Jul 17, 2013 — WALES, UK (SUN) —
Having enjoyed reading the presentations by Vraja Vilasa Prabhu over the last week I would love to continue the debate to hand. Mainly I agree with some of the points that Vraja Vilasa makes, but there are certain holes in his presentation and his representation of what he thinks Srila Prabhupada is stating.
From the beginning most devotees would agree that a Guru is vital. I am sure all camps would agree with this principle. I don't think there is any dispute over this principle. To follow Srila Prabhupada and all the other examples given by acting in the way They act has already proved a failure in ISKCON. I am not sure this is a wise statement to make. I don't agree with Prabhu that we should copycat Them, I don't think this is what following means. Following does not mean to do what They have done or do. Following means to act according to Their instructions and writings.
If we are to follow Srila Prabhupada's activities then we need to be as pure as Him. If we are to follow His instructions then He has given instructions for all manner of people, not just one type of person. We don't want to get into the realms of applying the same principle to all people as far as accepting a Guru. There are different ways of accepting a Guru and that is exemplified by the Disciplic Succession, They don't all just follow the same route. There are many different examples in the Disciplic Succession that we can follow. And for ISKCON devotees, Srila Prabhupada has written of those different examples, so what may work for one devotee does not necessarily work for all.
If we just take the same situation that Srila Prabhupada personally exemplifies and try to copycat the same situation after He has departed then we make the same mistake as the earlier ISKCON devotees did in the Zonal Acharya days, and ever since, in my opinion. I don't believe we can follow that format now that the Sampradaya Acharya is no longer physically present. And Srila Prabhupada's written words indicate there are other ways for devotees to follow. I am sure many Ritvik devotees would agree with me on this point.
But don't we have to read ALL of Srila Prabhupada's words for a conclusive pattern to be presented? I don't agree with the Ritvik conclusion, but I can take the relevant points from their understandings. One of ISKCON's problems is that a little knowledge has been a bad thing, and our understanding has been based on just parts of Srila Prabhupada's written words according to the mentality of the presenter. In this instance if we want to present that a devotee must have a physically present Diksa Guru and that Guru is the only one he can worship as good as God, then we can select the relevant quotes from Srila Prabhupada's Books and make a pseudo-genuine presentation that appears bona fide.
And of course, the opposite is true too. But we have to find absolute constants that fit the rule to be able to present in that way, otherwise it becomes just an unfair presentation, which can put huge pressures onto struggling devotees too. So what is the best way for a devotee to follow Srila Prabhupada? Who actually is a true follower of Srila Prabhupada anyway? And where is this most successful devotee living? And how do we know where that devotee is coming from? We must remain sceptical; we must question all advice because of all the past that exists in ISKCON.
One of the main points that doesn't sit comfortably in my book is this rather narrow understanding of the requirement that is taught in ISKCON by ISKCON devotees. That we have to have an uttama-adhikari Diksa Guru who is as good as God, and is the devotees' only worshipable Guru. The word "Sri-Guroh" is never translated in this way, that it refers exclusively to the Diksa Guru. This type of translation is borne out in Srila Prabhupada's definition of the word "Sri-Guroh" in the Caitanya-caritamrta Antya-lila, Ch. 2, and Text 1:
Srila Prabhupada translates in His word for word to this text as: "of my initiating spiritual master or instructing spiritual master". He gives equality to both Diksa and Siksa Gurus, in that either or both can be the Spiritual Master that we worship as good as God -- not just the Diksa Guru, as has become the concept held by ISKCON devotees and Ritviks. All our previous Acaryas are our Siksa Gurus and none of Them are physically present, yet we can take full shelter of Them all. And our Siksa Guru can easily be the Guru who takes us back to Godhead and the One who we worship as good as God.
We may accept a Diksa Guru who is physically present, but there is no instruction that He must be the main Guru of the disciple. Surely that is for the disciple to decide. And Srila Prabhupada said in a lecture in Hawaii that not always is there a Diksa Guru present, so we may take shelter of the Shiksa Guru. And the other point is that Srila Prabhupada's Books are directly Him -- they are not just pieces of paper, but His Books include His personality. This is the mystery of Srila Prabhupada's Books.
The imperfect presentation I am making is that there are other routes for devotees to take. It's not just this ISKCON presentation or the Ritvik presentation. There is another way(s). We can accept a Diksa Guru for the purpose of initiation, but he does not have to be our main Guru, because our Shiksa Guru can also be the singular Guru, as mentioned in Caitanya-caritamrta Antya Lila, Ch. 2 Text, 1 word for word translation. Sri-Guroh is either Diksa or Shiksa Guru.
No matter who is your Diksa Guru: why not take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and follow Him as our Shiksa Guru? He is no longer physically present so it is not possible to serve His physical presence any longer, but we can absolutely follow and serve His instructions and words after He no longer physically exists. He is our Siksa Guru. He is that uttama-adhikari Siksa Guru that we can worship as good as God, and He can remain in that relationship as Siksa Guru eternally.
