10/26/2005
"In his recent articles, Bhakta Wallace prabhu indicates that he has read and re-read my Sampradaya Acarya paper. Unfortunately, it seems that he was unable to wrap his head around my main themes. I will continue endeavoring to improve my written vision, until it is crystal clear to all readers." Read full article.
Replies: 22 Comments
Posted by Vijay @ 10/31/2005 02:05 AM PST
"I think Iskcon promotes the idea that the gurus are devotees who are liberated souls. They promote the idea that people should surrender their lives and souls to them. That is an institutional policy regardless of what they have written in their law books. If you feel it is fine for Iskcon to be led by people who are deceivers, well then you get what you deserve. If Iskcon gurus were honest about their position instead of allowing the promotion of themselves as liberated souls in an intimate relationship with Radha Krishna, then I wouldn't be so critical. But I can't support an institution that may do some devotional activities but has as it's heart and soul a cheating process."
It seems like this is the main problem which you have with ISKCON and I do agree that there are many disciples and gurus on different levels, where the kanishta guru and kanishta disciples will promote their guru higher than he is. When I first came in to Krishna conciousness I was told that all these gurus are self relised which I questioned but ended up believing for a while, fortunately after doing my own research things didnt add up and eventually I was told by some mature devotees that the 12th canto predictions of corruption in religion applies to those in iskcon also, this was in the mid 90's since then I've gradually seen more open discussion about types of gurus and disciples. A few years back I went to a course in mumbai and one in london by brhat mrdanaga prabhu on vaishnava acara (An Official Iskcon course), and he very plainly said that there are kanishta gurus who think they are higher than they are with kanishta disciples, then there are madhyama gurus with a combination of dicsiples some who may think there guru is the best etc and he made it clear this exits within iskcon and be careful, Ive herad Urmila mataji(SAC) and she's been pritty clear and blunt on this matter and I do think that although there may be devotees out there thinking their guru is the best and gurus pretending they are on a level they are not I do believe that this illusion is being dispelled slowly but surely, speaking from my London point of view, all devotees who want to take initiation have to go to a spititual master disciple course, where this is clearly explained. Whoever I've bought to Iskcon I dont hide the fact that there may be both pretenders and saints within iskcon, my advise to them is read prabhupadas books and dont be afraid to discriminate between the different levels of devotees. Prabhupada has told us to do this in his books and at the same time dont become offensive as that wont help spirtual life either.
Im still in Iskcon as I have great association with nice devotees and see the things on the institutional level improving although it'll probably never be perfect as prabhupada has said dont expect utopia. Others may find a better way of remebering krishna and thats fine everyone has their own journeys, and the harsh reality and mercy of rectification which has been with us from the time we fell down from spritual world (or wherever one thinks we fell down from) is cheaters will be cheated no matter who or what they blame in retrospect, according to our desires we are rewarded, krishna makes no mistakes.Posted by shiva das @ 10/28/2005 01:58 PM PST
Vijay you wrote:
When I serve in Iskcon I do it as a service to Krishna, when i distribute books its a service to prabhupada, when I serve at the temple its to serve the deities and the guests of the deities the vaishnavas. I serve vaishnavas to the degree i see they are attached to Krishna. Its the consciousness one serves in that’s potent not who stands to gain from the service as in kaliyuga most are serving for mixed reasons with that logic I should stop serving as BBT may be pocketing the cash from me selling books etc.
Well thats nice and all but there is a little thing I like to call "Gaudiya siddhanta". Why serve in Iskcon at all if you have that vision? You don't need to be in Iskcon to do any of those things. If service to Krishna is solely in the consciousness of the server, then forget about Iskcon or any other supposed authority and just "serve" Krishna according to your own whims.
The bona fide process according to Gaudiya siddhanta is that you are supposed to serve a bona fide spiritual master. That person is connected directly to Krishna and it is through that person where you get instructions directly from Krishna. Now, if someone who is not a bona fide spiritual master is telling you what to do or reaping the benefit of your "service", then that is not the same thing as serving a bona fide guru. Sure if you do that kind of service there may be an amount of sukriti which you are gaining, but it is not the same thing as directly serving a bona fide guru.
Let's say that you are serving in Iskcon or outside of Iskcon and you are attracting people to come and join Iskcon. Then when someone joins they are led to believe that X Swami is a bona fide spiritual master. That person then follows the prescribed process of surrendering his life and soul to X Swami. He sells his business, sells his house and property, gives all his money to X Swami, divorces his wife because his wife won't join him in poverty, his wife takes his kids, and he joins the temple. All because he thinks he is has found a person who is directly representing God, a liberated pure devotee who can bring him to Krishna. From then on he lives an austere life devoted to being the slave of X Swami. He hears classes given by X Swami, but usually they are about the dangers of the material world and how the only safe place to be is serving the guru in Iskcon. Whatever amount or type of knowledge that person receives from X Swami he could get a better form of it from simply reading sastra. Then after a while it becomes obvious that X Swami lives a lavish lifestyle while the new disciple spends his time working hard to support that lifestyle. There are rumours about X Swami having girlfriends, X Swami becomes distant and cold to his disciples, he pretty much is always travelling around the world while his disciples are slaving away at the temples trying to make money to support X Swami and trying to make more slaves for their guru. Then X Swami leaves Iskcon and takes a bunch of cash.
So that situation or some variant of it is the norm in Iskcon. If you are attracting people to join Iskcon or aid Iskcon then is that really service to Krishna if by that service people end up being cheated? If by that service you are encouraging them to surrender their lives and souls to some guy who will exploit them and cheat them?
