room in the ISKCON structure for any other gurus. Prabhupada has given all authority to the Temple Presidents and the GBC's so there is no authority left for other gurus. And that is the problem ISKCON is facing always at the moment. They are always discussing how do deal with these "parallel lines of authority." They have created a disastrous organization. There can not be parallel lines of authority in any properly functioning organization. There has to be a clear "chain of command" so to speak. And because ISKCON have introduced more gurus into an organization that was only designed to have one guru they have destroyed the chain of authority. Now the disciples are supposed to be surrendered to the Temple President and the GBC who generally are not disciples of their guru and may not even like their guru... It is an intolerable situation for both the disciples and the guru."
For the most part we agree with Madhudvisa's statements here. It must be emphasized, however, that Srila Prabhupada did not specifically say any of this. He did not say that once his disciples became qualified diksa gurus, after his departure, that they must leave his ISKCON institution and form their own mathas.
In much the same way, Srila Prabhupada did not specifically say that once he departed, his qualified disciples could or should become initiating diksa gurus. He did explain that this is the custom, the Vaisnava etiquette, and he referred to numerous examples of just such a system of disciplic succession in his preaching. But he also said: "When I order, "You become guru…" (May 28th Room Conversation)
The latter statement has proven to represent a significant conundrum for some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples, who are strictly following and preaching, and therefore are attracting followers who wish to take diksa from them. While they're naturally inclined to consider giving diksa, they did not get such a direct order from Srila Prabhupada during his manifest lila. So they are left to work out whether or not, via some other means (e.g., through dreams or personal revelation inspired by reading sastra) they feel they have gotten such an order. And of course, they can only even consider such things if they are operating outside of the current institutional ISKCON framework, which would otherwise require them to be rubber-stamped as approved diksas. In ISKCON, there is no question of getting a direct order from Srila Prabhupada, because the GBC lead people to believe that their approval is the equivalent of getting such an order.
Although Madhudvisa puts his position forward quite absolutely in his statement above, we suggest that it is not so absolute. As we have stated in the past, it is certainly possible for one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples to become qualified as a diksa guru, at the uttama-adhikari level. And if such a person recognizes Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya and acts accordingly, we assert that it is certainly possible for them to remain within his ISKCON institution, take their own disciples and continue to preach in the Sampradaya Acarya's mood and according to his standards and instructions. In other words, these two things are not exclusive of one another. Becoming advanced enough to serve as diksa guru does not mean you must leave your own Spiritual Master's asrama.
If the guru is advanced enough to recognize Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, he could certainly remain in ISKCON without engaging in the sorts of power struggles and personality parades the current ISKCON diksa gurus engage in. Of course, this would also require that the GBC -- as a managing body, if not as individuals -- themselves have such an understanding of Srila Prabhupada. If they did, they would not condone the sort of mundane power dynamics that otherwise make it impossible for an advanced guru to go about his business of preaching and training disciples within Srila Prabhupada's society.
The scenario Madhudvisa describes is actually one in which diksa gurus, who for the most part are not uttama-adhikaris (if any at all are), are overseen by a GBC body that won't accept Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, thus they permit the gurus to engage in all sorts of nonsense within the bounds of Srila Prabhupada's society. Some gurus are acting like big Zonal Acaryas, while others are taking a humble position. Some gurus are more surrendered to the GBC than others. Some allow their disciples to depict them as almost equal to Srila Prabhupada, if not greater than. And the GBC themselves have never come to any absolute conclusion as to Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, other than to state that he is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, which doesn't define his position in sastric terms at all.
The main point is that all the problems Madhudvisa prabhu describes are the by-product of a lack recognition of Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, and a lack of advancement on the part of many individuals. But the principles that Madhudvisa is promoting in his statements about the problems are themselves not absolute. The principle, or the ideal we are getting at, is that Srila Prabhupada did not constrain his society by designing it for devotees who will remain neophyte and not attain a proper level of Krsna consciousness; nor did he design it for a GBC body that does not recognize his exalted spiritual position, and act accordingly. In other words, Srila Prabhupada did not design ISKCON for failure, but rather for success.
Madhudvisa das assumes that Srila Prabhupada designed his society in such a way that anyone who becomes advanced enough to begin initiating disciples must leave the institution, but we say that is predicated upon incorrect assumptions. We cannot put forward absolutes for ISKCON as Madhudvisa is doing, or absolutes for Vaishnavism in general, which are predicated upon an impersonalistic approach that assumes all disciples are the same, i.e., not advanced enough to remain humble servants in their own Spiritual Master's asrama even as they take their own disciples. Granted, the majority will not be so advanced, and for them, the solution that Madhudvisa proposes is, I think, the right one. I have said this many times in the past – if you want to become a diksa guru, then step outside of the ISKCON institution and start your own matha. Cooperate with ISKCON, but from a position of independence. Unless you are advanced enough to become guru from within ISKCON, remaining the servant rather than becoming a competitor to the Sampradaya Acarya. This is certainly possible, if only the guru will recognize and surrender to the rarified transcendental personality, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
So we disagree with Madhudvisa's statement that, "The thing is that ISKCON as Prabhupada created it is designed for his disciples. There is no room in the ISKCON structure for any other gurus." We do not see that Srila Prabhupada created an institution specifically intended to serve those less advanced, or those who don't recognize who he is. Rather, he created the perfect society for all devotees, as long as they are able to remain humble and surrendered -- including those who advance to the stage of being bona fide diksa gurus (which means that by nature, they demonstrate these qualities).
