Following an Absentia Acarya
BY: DUSYANTA DASA
Nov 10, 2010 — UK (SUN) — Dear Mahavidya Prabhu, thanks for taking the time to consider the points that I put forward in my previous article. The specific question you raised, as I understand it, is why can't we get initiated by anyone we choose from the previous Acaryas and anyone we like, as you have given the example of Sandipani Muni, Sri Krsna's Spiritual Master.
But what I was trying to address was the discrepancies of contradictory paradigms and anomalies that occur in the ISKCON teaching on Guru Tattva. These have been addressed to a certain degree by Rocana Prabhu in his article.
"The Diksa Guru and Shiksa Guru are identical phenomenal manifestations of the Supreme Truth…"
(Caitanya-caritamrta, Chapter 1 intro, pp18)
In Caitanya-caritamrta Chapter 1 text 34 purport Srila Prabhupada writes thus:
"The Initiating and Instructing Spiritual Masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krsna, although they have different dealings. ...... . the Guru who first initiates one with the maha-mantra is to be known as the initiator, and the saints who give instructions for progressive advancement in Krsna Consciousness are called the instructing spiritual masters....."
My article was trying to address the "physical presence" phenomena in ISKCON -- introduced post-1977 by the GBC/Gurus.
There appears to be an anomaly and contradictory paradigm in ISKCON that means there has been a differentiation drawn between the Diksa and Siksa Gurus.
"If one foolishly discriminates between them he commits an offence in the discharge of devotional service."
(Caitanya-caritamrta 1.47)
The emphasis concerning the function of the Instructing and Initiating Gurus appears to be on the oneness of them rather than the difference. In Chapter 1 introduction of Caitanya-caritamrta we find Srila Prabhupada instructing us that: "They (Diksa Guru and Siksa Guru) are identical because both of them are phenomenal manifestations......"
The difficulty is that Srila Prabhupada's position in ISKCON as taught by the GBC is that He is ISKCON'S Siksa Guru in absentia. Whereas the teaching in ISKCON is the Diksa Guru HAS to be physically present. So the identity of the Diksa Guru and Siksa Guru is differentiated by the GBC's stance and practise.
If you are saying its ok to accept the previous Acaryas as our Siksa Guru, but how do we know if Sandipani Muni accepts us as an Initiated Disciple, then how do we know if the Siksa Guru accepts us as an instructed Disciple? When we talk of Siksa Guru, then we are Siksa Disciples, aren't we? So where is the acceptance in this relationship too? Acceptance from both sides is measured how?
Some references that have come to mind concerning who we can take Initiation from that is bona fide is from Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam 4.8 54:
"One should take Initiation from a Bona Fide spiritual master coming in the Disciplic Succession, who is authorised by His predecessor Spiritual Master. This is called Diksa-Vidhana."
We know Srila Prabhupada is authorised by His Spiritual Master. And similarly Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7:
"....in order to receive the real message of Srimad Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession."
And Srila Prabhupada also instructs us specifically for ISKCON initiates:
"In this way the disciple(s) renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or His representative for at least six months to a year."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya 24.330)
So if we follow these instructions as specified by Srila Prabhupada, the Spiritual Master and Acarya, then we are accepting His directions and He accepts us as bona fide disciples. It seems that our choice of Spiritual Master is according to who is the Current Link and not to whomever we like or designate.
Your question alludes to the point concerning who can we accept and how do we know we have been accepted.
As far as I understand that, we can only accept the Current Link Spiritual Master who is authorised by His Spiritual Master. The question of physical presence is not accounted for. What is the problem accepting Srila Prabhupada as Spiritual Master in absentia?
The other part of the question is how do we know if we are accepted? If we are following the Spiritual Master's teachings, then automatically He accepts us. As soon as we deviate we forfeit that right. We all know what is the discipline to follow, its not hard. But it's hard to follow. Disciples have problems following the four regulative principles, so where is the question of Disciple?
If we can't follow, then there is no question of acceptance either way.
But if we can accept the Siksa Guru in absentia, as in the case of Srila Prabhupada's siksa, and if we can accept the siksa of the previous Acaryas in absentia, then does this not open up the possibility of accepting Diksa in absentia? We can't discriminate between the Siksa Guru and the Diksa Guru.
GBC Resolution No 35, 1994:
"Srila Prabhupada is the foundational Shiksa Guru for all Iskcon devotees. Srila Prabhupada's instructions are the essential teachings for every Iskcon devotee."
And in Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32:
"It is the duty of the shiksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to shastric injunctions, there is no difference between the shiksa and diksa guru, and generally the shiksa guru later on becomes the diksa guru."
For us to connect to the Spiritual Master, through the current link in the disciplic succession, it is not based on physical presence but on our acceptance of either the Siksa Guru or Diksa Guru. Current link does not refer or allude to physical presence by definition. The word current can be applied readily to an absentia Spiritual Master and his books, "most recent", "commonly known, practised or accepted," "widespread," "circulating and valid at present" – (Definitions of "current" - Collins English Dictionary)
The official ISKCON paradigm is that the Shiksa Guru functions as a Shiksa Guru without being physically present, but the Diksa Guru has to be physically present. This is contradictory. But if we accept that Srila Prabhupada and the previous Acaryas are accessible through their Shiksa, making us their Shiksa disciples, then we have a relationship with them, which must be two-way. The Shiksa Gurus in absentia accept us as Shiksa disciples and we accept them as our Shiksa Gurus. Either that or we are just on our own with only physically present Gurus forever, and the previous Acaryas are just dim historic personalities that don't mean anything.
My understanding is that we are disciples of Srila Rupa Goswami [followers] as Rupanugas and logically Srila Prabhupada as Prabhupadanugas.
"The Krsna conscious movement is being conducted under the super-vision of Srila Rupa Gosvami."
(Preface to Nectar of Instruction)
Is that just an empty statement, that Srila Rupa Goswami is supervising the Krsna Conscious movement, or does he have some dynamic role to play in the movement?
"To understand the mission of Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and follow in His footsteps, one must very seriously follow in the footsteps of the Six Goswamis... one must follow the instructions known as Upadeshamrta, which has been given by Srila Rupa Goswami..."
(Preface continued)
Srila Prabhupada uses the word "must", an auxiliary verb, to emphasize the function of following an absentia Acarya. If following this absentia Spiritual Master in the form of His instructions is bona fide because it is authorised by Srila Prabhupada, does that mean the other five Goswamis and any other follower of Srila Rupa Goswami are my godbrothers?
If you conclude that they are godbrothers, then Krsna must be your godbrother too!