Sure you can do service in Iskcon and think that you are above all of that, but you fail to see how Iskcon is setup to run. It is set up to make disciples for the gurus, to make money for the leaders, and to eliminate all threats to that setup. Whatever "service" you do in Iskcon is really service for the leaders because Iskcon is setup to benefit the leaders. Whatever you do for Iskcon that makes it more attractive will end up making Iskcon's leaders more disciples, more wealth, more power.
Then you said:Practically I don’t see the leaders you talk about much neither do most devotees in their services as its mostly the temple authorities which are generally our siksa gurus. Yes their may be more mercyif we have direct contact with a nitya siddha or even krishna himself, but he fact is we can take that mercy any time, the dieties are the prabhupadas mercy through the books and devotees is there the acrays books are there etc, if our thinking is norrow we miss the mercy which is already available.
Well thats all besides the point. If the temple exists in order to make money and disciples for Iskcon gurus, the question remains; is that a good thing? If Iskcon wasn't setup solely to benefit the leaders and fool people into thinking the gurus are uttama adhikaris, then I wouldn't be so critical.
Then you wrote:Then if your guru falls its no one else’s responsibility. Its been like that for thousands of years. Iskcon doesn’t guarantee any guru to be self realized that’s up to the disciple, you can put someone forward if you feel someone else is better suited to initiate you in iskcon. You serve guru because he is a transparent medium to krishna if the transparency is lost and it becomes tinged you see him not working so much for krishna but for maya then you reject him or start distancing your self as you can not see krishna through him anymore. Sentimental disciples will worship guru as Krishna and have their heart broken if anything goes wrong, because of faulty vision. Guru is the transparent instrument to get too krishna not krishna himself to that transparent degree we worship him just as we would worship any vaishnava who is elevated our guru or not.
I think Iskcon promotes the idea that the gurus are devotees who are liberated souls. They promote the idea that people should surrender their lives and souls to them. That is an institutional policy regardless of what they have written in their law books. If you feel it is fine for Iskcon to be led by people who are deceivers, well then you get what you deserve. If Iskcon gurus were honest about their position instead of allowing the promotion of themselves as liberated souls in an intimate relationship with Radha Krishna, then I wouldn't be so critical. But I can't support an institution that may do some devotional activities but has as it's heart and soul a cheating process.
Then you wrote:“The fact is that the leaders are conditioned souls,…”
“Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service SOLELY for their own personal mental and physical gratification..”
Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.
What I wrote is not "begging the question". Begging the question is described thusly:The truth of A is assumed within the original premise about A. Thus A is not really proven by the argument.
Here is an example of petitio principii:
Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Paul is speaking.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
If there is no other argument put forth to support the contention that Paul is telling the truth then that is begging the question because the only proof is the original assumption.
What you have done is to take a snippet out of a longer presentation and then call that circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the proof of ones argument is assumed to be true in the argument without any other corroborating evidence
“The fact is that the leaders are conditioned souls,…”
“Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service SOLELY for their own personal mental and physical gratification..”
The first snippet does not serve as proof of the second, nor was it written to serve that purpose. The first snippet is simply an opinion which I do not try and prove. The second snippet is not presented as a logical deduction of the first.
The second snippet is preceded by and followed by many philosophical proofs based on guru, sastra and sadhu.
If I had only written:
"Because Iskcon is led by conditioned souls it has no benefit because serving conditioned souls is a waste of time and effort."
Then that would be begging the question. But what I wrote was that I believe Iskcon is led by conditioned souls and that:
"Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service SOLELY for their own personal mental and physical gratification."
In that statement I don't say that it is because Iskcon is led by conditioned souls that Iskcon has no real spiritual value, I said Iskcon only has real spiritual value if it is led by people who don't have as their sole concern their own gratification. That is not circular reasoning. I don't say Iskcon is led by people with their gratification as their sole concern because they are conditioned souls, I simply state what I consider to be true both preceded and followed by many proofs.
Then you wrote:"You don't give the Gaudiya Math the same mystical benefit-of-the-doubt potency you give Iskcon? Why is that? They both have the same provenance. Why is surrendering to Iskcon a transcendental and important thing to do, but surrendering to the Gaudiya Math is not? They were both started by liberated souls for the same exact purpose. "
In my opinion im surrendering to prabhupada as I have trust in him and also faith that his iskcon is working for me and will work for others although like prabhupad himself said dont expect utopia.
Not the gaudiya math because prabhupada said its broken in to many bits and not fulfilling bhaktisidhanta's mission or mood nor does it give the same position to prabhupada as Iskcon does or I do.
That logic is broken. You say the Gaudiya Math shouldn't receive the same spiritual benefit of the doubt as Iskcon in being a worthy place to serve because Srila Prabhupada condemned the Gaudiya Math. But how do you know Srila Prabhupada wouldn't condemn Iskcon?
Thats like saying
"I know Srila Prabhupada didn't like X Swami being a leader because he was not up to following the sastric recommendations. But Srila Prabhupada won't mind Z Swami as being a leader, I know he doesn't follow the sastric recommentations as well, but Srila Prabhupada didn't say anything about Z Swami, just X Swami".Posted by Vijay @ 10/28/2005 04:24 AM PST
"If those leaders are liberated souls then your service to them is guaranteed not to be a waste of your effort and time. If they are conditioned souls exhorting you to serve them for material reasons, then your effort is not the same as it would be if those leaders were actually liberated souls whose actions are solely in the service of the Lord without personal motives to gain in some materialistic way."
