Guru-tattva Debate in the Sun
BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 12, CANADA (SUN) — Practically since the Sun's inception, we have been receiving a steady stream of emails from both non-Rtviks and Rtviks alike, who write to complain about our editorial policies on publishing pro-Rtvik articles (or not). We also receive a great many articles from new readers who are unaware of our policies on the matter, and who don't realize the degree to which many arguments have already been discussed threadbare on the subject in years past. They want to contribute, and it's all new to them, but we cannot repetitively print articles, from either side of the debate.
I've made my personal conclusions on the guru-tattva debate clear in two papers, The Church of Rtvik" and The Sampradaya Acarya". For those not familiar, I see Rtvik-ism as a sastric deviation for which there is no sound justification. The Rtviks recommend post-samadhi diksa, asserting that anyone can be initiated by Srila Prabhupada via a Rtvik priest and they claim that Srila Prabhupada authorized it, but we find the evidence to be anything but conclusive, and against sastra in general.
We also receive questions from devotees who are 'on the fence', asking what alternative there is to Rtvik-ism, in an ISKCON environment that has also deviated from Srila Prabhupada and the Sampradaya, and is now engaged in apa-siddhantic practices. For them, Rtvik initiation seems to be the only solution. In response, I refer them back to my Sampradaya Acarya paper, and the conclusion that if one accepts Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, then the matter immediately becomes resolved. I won't repeat those arguments here, but encourage anyone who hasn't done so to read the papers linked above.
By the mercy of the Spiritual Master, one finds Krsna, and by the mercy of Krsna, one finds the Spiritual Master. Sastra does not grant us the absolute right to take diksa in this lifetime, but if we recognize Srila Prabhupada to be the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya and follow him cent percent, then we can trust that Krsna will make arrangements for our diksa initiation, as appropriate.
One prabhu who has been a regular contributor over the years, and who is staunchly anti-Rtvik, has taken us to task on numerous occasions for aiding and abetting the Rtviks by publishing their pro-Rtvik-vada. Our position has been that we do not allow gratuitous glorification of Rtvik-ism. We reject articles aimed at simply promoting the Rtvik agenda. We will always accept articles on Rtvik-ism that offer any new evidence, new arguments or logic, or new realizations on the guru-tatva debate. We have also been happy to publish the news that recently been coming out of Bangalore, which has primarily reported on their preaching activities, Deity worship, and congregational events.
Personally, I see the Sun's place in the community of devotees in the context that we are all conditioned souls, and there is no longer a Sampradaya Acarya physically present to give us the absolute truth on all these issues. We are depending on our limited abilities to ascertain what is right and what is wrong. And in this state, I feel the best way in which I can serve the Vaisnavas is to help provide them with an education. We can't escape the reality that the Rtvik phenomenon is with us, and its here to stay for quite some time. In fact, it could be here for thousands of years. As I've explained in other articles, the problem is that Rtvik-ism is now forming the foundation for a western-style religion. ISKCON and a certain percentage of its members are also focused on the establishment of a western-style religion, with the GBC being the supreme authority, like cardinals or bishops. Not surprisingly, many of these devotees, both Rtvik and ISKCON, find the Christian religion to be quite simpatico with their personal beliefs, and some attend church on a regular basis. Little distinction is made between the concepts of Sanatana-dharma and modern religion, which is really just a devolution into religiosity.
The Rtviks are taking the next step in that direction, albeit prematurely at this point. I say prematurely because from an institutional standpoint, the present-day Zonal Acaryas don't accept the concept that the GBC is supreme. They prefer the eastern religious model, which is Guru-centric. So they're dead against Rtviks, because the Rtviks are against any diksa that is not bestowed via past-samadhi Rtvik. Some of the Zonal gurus are quite fanatically anti-Rtvik, and although their many disciples take up their anti-Rtvik mood, it has not been enough to overwhelm the acceptance of Rtvik-ism at the grassroots level because of the equally asiddhantic pro-diksa fervor that is promoted by the
GBC-centric camp.
Whether or not in due course of time ISKCON will adopt something similar to what the Christian church has done with Jesus, casting Srila Prabhupada in a role similar with priests as the intermediaries, we don't know. In the meantime, however, we have this whole phenomenon where not only is ISKCON trying to manage itself by the GBC process, they're also trying to control every aspect of Krsna Consciousness: who can be a guru, who can't be a guru, who can be a sannyasi, or whatever asrama, etc. Instead of it being an individual choice – and our whole philosophy is based on individualism -- instead they think you've got to be put on a waiting list, you've got to be approved, you've got to be ISKCON friendly, and they get to decide if you meet these criteria. All these varnasrama principles or positions are now being controlled by an institution, which of course is crazy, bogus, and unsustainable. Regardless, this is where they're at, and from our viewpoint, their program is every bit as bogus as the Rtvik's.
In the end, Srila Prabhupada would judge everything by the results, and in Krsna Consciousness, the results are judged, in part, by how many books you've distributed, how many people you've made devotees, how many temples you've opened and are maintaining, and so forth. ISKCON is quick to point to its success stories, but now we find that the Rtviks can also point to theirs, namely Bangalore. So they both have so-called success stories. But in my mind, this has little to do with whether one is philosophically correct, and the other is not. Obviously Krsna is not directly reciprocating with those who are philosophically accurate, on this level, and ignoring those who aren't, because both are experiencing a degree of success.
We really have to ask, who would Srila Prabhupada be most pleased with? Frankly, I don't believe he'd be pleased with either one of them on the philosophical level, and think he'd very quickly correct both of them if he was personally present. But since that's not the case, each one of us has to make our way through the minefield of all these different bogus ideas, and arrive at the Truth. Now, as long as you know what is dangerous about these philosophies, these misconceptions or misinterpretations of sastra, then you can go about making advancement in Krsna Consciousness in the association of devotees. But if you don't, then you can get ensnared by either one of these groups, or many others, including the Narayana camp or other camps that are advocating something other than Srila Prabhupada being the Sampradaya Acarya. I feel strongly that this is true, but at the same time, I let other people have their say, because I'm interested to know on what basis they've come to their own conclusions.
A friend of mine was recently saying, 'Well, I'm just not interested in this political debate.' I said, 'But you want to go out and preach, right?' He said 'Oh yes!' I said, 'Well, then you're gong to have to deal with it. The question of guru-tattva will always arise. There's the Internet, and there will always be individuals in your vicinity who are going to preach something different than you are. Some of the people you're preaching to are going to challenge you, and you've got to be able to come up with some kind of an intelligent answer. You have to take a position, one way or the other, and you have to be able to explain your position to newcomers: this is what Rtivk means, this is the difference between the various Rtvik camps, this is their history, and what's wrong with their philosophy."
And the same thing is true of ISKCON and many of the different diksa gurus they've created. Maybe some of them are bona fide diksas, I don't know them all personally, but regardless, anyone who supports the GBC's current asiddhantic positions is disqualified, from my point of view. And how closely are these diksa gurus aligned with the Sampradaya Acarya? To what degree are they trying to preach like Srila Prabhupada? One had better have an answer to these questions, and be able to articulate it to newcomers if they hope to preach Krsna Consciousness today.
So this is one of the reasons we continue to publish articles on guru-tattva, including some that present the pro-Rtvik debate. Rather than repeat here what I've already written in response to the Sun contributor mentioned above, who disapproves of our editorial policies in this regard, tomorrow I will provide some excerpts from a recent letter to him, in which we attempted to clarify our position. Hopefully others will find this helpful.
