Prahladananda Swami and Kshamabuddhi Dasa
BY: SHIVA DASA
Oct 18, USA (SUN) — Kshamabuddhi Dasa has given a strong argument in favor of his position on the guru-GBC dilemma in ISKCON, highlighted by the recent offering from HH Prahladananda Swami. By utilizing statements by Srila Prabhupada on the independent nature of a bona fide spiritual master, Kshamabuddhi really brought out the core conflict between the traditional Gaudiya teachings on the inherent position of the bona fide spiritual master in relation to the present day organizational structure of ISKCON. Kshamabuddhi Dasa quoted the following from a purport in the Nectar of Instruction. I have included some of the previous words of Srila Prabhupada to what he quoted so as to get the full bearing of what he is saying:
"A person cannot derive any spiritual benefit when he offends the lotus feet of a Vaisnava. Everyone should therefore be very careful not to be jealous of an empowered Vaisnava, or a suddha-vaisnava. It is also an offense to consider an empowered Vaisnava an object of disciplinary action. It is offensive to try to give him advice or to correct him. One can distinguish between a neophyte Vaisnava and an advanced Vaisnava by their activities. The advanced Vaisnava is always situated as the spiritual master, and the neophyte is always considered his disciple. The spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples."
Kshamabuddhi has interpreted the above use of
"spiritual master" to be cognate with diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada was using "spiritual master" in the context of a person who is an "empowered Vaisnava" and an "advanced Vaisnava" or a "suddha Vaisnava". He did not single out the diksa guru as being above any authority, he simply said that an empowered Vaisnava or a suddha Vaisnava shouldn't be obliged to take instructions from anyone. Srila Prabhupada didn't specify what type of spiritual master he was talking about. Therefore we can conclude that he meant both the empowered diksa as well as the empowered siksa spiritual master as both having the same perogatives in relation to their disciples and others. From the purport to Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.47:
"There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service."
At the same time we should understand that having
siksa or diksa disciples does not automatically give one the status of an empowered suddha Vaisnava.
From Srimad Bhagavatam 2:3:21 purport:
"The first-class devotee does not at all see anyone who is not in the service of the Lord, but the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and nondevotees. The second-class devotees are therefore meant for preaching work, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or nondevotees. Sometimes the first-class devotee also comes down to the category of the second-class devotee for preaching work."
Lecture by Srila Prabhupada 26th April, 1968. New York
"This is a general principle. However, A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as 'guru' and 'acharya' by strictly following the disciplic succession."
So we can conclude that it is not the presence of disciples which makes one not obliged to take instructions from anyone, it is in fact the mahabhagavata, the topmost Vaisnava who has that perogative.
If we really want to take Kshamabuddhi's protest to it's logical endgame then we would have to accept that anyone who others consider "empowered" and "advanced" or who has siksa or diksa disciples, then they are not obligated to take instructions from anyone.
Kshamabuddhi also wrote:
"The proposal that the acharya - the diksha guru is subordinate to a governing body commission is to say that the acharya - the diksha guru must answer to majority vote of non-acharyas. Yet, there has never been any such system ever described or prescribed by the previous acharyas or the shastra. In fact, Srila Prabhupada specifically rejects this idea."
In this point you are conflating a "diksha guru" and
an "acharya" with a mahabhagavata empowered Vaisnava. A diksa guru is not above taking instructions if he is not on the highest level of bhakti, and an acharya can mean different things. An acharya can mean the leader of a sect or religious organization, or it can mean a highly educated person in sastra, or it can mean an empowered Vaisnava. Someone can be an Acharya and a diksha guru and still not have the divine authority to be above any obligation to take instructions from others. It is not the external position as a guru that is the determining factor. It is the internal position in your relationship with the Lord which is the determining factor.
So while I appreciate what Kshamabuddhi has written as a sincere sentiment, there are mitigating circumstances which may need to be taken into consideration. In fact, no one is obligated to accept the GBC or a Temple President or a temple board as their authority. It is all voluntary. If someone feels they are on the level where they are above taking instructions from others, then they do not have to. ISKCON is an organization which Srila Prabhupada set up with the GBC as the managers. Srila Saraswati Thakura wanted the same thing for the Gaudiya Math. Just because ISKCON's membership acts as diksa gurus or siksa gurus that doesn't negate the managing authority of the GBC which Srila Prabhupada authorized. If there are diksa or siksa gurus or anyone else for that matter who considers themselves to be "empowered" Vaisnavas and above being obligated to the GBC, then I say they are absolutely correct. No one is forced to remain in ISKCON under the managerial authority of ISKCON. ISKCON is a cooperative effort. As in all cooperative efforts, there needs to be some type of managerial authority to make sure people and property are not taken advantage of and misused. The GBC and the system Srila Prabhupada set up was meant to make a cooperative effort be as successful as possible. If people feel they are above being obligated to the cooperative effort and do not wish to go along with the same rules as everyone else, then they are free to leave. They are not obligated to stay.