When I serve in Iskcon I do it as a service to Krishna, when i distribute books its a service to prabhupada, when I serve at the temple its to serve the deities and the guests of the deities the vaishnavas. I serve vaishnavas to the degree i see they are attached to Krishna. Its the consciousness one serves in that’s potent not who stands to gain from the service as in kaliyuga most are serving for mixed reasons with that logic I should stop serving as BBT may be pocketing the cash from me selling books etc. Practically I don’t see the leaders you talk about much neither do most devotees in their services as its mostly the temple authorities which are generally our siksa gurus. Yes their may be more mercyif we have direct contact with a nitya siddha or even krishna himself, but he fact is we can take that mercy any time, the dieties are the prabhupadas mercy through the books and devotees is there the acrays books are there etc, if our thinking is norrow we miss the mercy which is already available.
"The fact is that the leaders are conditioned souls, and that they have materialistic desires to exploit the followers for wealth, fame, sex, power, etc. Service to them is not the same as service to a liberated soul. Service to Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service solely for their own personal mental and physical gratification."
Thats why you have to serve Krishna and pray for guidance from krishna to give you guidance from a self relized soul, reading from prabhupadas books, testing the guru as he suggests, learning the symptoms of devotees on high stages, seeing what your needs are you may need the guru to consell you 24/7 or may need physical association less, or you may already have siksa gurus that are on high stages, etc everyone is different. Then if your guru falls its no one else’s responsibility. Its been like that for thousands of years. Iskcon doesn’t guarantee any guru to be self realized that’s up to the disciple, you can put someone forward if you feel someone else is better suited to initiate you in iskcon. You serve guru because he is a transparent medium to krishna if the transparency is lost and it becomes tinged you see him not working so much for krishna but for maya then you reject him or start distancing your self as you can not see krishna through him anymore. Sentimental disciples will worship guru as Krishna and have their heart broken if anything goes wrong, because of faulty vision. Guru is the transparent instrument to get too krishna not krishna himself to that transparent degree we worship him just as we would worship any vaishnava who is elevated our guru or not.
The solution is creating, inspiring and educating devotee's and future leaders. The solution is top down as well as bottom up. Any simplistic theory wont work.
“The fact is that the leaders are conditioned souls,…”
“Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service SOLELY for their own personal mental and physical gratification..”
Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.
"You don't give the Gaudiya Math the same mystical benefit-of-the-doubt potency you give Iskcon? Why is that? They both have the same provenance. Why is surrendering to Iskcon a transcendental and important thing to do, but surrendering to the Gaudiya Math is not? They were both started by liberated souls for the same exact purpose. "
In my opinion im surrendering to prabhupada as I have trust in him and also faith that his iskcon is working for me and will work for others although like prabhupad himself said dont expect utopia.
Not the gaudiya math because prabhupada said its broken in to many bits and not fulfilling bhaktisidhanta's mission or mood nor does it give the same position to prabhupada as Iskcon does or I do.Posted by shiva das @ 10/28/2005 03:36 AM PST
Bhakta Wallace you said:
Yes, I understand what you are saying but the conflict seems to be there is no liberated leader or a bonafide nitya-siddha guru to take initiation from in ISKCON and I disagree with that. I do believe there are liberated sannyasis who are qualified to give diksa etc. I mean, we all know Srila Prabhupada's stature and I don't know how to compare others to him by virtue of who he was as an empowered nitya-siddha. Maybe we can't.
That's not what I said. I have always said someone can give diksa and not be a liberated soul, that is alright. If there are no liberated souls around who are offering diksa then it is the duty of others to take up that task if they receive the inspiration. But if there is only a single liberated person around who is offering diksa then everyone should promote that person as the acarya and no else should be trying to give diksa or act as guru. Or if there are 2 or 3 liberated souls giving diksa everyone should promote them and not try to act as guru themselves.
Only when there are no liberated souls should others take up the role of diksa guru. Why? Because the liberated soul is directly considered to be an incarnation of Krishna, an empowered soul who is directly in communication with Krishna. No one should attempt to take the position of spiritual master when there is a superior guru around, that is the tradition in the gaudiya sampradaya. If there is someone who is superior to you, and if someone else wants to take diksa, you are supposed to guide them to the superior person.
As far as there being liberated sannyasis in Iskcon, why do you believe that there are a few? Do you know what a liberated soul is in the gaudiya tradition? That person is a confidential servant of Radha Krishna, a person who has realized and entered into his eternal relationship with Radha Krishna. He may still be in a human body walking among us, but internally he is dealing directly with God as a close friend. They know everything about Radha Krishna, not from sastric descriptions, but from direct involvement with them. How do you know any sannyasis in Iskcon are on that level?
Maybe there are, but I don't think there is. At least I have not read or heard anyone of them speak on that level of realization.
If there are no liberated souls giving diksa then others may take that up. But they should not pose as liberated souls, they should not allow or promote the conception that they are on intimate terms with Radha Krishna. That is unacceptable. Everyone should know his or her place in the grand scheme of things. If you are not an intimate associate of Krishna then you should not pose as that in the name of preaching.
It's not about comparing people to Srila Prabhupada, it's about first being honest. Without spiritual integrity and total honesty how can Iskcon claim to be representing the highest spiritual attainment?
From the Nectar of InstructionWhen one becomes so disinterested in material enjoyment, he becomes fit for initiation by the spiritual master. For the advancement of spiritual life Srimad-Bhagavatam (6.1.13) prescribes: tapasa brahmacaryena samena ca damena ca. When a person is serious about accepting diksa, he must be prepared to practice austerity, celibacy and control of the mind and body. If one is so prepared and is desirous of receiving spiritual enlightenment (divyam jnanam), he is fit for being initiated. Divyam jnanam is technically called tad-vijnana, or knowledge about the Supreme. Tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet: [MU 1.2.12] when one is interested in the transcendental subject matter of the Absolute Truth, he should be initiated. Such a person should approach a spiritual master in order to take diksa. Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.3.21) also prescribes: tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreya uttamam. "When one is actually interested in the transcendental science of the Absolute Truth, he should approach a spiritual master."