And for those who do not advance so far in this lifetime, Srila Prabhupada left a wealth of sastric instruction on the symptoms of humility and surrender, as well as strict warnings about Vaisnava aparadha and the behaviors one should avoid at all costs. He left all instructions on proper Vaisnava etiquette. He left a GBC body who, even if some of the individual members are not adequately advanced, should be able to recognize their Spiritual Master's exalted status, and guide the society accordingly, as a body.
Madhudvisa wrote:
"Prabhupada does mention his disciples going on to create branches of the ISKCON tree and as far as I can see that is the logical way forward for Prabhupada's disciples who become gurus and accept their own disciples. This is the way it has always been. A guru has a temple and some disciples. He does not live in someone else's temple with his disciples. And that is the way the current ISKCON gurus are going also.
Srila Prabhupada created ISKCON for his disciples and it is really only going to work for his disciples. There is no history of a group of gurus living together and having all their disciples together. Even the Goswamis in Vrindavan, they were coming together for kirtans but they all had their own separate temples and disciples. That is the way it has always been and that is the way ISKCON is going now and that is the way it will always be.
Ultimately this guru-disciple relationship is a personal relationship between the guru and the disciple and you can not have a system like they have in ISKCON where the disciples of a guru also have to surrender to a Temple President and the whole GBC body as well as their guru and all three "parallel lines of authority" probably disagree with each other and are giving different orders.... It is an impossible organizational model..."
Those who are advanced enough to become diksas (and who believe they have received the direct order), have a right according to sastra to make the decision to become diksa gurus. The institution has no right – and has not been empowered by Srila Prabhupada – to prevent them from taking this role. At the same time, the GBC has been empowered to help all members of the society live according to Srila Prabhupada's instructions. This includes those who become initiating gurus.
If gurus begin to engage in mundane behaviors, competing with Srila Prabhupada, presenting themselves as being equal to him, promoting themselves instead of Prabhupada, distributing their own mundane books instead of Srila Prabhupada's transcendental books, or any one of the hundreds of other aberrant things we see going on in ISKCON today – then it is the GBC's job to invite them to remediate their behavior, or move outside and set-up an independent matha. If the offending guru is not willing or able to take such instruction, they should be forced to leave. No guru is too big to be above this principle. And if a GBC member is not willing to take such action, he too should be dealt with accordingly.
It is not, as Madhudvisa and so many Rtviks suggest, that the bar should be lowered, or Srila Prabhupada's standards set to the lowest common denominator in order to accommodate practices that simply should not be permitted to go on in ISKCON. The real problem is not that ISKCON was designed by Srila Prabhupada to have only one guru. The failings on the part of the followers cannot be misconstrued as the intention, vision or design of the Spiritual Master himself.
Many Rtviks and Prabhupadanugas today, regardless of how fiercely they hang onto "henceforward" or not, all eventually come to the same center point when you discuss guru-tattva with them: "How are initiations supposed to go forward in ISKCON?" They seem to be unable to conceive of a world in which Srila Prabhupada did not leave specific instructions for succession (just as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati did not). In addition, they have not made the distinction that what Srila Prabhupada designed and arranged does not – cannot -- limit either Chaitya Guru or the jivatma's potential to become purified and surrendered.
Instead of having full faith in Srila Prabhupada (which means accepting his cent percent acceptance of sastra and the instructions of the previous Sampradaya Acaryas), and instead of having full faith in Sri Krsna and His ability to act as Chaitya Guru in making arrangements for the qualified aspirant to find their eternal diksa guru, the Rtviks have become hopelessly entangled in a contrived, asiddhantic position that is reliant upon evidence that is not evidence, and interpretations they consider to be absolute, but which are not absolute.
The Rtviks and Prabhupadanugas have settled upon limited, restrictive, contrived arrangements which they put forward as being absolute – both in the case of post-samadhi rtvik diksa and in the "no living guru" denial of the importance of getting diksa. They do this on the basis that their solution is "the only possible way for ISKCON to go forward." And in doing so they attempt to assert as absolute, principles which are not absolute. In what is essentially a demonstration of a lack of faith, they promote a solution that is built upon the assumption that Chaitya Guru cannot, or will not, meet the needs of diksa aspirants, and Srila Prabhupada could not, or did not, entrust his spiritual society to a future in which there is no specific succession order.
Madhudvisa, in his own personal effort to make sense of this situation, promotes a 'third way' solution wherein, according to him, Srila Prabhupada said both 'implement a post-samadhi diksa ritvik initiation system henceforward, for all time… but also become diksa gurus yourselves and initiate'.
Aside from the fact that this is an impossibly contradictory position, we have shown throughout this article series that Madhudvisa prabhu has adopted the "henceforward" position based on a series of totally flawed assumptions and evidence in support of the July 9th Letter conclusion. In addition, he has adopted an alternative solution that compromises a principle of Krsna consciousness that simply cannot be compromised. In doing so, he appears to be suffering from the same malady the Rtviks and Prabhupadanugas are plagued by.
We do not accept that Srila Prabhupada suffered such a lack of faith, nor do we accept that he designed his society in contravention of any of the principles of Krsna conscious, or that he adopted an asiddhantic practice for guru-tattva, executed by virtue of one word in a piece of correspondence.
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