One should not accept a spiritual master without following his instructions. Nor should one accept a spiritual master just to make a fashionable show of spiritual life. One must be jijnasu, very much inquisitive to learn from the bona fide spiritual master.
Here Srila Prabhupada tells us of why someone should take diksa. Not because it is the thing to do, but because he wants to study under the spiritual master.cont.
The inquiries one makes should strictly pertain to transcendental science (jijnasuh sreya uttamam). The word uttamam refers to that which is above material knowledge. Tama means "the darkness of this material world," and ut means "transcendental." Generally people are very interested in inquiring about mundane subject matters, but when one has lost such interest and is simply interested in transcendental subject matters, he is quite fit for being initiated. When one is actually initiated by the bona fide spiritual master and when he seriously engages in the service of the Lord, he should be accepted as a madhyama-adhikari...
...When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Krsna, he loses interest in everything but Krsna's service. Always thinking of Krsna, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Krsna, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikari, and his association should be immediately accepted according to the six processes (dadati pratigrhnati, etc.). Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him, for it is enjoined that one should deliver whatever he has to the spiritual master. The brahmacari in particular is supposed to beg alms from others and offer them to the spiritual master. However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or maha-bhagavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will eventually become degraded.
In this verse Srila Rupa Gosvami advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kanistha-adhikari, madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaisnavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.
Then you said:In other words, I thought that by taking initiation from Srila Prabhupada's disciple in good standing was as good as serving Krsna etc. though I know this method has been traditional ISKCON policy which has had great disappointments no doubt. I think this is the sticky point. I mean, one would have to observe the characteristics of the guru by the methods enunciated in sastra and the other previous bonafide acaryas in the line.
Taking diksa from a person whose sole qualification is being a member of Iskcon in "good standing" is nothing more then joining a club and getting the secret handshake. The real process described in sastra is to surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, a self realized soul. Going through the diksa ceremony does not transform your life into one of being a servant of God all of a sudden. What is the point of "serving Krishna"? What is the point of sadhana bhakti? The process is meant to elevate your consciousness so that you can enter into a relationship that brings pleasure to Radha Krishna. It doesn't matter how many initiations you have by whomever. All that matters is where your head is at. Where your heart is at.
Krishna doesn't need you or anyone else to preach his message or do anything else. Service to Krishna means raising your own consciousness, that is the only service that is of any real value to Krishna. Krishna doesn't need you to distribute books, or prasadam, or build temples, or chant, or anything. All of those things are for your benefit. Krishna doesn't need you to do those things for any one elses benefit but your own. If Krishna wanted he could arrange that everyone on this planet had a set of Srila Prabhupadas books in one months time. Krishna can do whatever he wants to do without anyones help. Devotional service in the sadhana bhakti stage is training. It's meant to give you something to do to keep your mind and time focused on Krishna, learning about Krishna, learning spiritual knowledge, developing your consciousness. Until you become completely freed from the illusory energy you cannot really serve Krishna directly. You will be in the training stage until free from the illusory energy. Then when you come to the final stage you become useful to Radha Krishna. Then at that stage you can be truly called a servant of God. Until then you are nothing more then an apprentice, purifying yourself in order to be be able to serve God. Just like the child who goes to trade school. Until he graduates with a skill he cannot do any real service for people who need his craft. In class he may make something or another which is an imitation of the real thing, but until he is finished from schooling he will not have the ability to create a craft that people want.
From a Srila Prabhupada lecture 11/12/72So you have to uncover. You have to discover. That discovering process is devotional service. The more you are engaged in devotional service, the more your senses become pure or uncovered. And when it is completely uncovered, without any designation, you are capable to serve Krsna. This is apprenticeship. Vaidhi-bhakti is apprenticeship. Real bhakti, para-bhakti, is raganuga-bhakti. This raganuga-bhakti, we have to come after surpassing the vaidhi-bhakti. In the material world, if we do not try to make further and further progress in devotional service, if we are simply sticking to the shastric regulation process and do not try to go beyond that... Shastric process, and also regulation, is required. Without shastric process you cannot go to that platform. But if we stick to the shastric process only and do not try to improve ourself... The shastric process is kanistha-adhikara, lowest stage of devotional service
Then you wrote:My contention is this, even if someone were to appear who would be that great long-awaited "messiah" that would supposedly set ISKCON right as many devotees seem to want, because we live in a world of envy, would that person be accepted as the bonafide nitya-siddha acarya who would be #33in the disciplic succession? See what I mean? Maybe we are thinking that a #33 manifest guru won't come for some time in the future but how do we know that person is not in our midst now?
By the mercy of Krishna you get Guru. By the mercy of Guru you get Krishna. Maybe there is someone here right now who is a self realized soul or maybe there isn't. Either way gurus in Iskcon should still try and act with spiritual honesty and integrity.
Then you wrote:But I see what Rocana is saying now. That it doesn't matter in our lifetime basically because if things were set-up the way he laid out his proposals for reform, the devotee taking siksa and then diksa based on his reforms would still be getting the bonafide result regardless of whether that nitya-siddha sampradaya-acraya manifests or not.
But I thank you for making Rocana Das's proposal clearer. Now I see what he was getting at by having the diksa guru separate from the siksa and relegating the diksa duties to siksas.
The idea of having the diksa more or less establish himself in his duties away from the ISKCON body and yet, still be a part of ISKCON based upon the purity of his siddhanta? Is that it? And that way, after siksa training etc. when the diksa guru is qualified sastrically, (or becomes bonafide) the siksa can then allow the devotee to take formal initiation form that diksa guru thus more or less guaranteeing the bonafide transmission of bhakti for the same reasons that one took initiation from Srila Prabhupada. Right? Correct me on this.
I don't know. You would have to ask Rocana. From my perspective the siksa guru is anyone who knows more then you and is willing to teach you if asked. The diksa guru and the siksa guru are traditionally one and the same person, but not always. You can have an unlimited number of siksa gurus. Sometimes due to circumstances the diksa guru is not able to give instructions. If the devotees in Iskcon who are giving diksa were simply honest in their presentation of themselves vis-a-vis their level of spiritual realization, that to me is more important then being in or outside of Iskcon. If the diksa gurus were honest in admitting that they are not uttama adhikaris and not in the position of being transparent via mediums to God, of not being directly in the association of Radha Krishna, then their position in Iskcon would be pretty much what Rocana Das is talking about with the siska guru giving initiation.
If there are diksa gurus in Iskcon who want to promote themselves or allow the promotion of themselves as being devotees on the highest level, but many people disagree with that, then they would be better off leaving Iskcon and seeing if Krishna will empower their preaching work.
To me it's all about integrity. Of course this is all "what if" stuff. In reality the diksa gurus and GBC and other leaders in Iskcon are a mixed bag. Some are sincere Madhyama Adhikaris, some are exploiters out to gain fame, wealth, power etc. I don't expect those devotees in positions of authority in Iskcon, which affords them wealth and comfort for posing as pure devotees, will be wanting to give that up and leave Iskcon or change their ways. I can just give my opinion, I don't expect it to be taken seriously by them. I have my own plan for helping the vaisnava community regardless of what Iskcon does or does not do.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 09:57 PM PST
Shiva Das: Haribol. Yes, I understand what you are saying but the conflict seems to be there is no liberated leader or a bonafide nitya-siddha guru to take initiation from in ISKCON and I disagree with that. I do believe there are liberated sannyasis who are qualified to give diksa etc. I mean, we all know Srila Prabhupada's stature and I don't know how to compare others to him by virtue of who he was as an empowered nitya-siddha. Maybe we can't.
In other words, I thought that by taking initiation from Srila Prabhupada's disciple in good standing was as good as serving Krsna etc. though I know this method has been traditional ISKCON policy which has had great disappointments no doubt. I think this is the sticky point. I mean, one would have to observe the characteristics of the guru by the methods enunciated in sastra and the other previous bonafide acaryas in the line.
My contention is this, even if someone were to appear who would be that great long-awaited "messiah" that would supposedly set ISKCON right as many devotees seem to want, because we live in a world of envy, would that person be accepted as the bonafide nitya-siddha acarya who would be #33in the disciplic succession? See what I mean? Maybe we are thinking that a #33 manifest guru won't come for some time in the future but how do we know that person is not in our midst now?
But I see what Rocana is saying now. That it doesn't matter in our lifetime basically because if things were set-up the way he laid out his proposals for reform, the devotee taking siksa and then diksa based on his reforms would still be getting the bonafide result regardless of whether that nitya-siddha sampradaya-acraya manifests or not.
But I thank you for making Rocana Das's proposal clearer. Now I see what he was getting at by having the diksa guru separate from the siksa and relegating the diksa duties to siksas.
The idea of having the diksa more or less establish himself in his duties away from the ISKCON body and yet, still be a part of ISKCON based upon the purity of his siddhanta? Is that it? And that way, after siksa training etc. when the diksa guru is qualified sastrically, (or becomes bonafide) the siksa can then allow the devotee to take formal initiation form that diksa guru thus more or less guaranteeing the bonafide transmission of bhakti for the same reasons that one took initiation from Srila Prabhupada. Right? Correct me on this.
Looking at it in that light, it seems to make sense and be an interesting reform.
But again, I think we'll have to see what Krsna arranges and get more feedback.Posted by shiva das @ 10/27/2005 08:40 PM PST
Bhakta Wallace I think this from your article sums up your attitude and perspective when it comes to Iskcon i.e the perspective and attitude of a dilettante.
RD: Consequently, the individual followers of Srila Prabhupada have to assume full responsibility for their own spiritual journey without the shelter of Srila Prabhupada's society, because it no longer exists. It is a shadow and a mirage.
BW: This is a pretty blatant statement. I do believe ISKCON exists but not in the way you may have envisioned it due to past transgressions. If the current ISKCON is a mirage then the real ISKCON must exist someplace else. Where ever there is a shadow, there must be the real object etc. Besides, where else can spiritual seekers associate unless there is a "Krsna conscious society?" Devotees cannot live in a vacuum. That is, where is active service executed? ISKCON is the best institution as far as I know.
He said mirage; not mirror. A mirage is an illusion, a trick of light and heat. Famously mirages are seen in the desert. The play of heat on the horizon can make it appear to the eye that there is a body of water ahead, but upon rushing ahead to quench your thirst, you find only more sand.
What Rocana said was that Srila Prabhupadas Iskcon i.e the Iskcon where there was a liberated spiritual master leading and everyone else following, no longer exists. If you joined that Iskcon you could quench your thirst for spiritual life due to Iskcon being an amsa, or limb of the body of the liberated spiritual master. In that way service to Iskcon became service to Krishna because the liberated spiritual master is Krishna's right hand man. People could find shelter in the knowledge that they were directly serving God by serving his representative.
Today Iskcon is split into fiefdoms led by conditioned souls posing as liberated spiritual masters. Surrendering to them is not the same as surrendering to Srila Prabhupada. It may look the same, like a mirage of a lake in the desert, but it is an illusion. Iskcon is what we make of it, it is not a living entity which is magically empowered to receive peoples service guaranteeing them that they are directly serving God.
Iskcon's potency or lack thereof comes from the spiritual realization and qualifications of it's leaders. If you serve in Iskcon you are serving the leaders. If those leaders are liberated souls then your service to them is guaranteed not to be a waste of your effort and time. If they are conditioned souls exhorting you to serve them for material reasons, then your effort is not the same as it would be if those leaderss were actually liberated souls whose actions are solely in the service of the Lord without personal motives to gain in some materialistic way.
The fact is that the leaders are conditioned souls, and that they have materialistic desires to exploit the followers for wealth, fame, sex, power, etc. Service to them is not the same as service to a liberated soul. Service to Iskcon only has real spiritual value if Iskcon is led by people who are not reaping the benefits of that service solely for their own personal mental and physical gratification.
Look at the Gaudiya Math. It was started by a pure devotee in the same way as Iskcon, yet you would not agree to serve there or consider it to be an empowered amsa of Sri Krishna as you believe Iskcon to be.
Why?
You have no faith in the leaders as being true pure representatives of God and therefore able to channel your sacrificial devotional service to them as a service to God.
You don't give the Gaudiya Math the same mystical benefit-of-the-doubt potency you give Iskcon? Why is that? They both have the same provenance. Why is surrendering to Iskcon a transcendental and important thing to do, but surrendering to the Gaudiya Math is not? They were both started by liberated souls for the same exact purpose.
You say that:Besides, where else can spiritual seekers associate unless there is a "Krsna conscious society?" Devotees cannot live in a vacuum. That is, where is active service executed? ISKCON is the best institution as far as I know.
Where in sastra does it state that devotional service and vaisnava sangha is dependent on an institution? Devotional service "is executed" anywhere. The sastra tells us that the best way to engage in bhakti is to serve a liberated spiritual master and to also associate with other bhaktas. Nowhere does it mention belonging to or serving an institution as a necessary component of sadhana bhakti.
If you see Iskcon as the best place to engage in sadhana bhakti come hell or high water, then you do not understand sadhana bhakti in the gaudiya tradition. The feet of the liberated guru is first and foremost the best place to render your yagna, your sacrificial acts. Whether he lives within the confines of an institution or lives in a van down by the river.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 07:20 PM PST
Oh, Shiva das! Come on! Lighten up. Your response was quite amusing. Chant and be happy. One day we will all meet in paradise.
Posted by shiva das @ 10/27/2005 07:12 PM PST
Bhakta Wallace you wrote:
The only thing that worries me are Shiva Das's responses because he seems like a "yes" man when it comes to anything Rocana Das writes. Thus, I feel like Arjuna standing on the battlefield alone, hesitant to fight, but fight I must.
So if I think you have nothing to say other then brown nosing condescending egotistic double talk, that makes me Rocana's "yes man"?
Be worried, be very worried...
From nizkor.orgDescription of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."
During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."
After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."
You clearly are simply trying to win brownie points with Iskcon leadership. Therefore you will not really try to understand what you are arguing against, all you really are doing is trying to come up with some kind of argument, anything will do, as long as you get to look like "Arjuna" fighting for Dharma. That's your motivation and all you really care about here anyways. Any serious conversation with you is useless because you only care about kissin some peoples butts.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 06:41 PM PST
Nila: Hare Krsna. You're right. You've exposed me! I'm just a puffed up guy pretending to be an intellectual. No one has hit my hot buttons. We're just exchanging ideas. Why haven't I been initiated? Krsna's arrangement. Just watching and waiting.
Posted by Nila @ 10/27/2005 06:37 PM PST
Bhakta Wallace, it seems that Rocana has hit your hot buttons, and exposed you. So why is it that you haven't taken initiation yourself after all these years? You haven't found a guru you like, or they haven't accepted you? Your answer to this question will clears up a lost of mystery about you as a person.
From this article, it seems like the ISKCON big-timers have decided to send out the village idiot to defend the town, rather than coming out themselves. At least a trained-up devotee knows how to communicate with other devotees, even if they're taking an opposite position. You don't even make any pretense. You just act as if you're a puffed up guy pretending to be an intellectual.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 06:31 PM PST
Rocana Dasa: Hare Krsna. Yes, I did say that originally. No swami was consulted as I live in virtual isolation these days. I wanted to repsond in this manner because I thought it would be more spontaneous rather than the usual way of quoting endlessly from sastra, which everyone has done in the past to almost no avail, unless it is necessary to quote from sastra like in my next artcicle but then sastra can be twisted in ways that seem to benefit various parties anyway.
I know what you are trying to do, but when you finally laid out your ISKCON reform plan in part, I began to see how all the pieces were going to fit together, at least as you were presenting it, and so the entire mosaic seemed somewhat out of kilter to me. I can't say why. Just a hunch.
I appreciate your time in composing the response, I really do. I'm sorry if I came off as flippant. Look, I know what you are trying to do. You want what's best for the future devotees who are attracted to Krsna consciousness and reform the past indecencies that have befallen so many devotees, I understand that. Also, you know as well as I do, and this is what may be frustrating for you, that ISKCON as a body right now would not agree to your proposals.
What I do like about your article is the stance you take in the arena of the siksa guru perspective although I am not so conversant with this. But it sounds resonable.
Perhaps you can, as I stated in my rebuttal, make it a bit more clear for me. In other words, if I were to take siksa initiation from you let's say, would you give me a temporary name until that time when a diksa guru would be available? Is that your vision for future initations etc. notwithstanding the rest of your vision?
You realize that these new concepts that you propose are all new as far as ISKCON is concerned. I keep a close watch on things and so you add compelling scenarios for change but to me they just seem mixed in with the same old hodge-podge of past ritvik/IRM type of things. A kind of patchwork Quilt so to speak. Again, I think these things should be discussed more with various devotees just to weigh various points of view.Posted by Rocana dasa @ 10/27/2005 05:46 PM PST
Dear Bhakta Wallace,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were genuinely sincere in your previous inquiries, and I did put a good deal of energy into composing something that was presentable. You, on the other hand, seem to have just sat down and hammered out a spontaneous outburst. If you had edited out all the tripe, you apparently wouldn't have anything to say. We're not having a conversation here, we're actually having a philosophical discussion, and the quality of your response left much to be desired.
It is somewhat mysterious to me that in your first short blog, you say you agree with most of what I have to say, but there's "something" you had to think about. The next day you hammer out this diatribe. I wonder if in the meantime, you had a little darshan with the local swami?
When you're ready to put the intellectual energy into a real dialogue, let me know. For now, I'm not going to invest more time in responding.
RocanaPosted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 03:55 PM PST
Nitya Prabhu: Grab a box of popcorn (prasadam popcorn of course) and sit back!
Posted by Nitya Siddha dasa @ 10/27/2005 03:50 PM PST
"The new battle of Kurukshetra",bhakta Wallace Prabhu...mmm sounds interesting....I can't wait.
Nitya Siddha dasaPosted by Prahlada M dasa @ 10/27/2005 03:39 PM PST
I would like to take up your suggestion to ‘wrap [my] head around [your] main themes’. This will allow me to be corrected if I am mistaken and to give you my feedback if I am not.
Your views do indeed encompass a wide range of issues. They challenge many prevailing views, and directly condemn others.
First of all, I observe that your response to Bhakta Wallace is brahminical and honourable. You desisted from ‘fighting back’ to his provocations. With patience, you answer the challenges by presenting, yet once again, your understanding of sastric conclusions.
Before I list some of your conclusions as I have understood them, it appears to me your intentions are benign and mean well for the benefit of ISKCON and its purposes. Your conclusions are:
1. You seek your readers to appreciate the unique role of the Sampradaya Acarya first and foremost. A person who takes on the task of training disciples alone does not become equated to a Sampradaya Acarya, what to speak of the person who gives ‘initiation’ without ever training the initiate. Most certainly the foibles, or indeed failures, of such initiators must never be portrayed as pastimes or lilas like those of nitya siddha Sampradaya Acaryas.
2. A Sampradaya Acarya is also not made by being dubbed a ‘diksa guru’ by an ad-hoc body of people, even if that body be vested with various ecclesiastical powers. Dubbing will not make a person who is not a nitya siddha into a Sampradaya Acarya. Repeated initiation or re-initiation by another ‘dubbed’ guru, when the first has so-called fallen, only compounds the problem rather than resolve it.
3. Guidance is needed, gurus are needed but neither have to be artificial. Superficial, outward imitation of Sampradaya Acaryas does not constitute guidance. Yet the guidance and training offered by other more advanced sadhana-bhaktas is meaningful. These must therefore be recognised as siksa gurus.
4. The association of deceptive, avaricious individuals who hanker for material possessions and sensory gratification – subtle or gross – dubbed gurus with Sampradaya Acaryas must be broken.
5. A nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya is self-manifest condition.
6. You seek for ISKCON to underscore the paramount significance and sanctity of the position of a Sampradaya Acarya.
From the above I deduce you seek for ISKCON to be, and be seen to be, a movement that embodies honesty, humility, integrity and compassion for others; not one that is perceived as yet another religion.
If I have misunderstood any of the above, even in their degrees of emphasis or have omitted others, I would welcome your corrections.
I note and welcome your prediction of a leaner but better focused ISKCON. However, I find your specific numbered initiatives to be premature. The precept of various categories of gurus and the notion of Sampradaya Acarya has to be first and foremost firmly established, before any institution-wide overhaul can even be contemplated. My own experience, little as it is, has shown me that bureaucrats forever make institutional changes but, without the support of hearts and minds of their members, their citizens, they demolish one hollow ‘edifice’ (bureaucratic ideology) only to replace it with another. In time, both come crumbling down. In other words, a position paper may be the beginning but not enough, with any institutional changes yet a long way away.
As a reminder to myself, all arrangements are always more in the hands of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even the unwelcome variety. He is in full control of every aspect of His creation. And, it is He who is certainly in control of providing us our path back to home, back to Godhead; it is therefore in Him, I remind myself, I need to repose my hopes, my faith and my confidence.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/27/2005 02:56 PM PST
Nitya Siddha Dasa: Hare Krsna. No, I'm not being fanatical at all. Just practical. The only thing Rocana Das said that was correct is that Lord Krsna Himself (or His empowered representative) will have to change things, but this on-going discussion vividly shows the rift in ISKCON and the wedge that is keeping the movement from moving forward. I'm just giving it a little push that's all. I also try to do this with a sense of humor as well and in no way am I being derogatory compared to some of the rhetoric made in previous articles along this same subject in regard to ISKCON devotees working tirelessly within the movement. Am I pro-ISKCON? Yes. But again, this is based on my current position. Wait till you read my "The New Battle of Kuruksetra" tomorrow if you think I'm fanatical now. And besides, what's so bad about Hari das defending his guru? I think it's admirable. Also, I notice there are no comments from pro-ISKCON supporters which is disheartening. I can only conclude that they choose to remain anonymous.
Posted by Nitya Siddha dasa @ 10/27/2005 02:22 PM PST
In Bhakta Wallace's rebuttal of Rocana's article Abracadabra I again feel he has fallen into the same trap as he did before.In that he is trying to make himself look and feel intelligent be merely presenting the reader with opposite views without presenting any sound philosophical arguments to back up his case.Thereby making his whole presentation a non-argument because there is no substantive shastric evidence to support his arguments but merely fuzzy personal views and somewhat derogatory remarks without philosophical foundation.
I really don't see the purpose of Bhakta Wallace's presentation,except to try to make the reader feel that his own Utopian ideas about Iskcon and his participation in it will all somehow be OK regardless,and that if they are making any mistakes it will all somehow come out in the wash.In a sense this is like walking through a cage full of lions blindfolded and thinking that if the lions attack because you can't see them it won't matter.This scenario simply does not work,and takes us back to the blind fanatics syndrome that has been operating on the niave minds of new Iskcon followers for many years now,being the main cause of all the trouble and falldowns.To say that everything is OK when clearly it is not,is not only niave and ignorant in the extreme but also a foolhardy path into the unknown.Like I said before,Bhakta Wallace is pretending to fly before he has even got off the ground and is starting to sound just as disturbed and fanatical as Hari dasa.Worrying indeed......
Your Servant,
Nitya Siddha dasaPosted by nava jauvana das @ 10/27/2005 08:51 AM PST
Rocan prabhu,
Dandavat pranams. Thanks for your ongoing thoughtful and sincere contemplations on the paradoxes of a spiritual society created to enlighten the world that lost its own vision when Srila Prabhupada departed from us 28 years ago. It is also nice that you have created a forum on the internet to articulate your views and to allow others an equal platform. It is good to be realistic however.
Those in our generation who want to contribute whatever little we can to Srila Prabhupada's desire, must be content to do so with whatever humble resources we have. There will be no grand reunification in our lifetime, despite the good advice of brahminical people such as yourself. The direction of Iskcon has chosen to develop is towards a religion, with its gurus functioning as high priests, rather than one of an inclusive spiritual, social and cultural revolution that was originally envisioned by Srila Prabhupada.
As you write at the end of this article, only direct intervention of Krishna or his empowered devotee would be able to change this. The confusion, inertia and egocentric momentum that has filled the vacuum since Prabhupada's departure is still the order of the day. But who knows the plans of the most munificent avatar of eternity: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu?
I wish you continued inspiration in your humble effort to be a sane and honest voice in the current noisy wilderness. Let us continue to pray for and aspire to truth, kindness and affection amongst all vaisnavas and all jivas.
nava jauvana das (ACBSP)Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 10/26/2005 08:45 PM PST
Dear Rocana prabhu,
Very interesting article, prabhu. Also complex, there is more than meets the eye in all that you say.
Prabhu, I never understood what are the real differences between what you say and Srila Prabhupada:
The Prominent Link concepts.
Can you summarize the difference for us?Posted by Ananda Svarupa dasa (ACBSP) @ 10/26/2005 07:58 PM PST
Rocan Prabhu, my heartfelt compliments on an excellent, thought-provoking article. A superb brahminical recounting of many home truths. And as we all know, all progress hinges on this simple principle: truth. The miserly and impotent silence to your ongoing comments from the ISKCON GBC and their philosopy heavyweights is deafening; especially since many of them religiosly read everything that you write (I am not at liberty to publicly disclose details, but I can assure you of this fact). And, as Lord Ramacandra indicated to the sages in Dandakaranya, silence means assent.
Posted by shiva das @ 10/26/2005 06:56 PM PST
Excellent article. You mentioned Tripurari Swami as an example of someone who you would like to see leave Iskcon with his disicples. The most successfull ones have been Paramadvaiti Swami. See http://www.vrindavan.org/ he has a large and successfull mission. Also there is Narasingha Swami and Bhakti Bhavan Vishnu Swami's society. See http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/index.html
You are right on the money on so many points. One of them is the attitude Iskcon takes towards non Iskcon Gaudiya organizations. As you state most of them loathe and fear the "competition" instead of embracing them as Godbrothers and co-workers. I can understand there being a philosophical problem between Iskcon and one or more of those organizations, but not all of them are presenting Gaudiya siddhanta in a way that Srila Prabhupada would find to be improper.
Another point is the fact that diksa gurus are not taking their role of siksa gurus seriously, yet they want the disciples to treat them them like worshipful masters. They think that they should be in control over peoples lives simply because they have given them diksa.
Case in point...myself. I was initiated in 1978 by an Iskcon guru. Yet over a period of 4 years, even though I was in the same location as him for long periods of time, he never once spoke to me except for asking me how much money I had collected during a "christmas marathon" one night.
Yet he treated me as someone who should say "how high?" if he asked me to jump. He expected obedience to him simply because he gave me diksa. He wasn't my guru, he was the guy who sat at the fire yagna and handed me beads and gave me a name. Presiding over a diksa ceremony does not a guru make. He may be called a diksa guru but that doesn't mean he deserves to be respected as a guru if he isn't personally qualified.
The over emphasis on the diksa initiation and diksa guru by Iskcon is taken to unnecessary lengths. It becomes an impetus for the desire to be a diksa guru by non uttama adhikaris. The corporate ladder leads to diksa guru and sannyasa status. The goal for many then becomes getting a slice of the financial pie by climbing the corporate ladder. That financial pie is due to the over emphasis on needing diksa snd serving the diksa guru as if he were a Godlike being.
Corruption, call it what you want, but by any other name it means the same.
Time will tell whether Iskcon can reform and become a healthier place to live.Posted by Bhakta Wallace @ 10/26/2005 03:54 PM PST
Rocana Das: Hare Krsna. PAMHO. Hm, very interesting. Very complex as well. Knowing ISKCON's policies the reforms you mention seem alomost Himalayan although I agree with many aspects of what you said. Still, there's something I can't quite put my finger on.
I would have to read this over a couple of more times to absorb the scope of your concepts regarding so many things. I would also like to wait and see what others might say about all this as well, juggling all the possibilities, and then see where we can all go from there.
| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts | | About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |