"We need a guru in whom we have absolute faith and whom we are willing to follow unconditionally in order to spiritually progress to the realm of pure devotion to Sri Krsna. This statement is made with reference to the point that each of us has many gurus, with "gurus" used in the sense of "teacher", or "person who inspires and guides us". " Read full article.

Replies: 74 Comments

Posted by Alex @ 01/07/2006 01:19 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am not sure if you still check this thread every once in a while. In any case, I would like to post something that I feel is relevant to the exchange that we had on here.

In a post marked 11/07/2005 07:43 PM PST, you commented on the following two excerpts from the PL book:

"For a devotee who comes to the movement Srila Prabhupada is the primary spiritual master, the Vaishnava to whom the devotee fully and unconditionally devotes his life."

(...)

"For devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement, however, the Vaishnava whose mercy without which we would not receive the benediction of Krishna and would not make advancement is Srila Prabhupada."

It seems to me that the above two statements are compatible with the following excerpt from Rocana Prabhu's article 'The Church of Rtvik':

"A genuine, direct relationship between the aspirant and the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya is not only acceptable, it is necessary, and a via media guru is not required in order for that relationship to be consummated."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/21/2005 09:53 AM PST

Indeed, that is amazing.

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/21/2005 09:29 AM PST

Hello Alex,
You are more than welcome prabhu. Anything I might be able to offer that will further someone's recognigtion of the opportunity given us by Srila Prabhupada is most acceptable. Srila Prabhupada is always only as far from us as his his next purport. That is where he is easily found.

I personally take so much delight in reading his books! I never tire of hearing his very unique and confident presentation of the Absolute Truth.

From the day I first met Srila Prabhupada in the fall of 1972 by means of his "Perfection of Yoga" till this morning reading his Science of Self Realization (one of my absolute favorites!) it has been easy to understand and accept the reality of Krsna Consciousness.

Srila Prabhupada once stated that Kali Yuga will advance more and more yet if we preach this KC then the world will become like Vaikuntha. I was so surprised by his apparently contradicting statements that I asked him "Can we really affect a change in the environment of Kali Yuga just by preaching Srila Prabhupada?" He responded by saying "YES! You have not experienced personally?"
I nodded my head "Yes..Srila Prabhupada". He then looked directly at me and said "So then?"

Now when the direct emmissary of Srimati Radharani - the predicted "Senapati General" of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - looks at you and emphatically says "So then" - believe me he conveyed such conviction and authority that I could only conclude that he was AUTHORIZED to confirm this statement and his saying "So then" simply meant "Well..if that is the case for you...and you are no more special than anyone else..it would serve you and them very well indeed if you could "THEN" share in my conviction and preach this GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to those who had yet to have been made aware of it.

By reading Srila Prabhupada's purports, which he described as his "devotional ecstacies" that were "NOT his words but merely the dictations of Lord Krsna Himself" and decorated with the "Saffron Particles of the Lord's Lotus Feet" - we are in direct contact and communication with the Lord Himself!

When we know this we have to think "SO THEN" I must emphasize this opportunity with everyone I meet.

This faith is simple and sublime. It is genuine and easy to share. THIS is the formula for spreading the glories of Lord Chaitanya's samkirtan mission.

Srila Prabhupada does not require our saying "He is our Guru" to be THE GURU! No more than our saying the Sun is the source of all energy in the material universe! The Sun is what it is!! We can only acknowledge the simple fact.

We can only like a mirror - reflect a portion of that sun. We are the saved! NEVER the saviour. Srila Prabhupada is respected as the Lord Himself - precisely because he is so incredibly dear to the Lord. He came to demonstrate or prove as it were how dear we all were to the Lord also. Sambhanda literally means "Dear To". That is the essence of our relationship to the Lord; we are very very very dear to Lord Krsna; being his forgetful parts and parcels. So His "DEARMOST" came on behalf of his DEARLY BELOVED to restore the long lost relationships of every DEARLY LOVED jiva with their ETERNALLY BELOVED and DEAR SWEET FRIEND!!!

Oh Dear!! That is amazing!

Posted by Alex @ 11/21/2005 05:56 AM PST

Dear Praghosh Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this forum. I am carefully considering what you have written. As I understand, a working title for the original PL essay was 'Srila Prabhupada: The Direct Link'.

This alternate title would acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is directly available to the members of his movement.

The PL book also acknowledges that Srila Prabhupada is available to act as the current link to the parampara.

I like the following PL excerpt:

"As described on page 49 of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, there is an expansive range of healthy, spiritually productive relationships between the devotee who conducts the initiation and the initiate. The Prominent Link (PL) framework supports a wide latitude of these relationships. We have many gurus. It's understood that not all of them are absolute in their position and transcendental stature. The point is that Srila Prabhupada is available as the direct and current link to the parampara. This doesn't negate the understanding that other gurus may also be pure and elevated souls."

Thank you for your time and attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/20/2005 06:50 PM PST

Hello Shiva prabhu,

Thank you very much for your comments. I see your reasoning and I agree with it. Srila Prabhupada is DIRECTLY in touch with Lord Chaitanya and his guidance is perfect.

Likewise are his wonderful purports fully qualified to guide us.

As are his specific directions and orders.

This all serves to align the entire planet with the will of the Lord.

In the 2nd Canto Srila Prabhupada states that ONLY in the human form of life can we align our actions with the "Mission of the Universe". Devotional service - under the guidance of Guru and Krsna is the means to properly use our God given energy.

The book Prominent Link is an attempt to acknowlege what is reality in this respect. However - even the Title is misrepresentative of the reality. Srila Prabhupad is NOT a "PROMINENT" link in our Parampara. He explained that he is the "CURRENT LINK" and will remain so to all those who confidently approach the Lord and His servants and service - by means of Srila Prabhupada's books - for the next 10,000 years.

This is the actual position of Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your comments Prabhu. Very much appreciated.

Posted by Alex @ 11/19/2005 07:47 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Yes, I agree with you that we have Srila Prabhupada's words to guide us and to help us to resolve disputes...and it seems to me that PL is in line with, and is guided by, Srila Prabhupada's words.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/19/2005 05:31 PM PST

Praghosa you misunderstood what was written down. The question was "Why do we need the PL? Why should the PL be used as an authoritave source on resolving disputes when we have the words of Srila Prabhupada, the previous acaryas and sastra for that purpose?"

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/19/2005 06:56 AM PST

Hello Shiva das

You have stated "If Dhira Govinda is not a liberated soul directly communicating with Krishna, why should we use the PL instead of using sources from people who are directly communicating with Krishna?"

It appears to me after reading DG's explanations - that he clearly does recognize that Srila Prabhupada was indeed directly in touch with Lord Krsna. He also confirmed this in a darshan in his quarters here in NY in 1976 wherein he explained exactly how he managed ISKCON. He said "I ask Krsna - and he tells me".

Not one of our Godbrothers makes this claim. None. They all honestly admit that they are simply trying their best to fulfill SP's wish that this Krsna Consciousness be shared with every man and woman on the planet.

That is our mandate. Srila Prabhupada once said Just like I am placing the wood here on the fire and you are handing me the kindling. Like that. You are assisting me in all my efforts to please Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and in this way push forward this samkirtan mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Acting upon all of Srila Prabhupada's simple instructions found in his books IS NON-DIFFERENT from taking DIRECT DICTATION FROM KRSNA.

In BG 18:57 in the purport Srila Prabhupada confirms this very point. Read that carefully. It will help us all to understand how simple and sublime this KC is. It is not difficult at all. It has been made "Super Easy" so that everyone in Kali Yuga can progress back home to Godhead - despite what appear to be insurmountable barriers.

If someone takes this directly from Srila Prabhupada through his books and his simple mission, they are fully secured. If someone views their Krsna Consciousness as inseparable from the influence of one or many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples - that is perfectly correct and acceptable as well. Coercion in this matter will not alter reality.

For some men - the contribution of the "initiating guru" will be almost nil. For others it can or is part and parcel to their happiness and progress in Krsna Consciousness.

No one should be forced to imagine this "relationship" is anything more than it indeed actually is. This is going to vary for every individual and this cannot be avoided.

The important thing is - whatever serves the ultimate purpose of providing every man and woman on the planet the opportunity to chant the Holy Name and support that chanting with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada - WHICH ARE THE DIRECT DICTATION OF LORD KRSNA - should be fully accepted.

Sri Krsna Samkirtan Ki Jaya

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/12/2005 09:08 PM PST

Dear Shiva prabhu,

You say:
"If you don't want to accept anybody else as being a self realized liberated bona fide spiritual master capable of being a direct link to Krishna that's fine with me."

Me:
Where did I say that prabhu?? Neither does the PL. Maybe you should have taken you more than 2 hours to read the book. No where in the PL book does it say that there can be no other self-realize spiritual masters capable of being a direct link to Krishna.
In fact it says the opposite of what you are claiming it says. The book says that anyone who gives you knowledge of Krishna is liking you directly to Krishna.

You said:
And all along I thought the role of the person giving initiation was to instruct his disciples passing to them the untainted message coming down through the parampara. I've never read anywhere from guru, sastra or sadhu that the diksa guru is supposed to "help people have firm faith" in any particular acarya over any other.

Again, prabhu, you don't seem to understand the PL. The PL does not say that. In fact it says that anyone who gives you knowledge of Krishna is considered your guru. It also says that there are different kinds of gurus. But the main guru in any Sampradaya, including our own is the Sampradaya Acharya. For us this person is Srila Prabhupada. He is the one that taught everyone of us about Krishna. Unlike other Sampradayas, all our knowledge comes from one person and that person is Srila Prabhupada. He is the one that introduced us to all of this. Before that we were all meat eaters. Therefore the initing guru should help us get closer to Krishna, of course, that goes without saying. But also one of his main jobs should be help us get closer the the man who taught them everything. Without him they didn't know Krishna. That is not so unreasonable to ask. Why be so argumentive about it.
Prabhu, I think you should read the PL again.

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 07:54 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Would you be willing to look at the following references? I think they are helpful for looking at the issue with a sober mind and intelligence:

"Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness" (CC Madhya 9:63 Purport).

"From 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. . . . And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja. Then officially I was initiated in 1933 . . ." (Lecture in Hyderabad, Dec. 10, 1970).

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji." (CC Adi, Page 1).

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity." (CC Madhya 15.108 Purport)

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."
(CC Madhya-lila, 4.111 Purport)

"Although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master." (Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, January 13, 1969)

"This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This is called diksa. The Sanskrit term is called diksa. Diksa means... Di, divya-jnanam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa. Iksa means darsana, to see, or ksapayati, explain. That is called diksa." (Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, July 29, 1968)

Srila Prabhupada: "Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the movement." (Conversation, November 2, 1977, Vrndavana)

"I shall never die, I shall live forever in my books" (Science of Self-Realization, Foreword)

"What is possible in one country may not be possible in another...A Vaisnava is immediately purified, provided he follows the rules and regulations of his bona fide spiritual master. It is not necessary that the rules and regulations in India be exactly the same as in Europe, America, and other Western countries. ...We should not follow regulative principles without an effect, nor should we fail to accept the regulative principles. What is required is a special technique according to country, time, and candidate." (CC Madhya 23.105, Purport)

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/23/105/en

In my experience, Srila Prabhupada is giving the most divya-jnana to the members of his movement.

It seems clear to me that the western world has learned about Krsna primarily through Srila Prabhupada and his teachings. The members of Srila Prabhupada's movement have learned about Krsna primarily through Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.

It seems clear to me that whatever divya-jnana the members of Srila Prabhupada may have received, it primarily comes from Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 06:33 PM PST

Alex you wrote:

To me, the PL model puts into words, and helps to make sense of, an experience that apparently many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement are having.

As opposed to the words of sastra and the previous or current acaryas who do not do as good a job as the PL?

It also seems to me, that ideas in PL could potentially serve as a platform for conflict resolution between certain factions in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Rather then the whole guru, sadhu, sastra thing?

If Dhira Govinda is not a liberated soul directly communicating with Krishna, why should we use the PL instead of using sources from people who are directly communicating with Krishna?

Why should I listen to Dhira Govinda when I can listen to Maha Bhagavat's opinions for "conflict resolution"?

Why is Dhira Govinda demanding that his point of view should be respected as the "preferred model" for how Iskcon teaches tattva about diksa, siksa, parampara, etc, like here from the PL:

We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate.

If he wasn't so serious I'd think he was being ironically funny. Instead he simultaneously tells us that only Srila Prabhupadas words are of any value for us...oh but with one exception, his own words as well are needed and should be accepted as the "preferred" version of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

If it wasn't so funny it would be boring.

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 02:22 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You asked:

"Why do we need the PL?"

To me, the PL model puts into words, and helps to make sense of, an experience that apparently many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement are having.

It also seems to me, that ideas in PL could potentially serve as a platform for conflict resolution between certain factions in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 01:49 PM PST

miriam you wrote:

Why makes things so complicated, Shiva prabhu.

Why ask me? Why not ask Dhira Govinda and alex?

The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is quite simple.

Yes it is simple. We agree on that point.

All it says, is that Srila Prabhupa is the guru in which we could have full surrender.

If that is all it says then why does it take 160 pages to say what took you 12 words to say?

Don't we all agree on that?

I do.

Whether we take initiation or not, this still holds true, no matter what guru performs the initiation ceremony. Srila Prabhupa is our primary spiritual perceptor.

Thats more then 12 words. It seems that the PL is not as simple as you said before. If you don't want to accept anybody else as being a self realized liberated bona fide spiritual master capable of being a direct link to Krishna that's fine with me.

It is the job of the guru who gives us initiation to help us have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada. How can this be a new philosophy or changing the Sastras?

And all along I thought the role of the person giving initiation was to instruct his disciples passing to them the untainted message coming down through the parampara. I've never read anywhere from guru, sastra or sadhu that the diksa guru is supposed to "help people have firm faith" in any particular acarya over any other. Maybe you could point in mein the right direction? From my reading I've come to believe that the purpose of the Gaudiya sampradaya is to deliver the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If you want to be exclusive in your acceptance and promotion of a particular acarya past or present as being someone to have faith in, I have no complaint. But why do we need the PL to tell us what we already know?

Alex, maybe for your next post you could try and respond to what I asked of you in my last post. Or better yet just answer one of them:

Why do we need the PL?

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 09:09 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your post. You wrote:

"As far as I know Srila Prabhupada didn't tell his disciples to see themselves as diksa disciples of Bhaltisiddhata, Bhaktisiddhanta didn't tell his disciples to see Bhaktivinoda as their diksa guru and on back through time the previous acaryas have not done like that."

PL touches on this issue:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Q: Srila Prabhupada is not physically present and the PL model claims that he can be the direct link to the parampara. Would it be acceptable, then, if a devotee accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura as the direct link to the parampara?

A: In the verse yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah, Sri Krsna specifies a two-center system, with the Lord as one center and the spiritual master as the other center. The spiritual master center must be the current link to the parampara. We maintain that Srila Prabhupada is the current link and suggest that he can remain in that role for the duration of his movement. As described at the end of the Scenarios section, Srila Prabhupada’s followers know Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and the other personalities who constitute the parampara primarily through Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s followers, however, notwithstanding when they joined his movement, are expected and encouraged to develop a primarily direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada. This direct relationship is naturally enhanced by the guidance and realizations provided by Srila Prabhupada’s followers.

All members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement do have direct relationships with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and other transcendental personalities. These relationships, however, are not primarily direct, but are primarily through Srila Prabhupada.

“Direct, current, and primary link to the parampara" is defined as the Vaisnava through whom Sri Krsna is giving the most direct transcendental knowledge. For many devotees, regardless of who performed the initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada fulfills the definition of direct, current and primary link. It is important for the institution to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is playing this role, and will continue to play it for many, perhaps even most, members of his movement, for the lifetime of his movement.

What if someone claims "By the definition given above, the direct link for me is Srila Rupa Gosvami [or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura]"? The view of the PL model is that if someone did originally connect with the sankirtana movement through the books of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Gosvami, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Goswami would arrange to connect that person to Srila Prabhupada, because Srila Prabhupada is the current link for the present time. Still, we are open to hear and observe the experiences of others, and adjust our perspective accordingly. If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.

Srila Prabhupada’s organization is for those who are directly connected with the parampara through Srila Prabhupada. Someone may be primarily linked to the parampara through someone else, and that is appreciated. However, that linkage is not necessarily part of Srila Prabhupada’s institution. For example, if someone is in the line of the Sri-sampradaya, Srila Prabhupada’s followers honor that, while recognizing that it’s not in Srila Prabhupada’s line."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the issue of using/quoting translations of the works of previous acaryas, I appreciate points brought up in Rocana Prabhu's article 'On Re-Initiation'.

Some years ago, I met what seemed to me to be a brilliant young Sanskrit scholar, when I spent some time living in an ISKCON temple.

The nature of the Sanskrit language being such as it is, he could easily translate a verse in many, many different ways.

He could also translate portions of Sanskrit commentaries by the acaryas in a number of ways.

Many of the different English versions of the same text seemed plausible and in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings, even though they were saying different things...in some cases very different things.

I also have a memory of him occasionally jokingly translating portions of text to me and others in ways that were obviously against siddhanta, but consistent with grammar, etc...perhaps in order to make a point in a humorous way.

I remember a friend of mine describing to me a conversation that he had had with this same scholar-devotee. From what I remember of the story, this scholar devotee was joking around with my friend, and at a certain point he became a bit grave, and seemed to 'go inside' a little bit and quiet down. He seemed to acknowledge, and exhibit a bit of concern about the fact that, if he really wanted to, he could justify a lot of things that are not okay using tweaked translations of Baladeva Vidyabhusana and others.

In my experience this devotee was truly a wiz. It was amazing to watch him in action. I remember a instance where he sort of went head-to-head with Hrdayananda Maharaja over a what seemed to be a small point (which IMO could nonetheless be potentially misused to justify unethical actions), during the question and answer period after Srimad Bhagavatam class. To my surprise, even Hrdayananda Maharaja seemed to concede to the devotee's point. I was hoping that Maharaja would have at least added a caveat.

From what I could see, this devotee was genuinely brilliant, and he had many, many Upanisadic verses and statements of the acaryas memorized. He could recall them easily.

He had an undergrad in Religious Studies and was going on the study Sanskrit in graduate school. He seemed to me to be extremely learned, and would read the commentaries of the acaryas in the original Sanskrit...and spent many hours in this way.

He could make a very convincing case as to which portions of Srila Prabhupada's commentary came from which other acarya's commentary. He could almost break down a commentary and show practically word for word how it came from this or that Sanskrit commentary.

My understanding, is that nonetheless translating sastra is more than a mechanical endeavour. The Sanskrit language, by it's very nature, can be translated in many ways. Some of these might be in line with siddhanta and some not necessarily so.

I think that translating Gaudiya texts can potentially be a very delicate thing. It makes sense to me that Srila Prabhupada gave us clear English purports where he re-visits certain points again and again.

I remember hearing a story where Srila Prabhupada was less concerned with how exactly some of the verse of the Bhagavad Gita were translated, he was more concerned with the purports that explain those verses. I also remember a story where Srila Prabhupada more or less says that many of Dr. Radhakrishnan's translations of the Bhagavad Gita verses are okay, but that it's the purports that are important.

From what I recall, before Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is was completed, he at times gave lectures using some of Dr. Radhakrishnan's verse translations...but with his own purports rather than those of Dr. Radhakrishnan.

My understanding is that in general the process is to understand the English translation of the teachings of previous acaryas through the lens of Srila Prabhupada's teaching, rather than the other way around.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/12/2005 08:45 AM PST

Why makes things so complicated, Shiva prabhu. The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is quite simple. All it says, is that Srila Prabhupa is the guru in which we could have full surrender. Don't we all agree on that? Whether we take initiation or not, this still holds true, no matter what guru performs the initiation ceremony. Srila Prabhupa is our primary spiritual perceptor. It is the job of the guru who gives us initiation to help us have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada.
How can this be a new philosophy or changing the Sastras?

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 07:05 AM PST

As usual you neglect to directly comment on what I wrote and then go off on a tangent. I think that the entire thesis of the PL is a giagantic exercise in egotism. Gaudiya vaisnavism already has a well defined teaching and tradition on what Dhira Govinda is trying to re-write or "clarify" for those of us who are to stupid to understand what has been presented by Maha Bhagavats.

I have a question.

Do you think that the current amount of Gaudiya sastras and commentaries on the process of initiation and the disciplic succession etc is lacking in some way so as to make Dhira Govinda's thesis necessary?

It just seems to me that the process is already well defined and available for anyone to read. I think that anyone who is not speaking directly to Krishna should be humble enough to know their position vis-a-vis their qualification to create a new doctrine. Of course you can say that it isn't a new doctrine (I disagree) in that case then we have to wonder why we need the PL at all?

Again...to me you guys just come off as egotistic and delusional as per your actual qualifications to do what you are attempting to do.

I can tell you that you are getting nowhere fast. Iskcon will not accept what you are writing as some kind of doctrine that needs to be implemented. You may get a few people to praise you but that is all. What is Dhira Govinda's current status in Iskcon? How did he arrive there? Why do you think that it will get any better by continuing on down the same road that got him where he is today? I'm not trying to be mean or petty, I'm actually saying these things for your benefit. Humility is first understanding your own position in the whole scheme of things. Until you are directly speaking to Krishna you would be better off working towards that direction rather then wasting your time in futile pursuits in the hope of gaining respect from Iskcon. Dhira Govinda has absolutely nothing to say that is enlightening in the PL to people that are educated in Gaudiya siddhanta and he also includes many misconceptions about what the Gaudiya Sampradaya is all about. Besides the many msiconceptions he has it seems that the sole complaint he has is that Iskcon doesn't allow people to see themselves as diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. As far as I know Srila Prabhupada didn't tell his disciples to see themselves as diksa disciples of Bhaltisiddhata, Bhaktisiddhanta didn't tell his disciples to see Bhaktivinoda as their diksa guru and on back through time the previous acaryas have not done like that.

Why is it that Dhira Govinda feels he is empowered to change that tradition?

Dhira Govinda conflates the meanings and positions of diksa and siska gurus. He attempts to re-write what those words and ideas mean or at the least to interpret them in ways that are new. It should be the position of people who are not talking directly to Krishna that they take a humble stance and not think of their ideas as worthy enough to create new doctrine. If you guys think he is not presenting anythng new then what is the deal with the PL? If you simply feel that Iskcon is deviating from the proper teachings then all you have to do is cite guru, sadhu, and sastra. There is no need to get into long personal interpretations if you think Iskcon is deviating. You may disagree. Others may agree. Nevertheless I can only advise you guys and gals to move on to other things. Why be obsessed with an impossible dream?

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 06:02 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

When someone first contacts the ISKCON organization, they do not generally, in my experience, participate right away in an initiation ceremony. In my experience, the generally accepted protocol is to encourage the person to 'take shelter' of Srila Prabhupada and establish a relationship with him. My understanding is that in this relationship, Srila Prabhupada is giving divya-jnana. In an essential sense, he is opening the devotee's eyes...he is initiating the devotee (in the essential sense of the term).

My understanding is that in the ISKCON organization, at least in principle, a person is not automatically considered ready for initiation. Usually they are supposed to study Srila Prabhupada's teachings and practice them for some time.

My understanding is that during this time Srila Prabhupada is (among other things) preparing the devotee to become qualifed to participate in an initiation ceremony. My understanding is that he is preparing the devotee for this by giving divya-jnana to the devotee.

My understanding it that in giving divya-jnana, Srila Prabhupada is initiating (in the essential sense of the term) the devotee into Krsna Consciousness.

My understanding is that once the devotee has been thus initiated by Srila Prabhupada, the devotee may be ready and willing to participate in an initiation ceremony. My understanding is that when the devotee is ready to participate in this ceremony, he or she is really (ideally) formalizing a connection which has already taken place in the essential sense.

Since the devotee is meant to be cultivating a relationship with Srila Prabhupada for at least some of the time leading up to the initiation ceremony...my understanding is that the it makes sense for the initiation ceremony to be a formal acknowledgement of that relationship.

A quote from PL:

"When someone first contacts ISKCON, at least in most parts of the organization, for a few months he is encouraged to directly accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru. We suggest that once someone has done this, as evidenced by accepting Srila Prabhupada in his heart as his spiritual master and following Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, the newcomer does not need to search for another Vaisnava to connect him with Srila Prabhupada. The newcomer is already directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, who is his current link to the parampara. Of course, many Vaisnavas have inspired the devotee, and will continue to do so. These Vaisnavas are also serving as his guru because they are helping him to understand Krsna consciousness and Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, and to apply those instructions to his life. Still, by virtue of being the main giver of direct divya-jnana, Srila Prabhupada is the devotee’s prominent link to the disciplic succession."

I'd also like, for a moment, to get back to the 'parampara list' that appears in the introduction to Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is. There is a longer excerpt from PL related to it that I would like to share at his time:

"Q: I understand that Srila Prabhupada is the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. And the giving of transcendental knowledge is the most important part of the initiation process. I also understand that the giving of transcendental knowledge is the essence of disciplic succession. Where I start getting confused is the part where you make the connection between Srila Prabhupada being the main giver of transcendental knowledge and being the direct link to the parampara. Does one necessarily lead to the other?

A: Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who is the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. If someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent, direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro.

I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the preceding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determinant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members of his movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above.

You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the terminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current", if not the Vaisnavas listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list- namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

The Prominent Link asserts that the criteria for being on the list is to be the Vaisnava who primarily delivers direct transcendental knowledge to the initiate. A further assertion is that the members of the list, who meet this criteria, can naturally be termed the direct and current links to the parampara. For many members of his movement, including those for whom he did not perform a formal initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, and therefore it is right and natural to refer to him as the prominent and direct link to the parampara for those devotees. If there is an argument that being the prime deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge does not lead to being the direct link to the parampara, then I'm interested to hear that argument. What is the rationale of that argument? Even if some rationale can be conceived, what is the basis on which the argument that "the giver of direct transcendental knowledge is the direct link to the parampara" can be refuted, such that the idea is not even given legitimacy (perhaps alongside other conceptualizations) in Srila Prabhupada's organization? "

On a related note, whose teachings, if not Srila Prabhupada's, form the basis of Srila Prabhupada's movement?

I'd like to end with a PL quote:

"It's really not a matter of wanting or not wanting Srila Prabhupada to be the direct link. The Prominent Link primarily describes an experience that many devotees are having in relationship to Srila Prabhupada. The fact that that experience can exist is supported by sastra and logic, but apart from any arguments or wants or desires, the experience is a reality. This is one reason why the ideas in The Prominent Link are so difficult to refute, or even to attempt to refute- because the essay primarily describes an experience, and that is difficult to counter."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 01:22 AM PST

Oh Alex, when will you do some thinking on your own. Why do I have to do it for you?

Even if a devotee claims "For me the direct link to the disciplic succession is my initiating spiritual master, and that is not Srila Prabhupada", that's fine. We don't object.

Doesn't that statement contradict these from the PL:

In other words, in PL Srila Prabhupada is presented as the guru wihout whose mercy we cannot advance in Krsna consciousness.

The formal initiation ceremony is an official acknowledgement that the devotee has established a direct link with Srila Prabhupada. The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn’t be participating in the initiation ceremony.

Srila Prabhupada is transmitting transcendental knowledge, and we are confident that he will continue to do so for many generations. In this essential sense, Srila Prabhupada is initiating sincere followers. In fact, we propose that accepting divya-jnana, or initiation, from Srila Prabhupada, and thereby directly connecting with him, is the qualification for one to become formally initiated in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

Also, we suggest that all who contact his movement should arrive at the point where they do experience Srila Prabhupada as the primary giver of direct divya-jnana in their spiritual lives. If someone has not come to this point then, we propose, he is not ready to be formally initiated.

Posted by Alex @ 11/11/2005 06:51 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

The PL position is also given in these statements from the 'Letters of Clarification and Explanation' section of the book:

"There might be someone, or many Vaisnavas, currently in the movement, who are at the topmost platform of purity and devotional service. This isn't the issue in question. The paper is not an argument of negativity. That is, the paper does not assert that there are no pure devotees in the movement and therefore Srila Prabhupada must be the direct link. The paper is asserting that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be the direct link and he is performing that role quite nicely. There is no need for someone else to do it. Even if a devotee claims "For me the direct link to the disciplic succession is my initiating spiritual master, and that is not Srila Prabhupada", that's fine. We don't object. But we say that if someone experiences Srila Prabhupada as the direct link, what is your objection to that? Why should that understanding not be permitted? We are stating that Srila Prabhupada is fully qualified to be the direct link for the duration of his movement. If someone has a different understanding of who is the direct link for them, that's okay, but what is the sastric or philosophical argument that refutes the understanding that Srila Prabhupada can be the direct link? If there is no such rational argument, then let us accept it as a legitimate perspective."

(...)

"I'm saying that Srila Prabhupada will continue to be available to serve in this role as prominent link for the duration of his movement. We also acknowledge that some may not experience him in this capacity- they may experience one of Srila Prabhupada's followers in this capacity. That's okay. We accept that experience as legitimate. But in the next breath we express our opinion that the preferred model is for all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement to be connected directly and primarily with Srila Prabhupada. Ideally, in my opinion, no one should take Srila Prabhupada's place as serving as the primary link, even if there are Vaisnavas who may, theoretically, be as spiritually advanced as Srila Prabhupada. But we concede that others may give, to some members of the movement, more direct divya-jnana than Srila Prabhupada. Still, the experience of those who experience Srila Prabhupada in this capacity should be honored. Srila Prabhupada should never be excluded as a potential direct link for members of his movement at any time during his movement."

I understand the PL position more or less as follows:

PL presents a perspective on an issue. It also presents an opinion about the perceived value of this perspective. PL acknowledges that there may be other valid perspectives. While valuing its own perspective, PL also acknowledges and honours the experiences of Vaisnavas with a different perspective on the issue. PL proposes a way in which the different perspectives might coexist in spite of the extant differences of opinion about the value of the different perspectives.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 04:54 PM PST

Alex those 2 paragraphs stand in contradiction to other statements in the PL, which I have already pointed out. It's like writing a set of rules for a game and one of the rules is "no food allowed during the game", and then in another place a rule says "we are not against food being eaten in the game".

Don't ask me to point out the contradictions inherent in your last post, I have already commented on them, so go back and read what I wrote.

Posted by Alex @ 11/11/2005 01:48 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Among other things, you wrote:

"As I have stated repeatedly the main objection I have to the PL is the idea of minimizing other vaisnavas in the name of promoting Srila Prabhupada."

PL is not about minimizing other Vaisnavas.

I would like to share two excerpts from my favourite section of PL:

"We each can determine who is (are) the most important Vaisnava(s) in our spiritual lives. For some, Srila Prabhupada is the primary direct influence in their spiritual life. This should be respected and it doesn't mean that they are minimizing any devotee."

(...)

"If there were 1,000 mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement performing initiation ceremonies, the principles of The Prominent Link still stand. They are not dependent on the advancement or lack of it of any of the members of Srila Prabhupada's movement. Let's say that those 1,000 mahabhagavatas had thousands of disciples who experience them as the primary deliverers of transcendental knowledge, and thus the direct links to the parampara. Let's say there are a few others, or millions of others, who experience Srila Prabhupada in that capacity. I think that the reality for those few or millions ought to be legitimized in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Further, apart from the accommodation described in the above paragraph, the mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement might act to connect the members of his movement directly with Srila Prabhupada. That is, the pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement may naturally opt to establish Srila Prabhupada as the direct link for all members of his movement. But even if not, then Srila Prabhupada should still be recognized as serving in this role for those who genuinely experience him in that relationship."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 05:39 AM PST

There are no quotes on record where Srila Prabhupada said his books will be the lawbooks for 10,000 years. There are a handful of quotes where he says the Krishna consciousness movement will go on for 10,000 years.

S.P. Room Conversation, July 22, 1973, London

Prahupada:Rather, this movement, as I have now began with my disciples, European, American boys, they're... They are not very satisfied, the present politicians. They are not very satisfied. They don't want. Everywhere this, more or less the same mentality, but it is our duty on behalf of Krsna to push on this movement. So we are doing, and we are getting response. It is not without response. It will increase. That is also stated, that for ten thousand years Krsna consciousness movement will increase. Yes.

Syamasundara: Ten thousand years.

Prabhupada: Within ten thousand years, if they become Krsna conscious, then life is successful. After ten thousand years, the gloomy picture of Kali-yuga will come. Still there is time. Ten thousand years is not small period. So we have passed five thousand years. So still ten thousand. We have got to the fifteen thousand years. Kali-yuga's duration of life is four hundred thousand, four hundred and twenty-seven thousand.

S.P. Morning Walk, June 5, 1976, Los Angeles

Ramesvara: Srila Prabhupada, when I first came to this, to your movement, the first thing I was told is that Lord Caitanya's movement in this age will, like a moon, rise for ten thousand years. I was told that number, ten thousand years. Is that true?

Prabhupada: Hm.

Ramesvara: And then after that, they will...

Prabhupada: This movement will go for ten thousand years without any impediment.

Ramesvara: So that means increasing, because it's the nature of the spiritual energy.

Prabhupada: It increases; you should take this opportunity. You work sincerely; it will increase, it will increase.

Ramesvara: Ten thousand years, there is a good opportunity to...

Prabhupada: Many fallen souls will be delivered back to home, back to Godhead.

S.P. Conversation in Airport and Car June 21, 1976, Toronto

Prabhupada:But you cannot expect that cent percent people will come; that is not possible. But even, even one-fourth percent people come to this, then it will be successful. Compared to the American population, what percentage we have got? Still they have made some impression, the Hare Krsna movement. Literatures are selling, they are appreciating, learned circle. Takes some time, but if we stick to our principles and do not make any compromise and push on--in this way, I have given you instruction, it will never stop; it will go on. It will never stop. At least for ten thousand years it will go on.

S.P. Morning Walk, June 11, 1976, Los Angeles

Ramesvara: Srila Prabhupada, you said yesterday, or a few days ago, that this movement will go on unimpeded for ten thousand years, so...

Prabhupada: Yes, provided we keep it uncontaminated. You should take this opportunity.

Ramesvara: So after ten years we have gotten so many devotees and so many houses, so I can't imagine how big this movement will be after ten thousand years.

Prabhupada: Yes. You'll get the government.

As I have stated repeatedly the main objection I have to the PL is the idea of minimizing other vaisnavas in the name of promoting Srila Prabhupada. The PL states repeatedly that other vaisnavas "Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement" should not be seen as direct links to Sri Krishna and the parampara. And that without accepting Srila Prabhupada as their main source of divya jnana that people shouldn't be initiated in Iskcon. Both of these concepts have no justification from guru, sadhu, nor sastra. You can join the Madhva sampradaya or the Sri Sampradaya if you like, but in the Gaudiya sampradaya that mentality is written of as being offensive.

In the Gaudiya sampradaya a self realized liberated soul in full knowledge of Krishna consciousness is considered to be an incarnation of Sri Krishna. But what you propose is that those vaisnavas who are on that level are something else and that only Srila Prabhupada for the rest of time should be seen in that way.

That is an offense. You can juggle words and be selective in what you choose to listen to or cite, but make no mistake about what Srila Prabhupada teaches.

Adi 1.44

yadyapi amara guru -- caitanyera dasatathapi janiye ami tanhara prakasa

Although I know that my spiritual master is a servitor of Sri Caitanya, I know Him also as a plenary manifestation of the Lord.

PURPORT

Every living entity is essentially a servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the spiritual master is also His servant. Still, the spiritual master is a direct manifestation of the Lord. With this conviction, a disciple can advance in Krsna consciousness. The spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna because he is a manifestation of Krsna.

Lord Nityananda, who is Balarama Himself, the first direct manifestation or expansion of Krsna, is the original spiritual master. He helps Lord Krsna in His pastimes, and He is a servant of the Lord.

Every living entity is eternally a servant of Sri Krsna Caitanya; therefore the spiritual master cannot be other than a servant of Lord Caitanya. The spiritual master's eternal occupation is to expand the service of the Lord by training disciples in a service attitude. A spiritual master never poses as the Supreme Lord Himself; he is considered a representative of the Lord. The revealed scriptures prohibit one's pretending to be God, but a bona fide spiritual master is a most faithful and confidential servant of the Lord and therefore deserves as much respect as Krsna.

Adi 1.45

guru krsna-rupa hana sastrera pramaneguru-rupe krsna krpa karena bhakta-gane

According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna. Lord Krsna in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees.

PURPORT

The relationship of a disciple with his spiritual master is as good as his relationship with the Supreme Lord. A spiritual master always represents himself as the humblest servitor of the Personality of Godhead, but the disciple must look upon him as the manifested representation of Godhead.

Adi 1.47

siksa-guruke ta' jani krsnera svarupaantaryami, bhakta-srestha, -- ei dui rupa

One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.

PURPORT

...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.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.58

The Ganges water is celebrated as being able to eradicate all kinds of sinful reactions. In other words, when a person takes his bath in the Ganges, he becomes freed from all life's contaminations. The Ganges water is celebrated in this way because it emanates from the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Similarly, those who are directly in touch with the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and who are absorbed in the chanting of His glories are freed from all material contamination. Such unalloyed devotees are able to show mercy to the common conditioned soul. Srila Vrndavana dasa Thakura has sung that the devotees of Lord Caitanya are so powerful that each one of them can deliver a universe. In other words, it is the business of devotees to preach the glories of the Lord and deliver all conditioned souls to the platform of suddha-sattva, pure goodness.

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 05:01 AM PST

750513mw.per Conversations

Paramahamsa: Srila Prabhupada, I remember once I heard a tape where you told us that we should not try to read the books of previous acaryas.

Prabhupada: Hmm?

Amogha: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinoda's books or earlier books of other, all acaryas. So I was just wondering...

Prabhupada: I never said that.

Amogha: You didn't say that? Oh.

Prabhupada: How is that?

Amogha: I thought you said that we should not read the previous acaryas' books.

Prabhupada: No, you should read.

Amogha: We should.

Prabhupada: It is misunderstanding.

Paramahamsa: I think maybe he was thinking that there was some things about some of the Gaudiya Matha books.

Prabhupada: Maybe.

Paramahamsa: And sometimes you said that better not to..., better to read your books.

Amogha: When the devotees went to India this year, they said that Acyutananda Swami very..., chastised them that "You should never... If I catch any of you buying Bhaktisiddhanta's books from Gaudiya Matha then I will take it away," something like this.

Paramahamsa: Yeah, that was, the reason was because of, he didn't want the devotees going to Gaudiya Matha. But there's nothing wrong with the idea of studying the previous acaryas' books.

Prabhupada: No. Who said? That is wrong. We are following previous acaryas. I never said that.

Paramahamsa: All of your commentaries are coming from the previous acaryas.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Jayadharma: But that wouldn't mean that we should keep all the previous acaryas' books and only read them.

Prabhupada: That is already there. You first of all assimilate what you have got. You simply pile up books and do not read--what is the use?

Jayadharma: First of all we must read all your books.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 02:03 AM PST

Alex you wrote:

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's Brahma Samhita commentary is the only one of his writings which is difficult to understand. The rest are not so deeply esoteric. So your memory of some quote about Srila Prabhupada not wanting people to here from his guru seems contradictory. So unless you can produce verification we have to reject it because not only did Srila Prabhupada publish the Brahma Samhita but also in the intro to the Srimad Bhagavatam (as already pointed out) Srila Prabhupada mentions numerous previous acaryas including his own guru whose books he mentions should be translated and distributed to the whole world.

As far as the story of Srila Prabhupada saying his books will be the "lawbooks for the next 10,000 years" there is actually no record of him ever saying that. According to various disciples of his that I have heard from that quote came from one of Prabhupadas disciples, but no has ever been able to verify that Srila Prabhupada said that. Since Srila Prabhupada's books are not lawbooks it seems unlikely that he did say that.

As far as the Madhva tradition they have come out in support of the ritviks to the ritvik proponents, I assume it's because their tradition follows a similar idea. I don't take them or ritvikism as authoritative. Clearly all of the stuff you believe is ritvikism with the caveat that people can be initiated by other people then Srila Prabhupada but that they would still be disciples of Srila Prabhupada first and foremost.

All of the other points you go through we have already gone through and I have already given my reasons for objecting to them. Instead of responding directly to my reasons for not accepting your positions you simply repeat your positions over and over in what I estimate you think is in new and inventive ways. Well, it isn't. It's simply tautology.

You seem to think that by being superficially polite that what you are repeating over and over will somehow have the effect of transforming my disagreement with you and your opinions without actually responding to my specific objections.

There is an old Grateful Dead song that comes to mind after reading your post. I hope no one minds if I quote the lyrcis.

Please don't dominate the rap Jack

if you got nothing new to say

If you please don't back up the track

This train got to run today



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Heard some say better run away

Others say you better stand still



Now I don't know but I been told

it's hard to run with the weight of gold

Other hand I heard it said

it's just as hard with the weight of lead



Who can deny? Who can deny?

it's not just a change in style

One step done and another begun

in I wonder how many miles?



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Things went down we don't understand

but I think in time we will



Now I don't know but I been told

in the heat of the sun a man died of cold

Do we keep on coming or stand and wait

with the sun so dark and the hour so late?



You can't overlook the lack Jack

of any other highway to ride

It's got no signs or dividing lines

and very few rules to guide



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

I saw things getting out of hand

I guess they always will



I don't know but I been told

if the horse don't pull you got to carry the load

I don't know whose back's that strong

Maybe find out before too long



One way or another

One way or another

One way or another

this darkness got to give

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 02:03 AM PST

Alex you wrote:

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's Brahma Samhita commentary is the only one of his writings which is difficult to understand. The rest are not so deeply esoteric. So your memory of some quote about Srila Prabhupada not wanting people to here from his guru seems contradictory. So unless you can produce verification we have to reject it because not only did Srila Prabhupada publish the Brahma Samhita but also in the intro to the Srimad Bhagavatam (as already pointed out) Srila Prabhupada mentions numerous previous acaryas including his own guru whose books he mentions should be translated and distributed to the whole world.

As far as the story of Srila Prabhupada saying his books will be the "lawbooks for the next 10,000 years" there is actually no record of him ever saying that. According to various disciples of his that I have heard from that quote came from one of Prabhupadas disciples, but no has ever been able to verify that Srila Prabhupada said that. Since Srila Prabhupada's books are not lawbooks it seems unlikely that he did say that.

As far as the Madhva tradition they have come out in support of the ritviks to the ritvik proponents, I assume it's because their tradition follows a similar idea. I don't take them or ritvikism as authoritative. Clearly all of the stuff you believe is ritvikism with the caveat that people can be initiated by other people then Srila Prabhupada but that they would still be disciples of Srila Prabhupada first and foremost.

All of the other points you go through we have already gone through and I have already given my reasons for objecting to them. Instead of responding directly to my reasons for not accepting your positions you simply repeat your positions over and over in what I estimate you think is in new and inventive ways. Well, it isn't. It's simply tautology.

You seem to think that by being superficially polite that what you are repeating over and over will somehow have the effect of transforming my disagreement with you and your opinions without actually responding to my specific objections.

There is an old Grateful Dead song that comes to mind after reading your post. I hope no one minds if I quote the lyrcis.

Please don't dominate the rap Jack

if you got nothing new to say

If you please don't back up the track

This train got to run today



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Heard some say better run away

Others say you better stand still



Now I don't know but I been told

it's hard to run with the weight of gold

Other hand I heard it said

it's just as hard with the weight of lead



Who can deny? Who can deny?

it's not just a change in style

One step done and another begun

in I wonder how many miles?



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Things went down we don't understand

but I think in time we will



Now I don't know but I been told

in the heat of the sun a man died of cold

Do we keep on coming or stand and wait

with the sun so dark and the hour so late?



You can't overlook the lack Jack

of any other highway to ride

It's got no signs or dividing lines

and very few rules to guide



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

I saw things getting out of hand

I guess they always will



I don't know but I been told

if the horse don't pull you got to carry the load

I don't know whose back's that strong

Maybe find out before too long



One way or another

One way or another

One way or another

this darkness got to give

Posted by Alex @ 11/10/2005 10:32 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I thank you for the quotes from Srila Prabhupada. I accept that Srila Prabhupada has much to teach me if I am willing.

I am also not always clear as to how the quotes (from Srila Prabhupada) that you provide support your perspective, or how they go against what is in PL, but perhaps this is a side issue for now (or perhaps not).

Thank you also for some other things in your recent post.

Perhaps, I did not previously clearly or fully grasp what it was that you meant. And it is possible that with this post I will still not fully grasp or address what you mean.

As per my understanding of your clarification, I will focus my 'quote hunt' in relation the first part of the PL paragraph that you mention. I am still hunting for a quote. In the meantime, I wanted to share something.

The sentence from PL, which contains the statement that you have given in bold, is as follows:

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand."

My understanding of the above PL statement, is that it does not necessarily imply that devotees should be treated like cogs in an institutional machine.

My understanding is that the above PL statement also does not deny that there may be devotees who are at different levels of spiritual advancement in Srila Prabhupada's movement. It is not clear to me if you feel that PL is implying something like this.

My understanding is that the following PL quote seems to be potentially related to the concern about devotees being treated as cogs in a machine:

"The PL framework supports a wide latitude of relationships, the litmus test being whether the relationship assists the initiate to strengthen his direct link with Srila Prabhupada."

My understanding is that PL does not necessarily imply that devotees will not show proper respect to other more spiritually advanced devotees.

[Here, I am not fully clear that the above paragraph of mine accurately represents the concern that you have with PL.]

My understanding of the PL framework is that advanced devotees in Srila Prabhupada movement will be given proper respect (as they should me, IMO) and that they will be giving divya-jnana to others.

My understanding of PL is that, according to the PL model, the above would ideally be occurring in a climate where Srila Prabhupada is recognized by the members of his movement as the primary giver of divya-jnana, and therefore also as ideally the absolute point of surrender (as far as gurus go) for the members of his movement.

My understanding is that the above scenario would have some similarities with what is (or at least with what was) apparently occurring in Udupi, with at least some Madhvaites in the 1990s (and apparently for perhaps as much as 800 years before that).

My understanding is that these Madhvaites had 'bala-sannyasis' in their group, who were apparently staunch leaders of their sampradaya. My understanding is that these sannyasis acted as gurus and were given respect, and that they in turn gave divya-jnana.

My understanding is that these bala-sannyasis have/had disciples, but that their disciples also apparently identify/identified themselves mainly, primarily, directly, and foundationally--as a Madhvaites.

I don't mean to imply that because something seems to be functioning in Udupi, with at least some Madhvaites, that it is the last word in guru-tattva, or that it is necessarily the only valid model for Srila Prabhupada's movement, or that it is necessarily what Srila Prabhupada wanted for his movement.

My understanding is that there seem to be some compatibility between the sort of ideas presented in PL, and the sort of relationships that apparently seem (or seemed) to exist among at least some Madhvaites in Udupi (at least in the 1990s, and perhaps before that as well).

My understanding is that the relationships between gurus and disciples in Srila Prabhupada’s movement can be vital, intimate, and dynamic while at the same time being compatible with a model wherein the founder of the movement is recognized as the prime giver of divya-jnana (and where his followers accordingly take shelter of him in this way).

My understanding of PL is that it states that there have been various prominent links to our sampradaya during the existence of our sampradaya.

My understanding is that PL presents Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura as one of the prominent links in our sampradaya. My understanding is that PL states that members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement have a direct relationship with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but that this relationship exists for them primarily through Srila Prabhupada (the prominent link for members of his movement).

As you clearly state, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura said that one of his disciples would stand out as a self-effulgent acarya and that he would take up the role of acarya.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has (for me anyway) stood out amongst the members of what was once the Gaudiya Matha, as a self-effulgent acarya, and that Srila Prabhupada has (as I see it) taken up the role of prominent link to the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya for the members of his movement.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada did not say that one of his disciples would stand out as a self-effulgent acarya who would take up the role of acarya after Srila Prabhupada. Here I am using acarya in the sense of primary giver of divya-jnana for the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

And no, I do not mean to insinuate that you are implying that Srila Prabhupada stated that a self-effulgent acarya would emerge from amongst his followers.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhuapda remains present in his movement (at least in part via the divya-jnana that he is giving), and that all of the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement have the opportunity to push on this movement under Srila Prabhupada’s care (and also by the inspiration found in the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada).

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses the term 'acarya' when he speaks of a 'self-effulgent acarya'.

I am using the term 'prominent link'.

My meaning of the term 'prominent link' may perhaps overlap with the term 'acarya' in the way that I assume that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses it in this context.

By the above, I understand that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses the term 'acarya' in the sense of 'acarya with a capital A', or perhaps even 'Founder-Acarya'. I understand the term ‘acarya’ (in this context) as the one who is the primary source of divya-jnana for his movement.

I use the term 'prominent link' (in this context) to differentiate the role that I am referring to from other possible definitions of the term 'acarya'.

For example, as I understand it, 'acarya' can also refer to a spiritual teacher, a guru, or one who teaches by example (or as the saying sometimes goes, an 'acarya with a lower case a').

The PL statement which you state that you objected to (at least the one that I am currently looking at), continues as follows:

"Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society."

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has established himself as the prominent link to the parampara (for the members of his movement) through the divya-jnana that he has given. My understanding is that when Srila Prabhupada is saying that his books will be the 'law books for the next ten thousand years'. . . that he is saying that these books (within which I understand both him and divya-jnana to be present) will remain the primary source of divya-jnana for the next ten thousand years.

It seems to me, that the books and teachings that Srila Prabhupada gave to the members of his movement and to the world, are and will remain for the members of his movement, something foundational. As a side note, I think that those books are an incredible achievement.

I don't think that it is necessary for someone else in Srila Prabhupada’s movement to, for example, write another set of books (or present another set of teachings) that would take the place of Srila Prabhupada's in the role of 'law books for the next ten thousand years' for the members of his movement. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has established himself (via his books and teachings) and the primary and foundational source of dviya-jnana for (at least) the members of his movement, for perhaps as much as the next ten thousand years.

And no, I am not saying that you are necessarily implying the above.

There is a story that I find interesting and relevant to what I perceive to be Srila Prabhupada’s role as the primary giver of divya-jnana for the members of his movement.

In the version of the story that I was given (in about 1998 or so), there were some disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s who were apparently spending a lot of time and/or energy reading and reflecting on the books (and/or perhaps also the articles) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. If I correctly recall the story, these disciples of Srila Prabhuapda were also perhaps having some kind of difficulty understanding some of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s writings. If I recall correctly, these disciples perhaps also asked Srila Prabhupada some questions in connections with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s writings.

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

I don’t imagine that a member of Srila Prabhupada’s movement (acting in any sort of guru capacity) would likely choose to make a similar statement to any one of his own disciples. I assume that this would be at least in part because the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada is what the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement seem to be primarily working with (or so it seems to me).

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

My understanding is that (to me) the most effective way for the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement to read Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, is to do so via the lens of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and in a way that is informed by the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada.

I remember reading a statement attributed to Srila Prabhupada where he apparently says something like "my disciples will write purports about my purports".

It seems to me that Vaisnava books containing divya-jnana are, and will remain, the basis of Srila Prabhupada's movement (perhaps this movement will even go on for as long as the next ten thousand years).

To use some supposedly Sri Vaisnava terminology, it seems to me that Srila Prabhupada's Vasinava books and teachings may perhaps well be in an 'uddarika' category for the members of his movement, for perhaps even as long as for the next ten thousand years.

Many devotees have written, and I assume, will continue to write, Vasinava books that can be viewed as 'purports' to Srila Prabhupada's purports. My understanding is that these Vaisnava books (written by members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement) exist because of Srila Prabhupada's Vasinava books. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada (and his Vaisnava books and teachings) is the primary channel through which this divya-jnana has come down from Krsna to the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

I have found some of the Vaisnava books (and articles and lectures) written (and spoken) by Srila Prabhupada’s followers to be very helpful to me (both philosophically and practically). These aforementioned Vaisnava books (and lectures, etc.) have been a source of divya-jnana for me, though Srila Prabhupada's Vaisnava books (and teachings) remain my primary source of divya-jnana, my ultimate shelter, my ultimate authority and also that which I strive to make my point of absolute surrender (all of this, as far as Vaisnava books and teachings are concerned).

My understanding is that in seeing Srila Prabhupada as the primary source of divya-jnana for the members of his movement, I see him as not only a ‘source of Vaisnava information’, but also as a living Vaisnava presence. Again, I do not necessarily mean to imply that you would not agree with the previous sentence.

I am not clear if I have actually addressed what you mean. My guess is that what I wrote in this post might still not necessarily be seen by you as valid, or perhaps as relevant, to what you mean to say, but I am sharing this post anyway.

I look forward to your feedback. If I have again seemingly misunderstood you, or again seemingly misrepresented what you are stating, then hopefully your feedback will help to further 'zero me in' on what you perceive to be some of the real issues.

I will also continue to explore Srila Prabhupada's writings in search of a sastric quote that seems to me to be relevant to at least the objection that I have looked at in this post.

I thank you for your time and attention. Until next time,
Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/10/2005 12:50 AM PST

Alex it's not the terminology from my point of view which is the problem. I don't know what the phrase "pure devotee" has to do with what I wrote. I made it clear what I meant. Srila Prabhupada used the phrase "pure devotee" in different ways. Sometimes he used as meaning anyone who is surrendered in serving the guru, other times he used to describe someone who has all the good qualities of a devotee, other times he used it to describe a sincere devotee, other times he used to refer to a devotee on the highest level of Krishna consciousness.

You stated that I have a problem with this:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

And then you said that maybe if you change that to the following I won't have a "problem":

"Some pure devotees may naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Perhaps this would feel less absolutist to you. Perhaps it is the perceived absolutism that you dislike.

So again we see you being dishonest in your presentation. I already explained what I had a problem with from that statement and so there is no need to speculate. The truth is that the above quote from Dhira Govinda was only part of a longer paragraph that I had a problem with. But you chose to only take a small bit from that paragraph and then state that I disagree with that small bit without putting my objection into context of the entire paragraph nor even mentioning why I had a problem and why you think I am wrong. You simply wanted to make it appear as if I have a problem with:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I don't have a problem with that at all, but you chose to try and make it seem that I do. Your continuing dishonesty and pathetic attempts at creating straw man arguments are surreal. Here is that paragraph in full followed by what I wrote. It is obvious by my comments that my problem was with the first part of the paragraph not the last part, the last part is what you chose to try and make into a reason to try and paint me as envious of Srila Prabhupada in your last post.

The full paragraph from Dhira Govinda: Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada

The part I had a problem with was the first part not the last, especially the part in bold type, that was obvious because my response was only a comment on that part. The first part is:

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society."

That is the part I objected to and the following was my stated reason why:

If someone is directly relating to Krishna he should be treated like everyone else and just be seen as a cog in the institutional machinery? Where do you come up with this stuff. Look, if you were talking about a university where the textbooks were all written by the founder of the university and all the teachers were meant to simply teach from the books, then your proposition would not be so off the wall. But we are not dealing with mundane concepts. We are dealing with a vital living spiritual tradition. The tradition that you want to change into a mundane religious school. Did Bhaktisiddhanta tell his disciples that after he left no one should act as an acharya? That he was the "current link" till the end of time in the organization he started? No, he didn't say that did he? He said that one of his disciples would stand out as a self effulgent acharya and that he would take up the role of acharya. If Srila Prabhupada would have followed the plan as layed out by Dhira Govinda then he would have had everyone see his guru as the "current link" instead of himself. And Bhaktisiddhanta would have told his disciples that his father was their current link, and on back through time all of the previous acharyas would have done the same. In effect Dhira Govinda's proposition would have none of the past acharyas as members or "links" in the parampara. But they didn't follow that path because that is not the tradition.

This whole idea of discriminating between self realized bona fide spiritual masters as if there is some difference in qualification amongst them is complete and total apasiddhanta.

A bona fide spiritual master is what he is, regardless of what you may think or how you may want to limit what he is authorized to do.

From CC Madhya lila

A Vaishnava acarya is self-effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment. A false acarya may try to override a Vaishnava by a high-court decision, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga.

From Srila Prabhupada at Bhaktisiddhanta's Guru Puja:

Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forrns to teach you, me and all others.In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth.''Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acaryadeva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.In the Bhagavatam (11.17.27) it is said:

acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva mayoguruh

"One should understand the spiritual master to be as good as I am," said the Blessed Lord. "Nobody should be jealous of the spiritual master or think of him as an ordinary man, because the spiritual master is the sum total of all demigods."

That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey.

--------------------

Sorry to be so blunt, but all of Dhira Govinda's suggestions are based on a foundation that has no relevance to the tradition and teachings of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

He may have good intentions but he is not educated on the tradition, or at least when he wrote these things he wasn't.

The whole thing is based on a misconception and is a recipe for creating a mundane religious organization. The idea that liberated souls should not be respected and treated as bona fide spiritual masters who are direct links to the Supreme Lord is the very antithesis of Gaudiya siddhanta.

So like I said it's not a problem with miscommunication. I know exactly what you guys are saying. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying. Since you brought this topic up and I had already explained myself, I can only wonder if you are being lazy and not reading what I write or that you are purposefully distorting what my position is in order to make it seem like I am against devotees faith in Srila Prabhupada. It looks like more demagoguery/a childish attempt at a straw man attack.

720518AR.LA Lectures

So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge. People are suffering.

761210DB.HYD Lectures

We got this information from His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that knowledge is still going on. You are receiving through his servant. And in future the same knowledge will go to your students. This is called parampara system. It is not that you have become a student and you'll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, not that perpetually... Yes, one should remain perpetually a student, but he has to act as guru. That is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu... So we should become always a very obedient student to our guru. That is the qualification. That is the spiritual qualification.

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 10:17 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am wondering if at least some of our miscommunication is related, at least in part, to how each of us is defining our terminology.

When thinking about your objection about 'pure devotee' vs 'prominent link' the thing that originally came to my mind was an excerpt from a 1974 letter from Srila Prabhupada to Tusta Krishna Prabhu.

I did not share it at the time that I first thought of it. I will share it know. It's not clear to me that this will satisfy your concern, but I’ll share it anyway.

In the letter, Srila Prabhupada writes:

“If anyone thinks like that, that a pure devotee should be obeyed and no one else, that means he is a nonsense. We advise everyone to address one another as Prabhu. Prabhu means master, so how the master should be disobeyed? Others, they are also pure devotees. All of my disciples are pure devotees. Anyone sincerely serving the spiritual master is a pure devotee...”

Srila Prabhupada is apparently discussing a situation related to Siddhaswarupa Prabhu.

Srila Prabhupada seems to be using the term 'pure devotee' in an interesting way in the letter...and I feel that perhaps it has some relevance to our discussion.

First Srila Prabhupada says:

"If anyone thinks like that, that a pure devotee should be obeyed and no one else, that means he is a nonsense."

What is Srila Prabhupada referring to here? What is the definition of 'pure devotee' that Srila Prabhupada is using?

If I correctly understand the letter, in this situation, Siddhaswarupa Prabhu was apparently being seen by some of the devotees serving with him as more 'pure' than other devotees.

Some of these devotees may have seen Siddhaswarupa Prabhu as a 'pure devotee'...while seeing other devotees as being less so…and this may have resulted in some practical problems as well.

My reading of the letter is that Srila Prabhupada found this mindset to be nonsense.

Srila Prabhupada continues:

"We advise everyone to address one another as Prabhu. Prabhu means master, so how the master should be disobeyed? Others, they are also pure devotees. All of my disciples are pure devotees."

When Srila Prabhupada says "All of my disciples are pure devotees."...I am willing to take him at his word.

But how is Srila Prabhupada using the term 'pure devotees' in this case?

Does it mean that all of his disciples were completely free from the influence of the modes of material nature? Maybe...but this doesn't seem likely to me.

Was Srila Prabhupada simply encouraging devotees to treat each other with respect and Vaisnava humility? Maybe.

Was Srila Prabhupada referring to the fact that devotees were on the right path, and so eventually purity would come about...that since they were on the path they were pretty much as good as being pure. Maybe.

I remember hearing about a reference where Srila Prabhupada seems to be either implying or directly stating that one can be simultaneously a kanistha adhikari and a pure devotee. I don't recall what the reference was…but it sounds interesting and perhaps relevant to this letter. Perhaps you know the reference that I'm thinking of.

Anyway, back to the letter. Srila Prabhupada's disciples were working in different roles and capacites...it is not inconceivable that some were giving more divya jnana than others...but still Srila Prabhupada states:

"All of my disciples are pure devotees. Anyone sincerely serving the spiritual master is a pure devotee..."

Later in the letter, Srila Prabhupada states:

“As soon as we distinguish here is a pure devotee, here is a non-pure devotee, that means I am a nonsense.”

As I understand PL...the issue in PL is not about distinguishing between who is and who isn't a 'pure devotee'.

The issue is properly honouring and taking shelter of that person who is the primary giver of divya-jnana. Even if all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are ‘pure devotees’ it seems to me that the principles in PL still stand.

As I understand it, PL sees the above-mentioned primary giver of divya-jnana as the initiator (in the essential sense of the term) and as the most prominent link to the sampradaya.

The PL book states:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Srila Prabhupada stated (at least in his 1974 letter to Tusta Krishna Prabhu) that all of his disciples are pure devotees.

So it seems to me that perhaps 'pure devotee' is not necessarily synonymous with 'most prominent link to the parampara' (primary giver of divya-jnana).

When I look at the above-quoted PL statement some more, I wonder if you would find it less objectionable if it read as follows:

"Some pure devotees may naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Perhaps this would feel less absolutist to you. Perhaps it is the perceived absolutism that you dislike.

To me, it seems that Srila Prabhupada is the person who brought us our culture and worldview (divya-jnana).

I would see him as the primary deliverer of divya-jnana for us in our time.

It seems to me that a pure devotee would recognize this...and would consider it a service to Srila Prabhupada to connect others to him via this divya-jnana. But that is my perception.

At the very least, it seems very possible to me that at least some pure devotees would be pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada.

Since the PL book itself acknowledges that PL is not necessarily the only valid and healthy approach to guru-tattva...then I think that in practice the previously quoted excerpt from PL ends up functionning sort of like what I write in the paragraph above.

The PL idea seems to allow the paradigms to co-exist side by side...even if those who prescribe to the various paradigms feel that their own perspective is the correct one.

Anyway, I wanted to share that. I'll go back to my sastric quote hunt now.

Thanks for listenning. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 08:49 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humlbe obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Where would you like us to go from here? I assume that you are still waiting for me to give you a sastric quote that states that pure devotees would be happy to direct people to the prominent link in the parampara...and/or a quote that would show that there is a difference between being a pure devotee and being the prominent link in the parampara. That's fair enough.

I don't have such a quote at this time.

I will continue searching for such a quote if that is what is needed for us to be able to communicate. It seems to me that we are not communicating very effectively with each other.

As far as the issue of quoting past acaryas, I appreciate some of the points brought up in Rocana Prabhu's article 'On Re-Initiation'.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 07:47 PM PST

Alex that's another red herring if it's meant to be some kind of response to me. The story you bring up about something Srila Prabhupada said and the point he makes is something I have not argued against and in fact I have championed that position repeatedly all over the blogs on this website. Srila Prabhupada has made numerous statements just like the one you quoted and I have posted them repeatedly here.

That point is not what I was objecting to in the PL and your comments here. The PL contains much more then that simple point. In fact that simple point is the jumping off place for the "160 pages" of the PL.

You keep asking me to keep an open mind and be thoughtful and to study carefully what you have written and what is in the PL. I have done that, but since I disagree with it you assume that I must be wrong or have not understood what the PL is all about. Why is that your default posiion if someone disagrees with the various points in the PL?

Instead of dealing with my objections and citing relevant precedent for the ideas in the PL which I disagreed with, you instead resort to questioning my ability to understand what it contains in a thoughtful way. You also conflate what I was actually arguing against with a slew of unsupported allegations that I misrepresented in various ways what you have posted.

To me your type of rigid dogmatic adherence to a novel philosophical position such as the PL, and then demanding respect for that rigid adherence from people who don't share your faith in the PL as being a revealed truth, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. In other words why have such surity in the absolute truth of all that is contained in the PL if you cannot support many of it's philosophical conclusions in the accepted way i.e guru, sadhu, and sastra?

For instance; Dhira Govinda writes that he finds quoting the previous acaryas in support of a philosophical point is something which he doesn't accept. He said he only accepts the words of the previous acaryas through Srila Prabhupada. That is against the principle of citing guru, sadhu, and sastra which Srila Prabhupada taught. The guru for Dhira Govinda is Srila Prabhupada, the sadhus are other vaisnavas past and present, and the sastra is the revealed scriptures. All 3 sources are acceptable according to Srila Prabhupada. And on top of that if Srila Prabhupada quotes a previous acarya and you find that acceptable, how is that any different then reading that quote from it's source? In both cases the words are exactly the same.

But due to the faith that Dhira Govinda's "gut" or "intuition" supercedes and overides established siddhanta, you end up being unable to gain the respect you demand and instead end up looking like a blind follower of a blind man. You need to earn respect not demand respect. If you teach things which are in clear oppositon to established siddhanta and then brook no dissent from that position and demand respect for that position, then that is putting the cart before the horse. There is no valid reason why Dhira Govinda's positions all have to be respected and should be integrated into Iskcon or any other Gaudiya sangha as a respectable "alternative" philosophical doctrine without first demonstrating the absolute truth of those positions according to the accepted siddhanta of the Gaudiya sastras and acaryas.

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 05:43 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Your perception, as I see it, is that PL is not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings or with the teachings and tradition of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya.

Your perception, as I see it, is that PL is a badly put-together, unimpressive, Christianity-like, absolutist and speculative invention that can only be upheld with things like: lies, dishonesty, red herrings, demagoguery, changing the subject, misrepresentation, logical fallacies, smokescreens and tautology.

Your perception, as I see it, is that I have been lying to you in my posts, and have been responding in dishonest ways in order to attempt to divert attention from real issues, to attempt to manipulate the dialogue, and to distort truth.

My perception is that PL is the clearest and most reasonable statement that I have read about guru-tattva over the past ten years. It also seems to me to reflect my own experience in KC, as well as the experience of other devotees that I’ve come in contact with.

My perception is that I have communicated with you clearly, sincerely and honestly despite my shortcomings.

My perception is that even though our perspectives differ, I am benefiting from these exchanges. I honour and value your perception while acknowledging that it is different from mine. I remain open to continue to explore the issue with you (ideally in a dispassionate way).

I have read your posts in this blog, and so far, PL still makes sense to me.

I want to share something with you and with anyone who might be following this thread. And, by the way, I’m not presenting this as an “argument” to convince you of this or that. I’m just presenting it.

In the ‘Memories of Srila Prabhupada’ tape #31, Vaikunthanatha Prabhu is speaking about Srila Prabhupada. He is describing an event that apparently took place in Vrndavana in 1972.

What he says is something that I deeply resonate with:

". . . There was one doubt that was plaguing me . . .I had always been taught when I was first joining that the parampara is like a link, a chain. If you don't have the perfect link, if you are not initiated- You really cannot go back to Godhead . . . I presented this question to Prabhupada. I followed Srila Prabhupada from Rupa Gosvami’s Samadhi back into the courtyard, and just before Srila Prabhupada took the steps, in the courtyard, I said ‘We are distributing so many books but if people who read them aren't initiated then they can't go back to Godhead.’ And Prabhupada turned and looked at me right in the eyes and he said ’Just by reading my books they are initiated’"

My perception is that the above is dealing with the essence of initiation, the essence of diksa. My perception is that PL is dealing with the essence of diksa.

Thank you for making time for these exchanges between us.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 03:44 PM PST

Miriam I meant from the first chapter through the conclusion. It's not very much. If you add all of the rest it amounts to more. Every chapter in that book online is pretty short and I'm a fast reader. It's simple to check and see for yourself. Anyways most of it is tautological i.e repeating the same thing over and over. Alex has displayed dishonesty and demagoguery in his responses to me here. Instead of responding to my objections in an honest way he simply repeated what I objected to (tautology) or lied about what the PL actually said, and then said that I was misrepresenting what the PL says and creating smoke and mirrors. That was a complete cop out and totaly dishonest of him.

For example in one of his last responses to me:

me-"You can see in that way if you like for yourself, but the sastric process mentions nothing about needing to "directly link" with Srila Prabhupada in order to be ready for initiation. The above quote is almost non different from the Christian who demands that you accept that Jesus died for your sins or else God will not be available for you.
Maybe the aspiring disciple has more affection and has an easier time understanding, spends more time hearing from and has more faith in someone other then Srila Prabhupada? Is that wrong and will Krishna not accept that? Is Srila Prabhupada the Jesus figure of Iskcon?"

alex-As I've pointed out...in PL we are simply asking that the PL paradigm be accepted and respected. The excerpt above attempts to portray what is presented in PL as not honoring other viewpoints...though actually that is what you seem to be doing towards the PL paradigm. Of course, this is not a competition to see who can be more liberal-minded. We're not accepting of irrational, anti-sastric perspectives on the issue. I point out the above simply to illustrate one of many instances of seeming misrepresentation of what PL presents, in order to make it easier to attack.

His response was a red herring and a lie.

Let's examine what he wrote in response to the quote from me:

As I've pointed out...in PL we are simply asking that the PL paradigm be accepted and respected.

Well duh. Thats obvious, why the need to say that in response to my comment? It's like me disagreeing with your belief that the moon is made of green cheese and then your response is "I simply want my view accepted and respected".

The excerpt above attempts to portray what is presented in PL as not honoring other viewpoints.

The excerpt from above was part of a response to the PL where it was specifically "not honoring other viewpoints" i.e.

"The formal initiation ceremony is an official acknowledgement that the devotee has established a direct link with Srila Prabhupada. The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn’t be participating in the initiation ceremony."

How is that "honoring" other viewpoints? In point of fact that quote does not honor other viewpoints, it's absolutist in nature.

Then alex cont

..though actually that is what you seem to be doing [i.e not honoring] towards the PL paradigm.

What the? What kind of nonsense is that? If I disagree with what the PL says I get accused of "not honoring the PL paradigm"? What a laugh. Does he really believe that by my stating my reasons for thinking the PL to be wrong that I am being dishonorable?

Alex's response cont

Of course, this is not a competition to see who can be more liberal-minded.

Oh I get it, I'm not "liberal minded" if I think you guys are wrong?

His response cont.

We're not accepting of irrational, anti-sastric perspectives on the issue. I point out the above simply to illustrate one of many instances of seeming misrepresentation of what PL presents, in order to make it easier to attack.

Where was the illustration of the misrepresentation? You illustrated nothing but your own inablity to be honest and forthright.

And then he wrote:

me-"Can you find any justification anywhere outside of the speculations of unqualified people that that list comprises the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters who are to be considered bona fide representatives of the parampara?"

alex-Similarly, neither Dhira Govinda Prabhu nor I assert that Vaisnavas on the list are the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters... PL asserts the opposite, and I've also clearly expressed that. Still, you've created an argument that's easy to attack and defeat, so you're sticking to it, at the expense, it seems, of attempts to genuinely deepen understanding.

That answer was a total fraud. That fact is that I was questioning the claim of the PL that:

"There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara."

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I believe both of those statements to be incorrect and I gave my reasons for that in my earlier post. I asked alex to respond with some kind of authoritative citation to back up those two paragraphs above. He did not do so, but he did contact Dhira Govinda for a response who also did not do so.

Then when I pointed that out, then alex responded like this:

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura is listed in Srila Prabhupada's introduction to the Bhagavad Gita As It Is...as the 29th link in a chain going back to Sri Krsna.

http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en

This Bhagavad-gita As It Is, is received through this chain.
There may have been other pure devotees (and self realized souls) on the planet at the same time as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura…and yet, they are not listed in this chain by Srila Prabhupada.

So he was using that list as an authoritative citation in backing up the points I challenged. I then made the case that that list is irrelevant to the points we were discussing. He then claimed that I was attacking a straw man and misrepresenting their position?

The whole debate has been surreal. Look I reject the PL. I also think that the way it's proponents debate it's merits or demerits has been dishonest and generally dogmatic and fallacious in it's presentation.

If that is seen as not "honoring" the position of the PL and therefore offensive or insensitive by some, I say you'll get over it. See Krishna in all things, savior faire is everywhere.

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/09/2005 02:26 PM PST

Dear Shiva prabhu,

You say that the Prominent Link book is hardly a book. I don't know what you call a book or not, but it has 165 pages with a title page that contains a list of authors; it has a contents page, a foward, a preface, an invocations page, an introductory page, several prologue pages; the main body pages, three extensive appendix sections,and an author's page. You call that "hardly a book?"

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 07:16 AM PST

Okay, one more thing. I skimmed through the responses to the SAC, both of them i.e the one you gave a link to and the one on the PL page. I have to say that Dhira Govinda was correct on calling [some] of their complaints, or at least the ones he refered to, as being mischaracterizations of what he wrote. Even though I only read the PL once, I could still see that the some of the responses that Dhira Govinda quoted from the SAC were mischaracterizations of what he said and all of the caveats he put on many points.

But they were also not mischaracterizing on some points as well and Dhira Govinda provided no substantial argument against them. Instead of giving a rigorous defense of the points utilizing guru, sadhu and sastra, instead he mostly relyed upon sentimentalism, speculation, logical fallacies, changing the subject in mid argument, demagoguery, and incorrect assumptions that what he believes is in fact supported by Gaudiya doctrine.

When Dhira Govinda wrote this I just had to laugh because it revealed the extent to which he will resort to nonsense just to try and support his conclusions no matter what:

Even with regard to the concept of "physical presence", we're not sure that we can support the SAC's contention that "he (Srila Prabhupada) is not physically present."

Dhira Krishna was trying to argue that the picure or murti of Srila Prabhupada is the same thing as a deity of the Lord. Therefore since the Lord is non different from His deity forms; therefore Srila Prabhupada must be physically present because he is non different from his picture or murti in the same way that the Lord is. He was stating that:

Just as Sri Krsna, Srimati Radharani, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are non-different from Their Deity forms, and are fully capable to act and relate in Their Deity forms, the murtis and pictures of the parampara acaryas, such as Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, can similarly act non-differently from the acaryas.

Of course Dhira Govinda gave no sastric justification for such a view and when the SAC called him on that view this was Dhira Govinda's response:

Many followers of Srila Prabhupada, including this author, believe that Srila Prabhupada is fully living and present in his murti form. It is important that the GBC and SAC clarify this issue for themselves and members of ISKCON.

So what if many vaisnavas believe this or that? What does that have to do with anything. That response is a logical fallacy known as Ad Populum or appeal to popularity. Plus it is apasiddhanta to state that Srila Prabhupada is "fully living and fully present" in his murti forms. Srila Prabhupada is most likely taking part in some pastime with Sri Krishna. If he is with Sri Krishna then he won't even know that Krishna is the Supreme Lord. The residents of Vraja are not aware of Krishna's true position as The Lord. Sometimes they think he may be some kind of avatar, but that thought is removed from their minds and they quickly forget due to the influence of Yoga Maya. So not only will Srila Prabhupada not know that Krishna is the Supreme Lord, he will also not know anything about his past life. He will be fully absorbed in Krishna's pastimes in Vraja. all he will know is that he is a resident of Vraja and that Krishna is very special, maybe even an avatar.

The fact is no one but Krishna can be present in many places at the same time. There are how many murtis and pictures of Srila Prabhupada? If he were to be "fully living and fully present" in all of those murtis and pictures he would have to do the impossible.

From Jiva Goswami's Krishna Sandarbha 155.6:

Lord Krishna's ability to be manifested in many places simultaneously and perform many different activities at the same time by His mystic potency IS NOT SHARED BY ANYONE ELSE. No yogi or sage can perform such wonderful activities

Dhira Govinda's response cont.

We receive transcendental knowledge through sound. Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.26.33) states, "Persons who are learned and who have true knowledge define sound as that which conveys the idea of an object, indicates the presence of a speaker screened from our view and constitutes the subtle form of ether." Srila Prabhupada is present, though he is screened from our view, just as Lord Sri Krsna was screened from the view of Lord Brahma. Sri Krsna initiated Brahma with sound. Through transcendental service Brahma could perceive Krsna.

That is also a logical fallacy known as a red herring. The point was whether or not murtis and pictures of a spiritual master are the same things as a diety of the Lord. The attempt to change the subject and use that as a proof of his point is a red herring tactic.

Dhira Govinda conts.

Knowledge given by Srila Prabhupada is apaurusa, "not spoken by any person materially created" (Bhag. 3.26.33 Purport). Srila Prabhupada, though screened from view due to our limitations, gives transcendental knowledge, just as Sri Krsna delivered spiritual truth to Brahma at the beginning of our disciplic succession. Thus, this understanding of the parampara, based on transcendental sound, and not on the formal initiation ceremony, exists from the start of the parampara. A person contacts Srila Prabhupada's movement and primarily hears from him, and therefore Srila Prabhupada is his direct link to the disciplic succession.

That was a continuance of the red herring tactic.

cont.

In correspondence, SAC members would refer to Srila Prabhupada as a "previous acarya", a term with which this author is not comfortable in reference to Srila Prabhupada. We maintain that Srila Prabhupada is living in his instructions and murti form, and is a present acarya.

Well you can "maintain" anything you want. The question is can you back it up with guru, sastra and sadhu. He doesn't even make an attempt to do so. He just gives us his vision and expects us to accept that as authoritative. Srila Prabhupada is not "physically living" in his instructions and murti forms. Srila Prabhupada is most likely living in Vraja. Srila Prabhupada symbolically and metaphorically lives in his murti and instructions, but Dhira Govinda was specifically arguing that Srila Prabhupada is "physically" present in the same way as a deity of the Lord. When Srila Prabhupada said that he will live forever through his books or instructions, That is not meant to be taken as a literal physical existence in his books or instructions. Srila Prabhupada is most likely in Vraja. He exists in his books through his instructions in those books. Just like the King exists throughout the land in the form of the laws he makes. Those laws represent the King. So it can be said that the King lives throughout the land or wherever a policeman is. Not that he actually physically exists throughout the land.

cont from Dhira Govinda:

Even with regard to the concept of "physical presence", we're not sure that we can support the SAC's contention that "he is not physically present." Srila Prabhupada installed his murti before his disappearance, and it will be valuable to consider the meaning of that action in terms of Srila Prabhupada's physical presence.

So we end up with an affront to common sense presented in a roundabout fashion while resorting to logical fallacies, demagoguery, and speculations.

Dhira Govinda's response to the SAC on that point reminded me of the response that Bill Clinton gave when asked about his shenanigans:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The SAC simply had said this in response to Dhira Govinda's assertion that the picture or murti of the spiritual master has the potency or is the same thing as deity of the Lord:

This is a novel theory, or at least one I am not familiar with, that the murtis and pictures of specially empowered acaryas are equally potent to the murtis of the Supreme Lord and His internal potency, while the images of less empowered Vaisnavas are impotent. The arca-murti of the Personality of Godhead is a special incarnation, nondifferent from His original self, and manifests all His potencies to those who worship Him with love. The murti or picture of one's guru is recognized as the proper place to make offerings in worship, but as far as I know the Vaisnava sastras do not identify the guru's image as the same kind of arca-murti.

Then in reponse we get the above from Dhira Govinda. He simply turned to obfuscation in various ways to keep from having to admit that he could find no direct justification for the statement the SAC disagreed with.

That was just one part of the Response to the SAC. The rest of it is spent either showing how the SAC mischaracterized what Dhira Govinda actually wrote in the PL, or furthur attempts at rigamarole similar to the above.

I only picked apart a very small segment of the PL in my previous posts. I could have gone on to many more objections, but it would take up a huge amount of room and there is really no point since the objections I have made have not been dealt with in an honest or sensible fashion here by alex nor Dhira Govinda. I am through debating with them over their "Prominent Link" dogma. It's gotten old. There are better ways to spend your time rather then obsessing over impotent fantasies where you uselessly attempt to gain some kind of power or fanbase within Iskcon. You may get a fan or two from Iskcon members, but what of it? Get over it already. Move on. Live yourlife free from that cumbersome weight of ego driven futility.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, it just looks like you could be doing better things with your time and energy, happier more productive things.

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 06:30 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

The print version of the second edition of PL is about 160 pages long. If you read the equivalent of 160 pages in 2 hours, then it seems to me that you at least failed to grasp the principles presented in the book.

I am expressing some points again and again. You have apparently, or perhaps obviously, not grasped, what's in PL.

It seems to me that you are presenting many straw man arguments in your posts to me. For example:

"You can see in that way if you like for yourself, but the sastric process mentions nothing about needing to "directly link" with Srila Prabhupada in order to be ready for initiation. The above quote is almost non different from the Christian who demands that you accept that Jesus died for your sins or else God will not be available for you.

Maybe the aspiring disciple has more affection and has an easier time understanding, spends more time hearing from and has more faith in someone other then Srila Prabhupada? Is that wrong and will Krishna not accept that? Is Srila Prabhupada the Jesus figure of Iskcon?"

As I've pointed out...in PL we are simply asking that the PL paradigm be accepted and respected. The excerpt above attempts to portray what is presented in PL as not honoring other viewpoints...though actually that is what you seem to be doing towards the PL paradigm. Of course, this is not a competition to see who can be more liberal-minded. We're not accepting of irrational, anti-sastric perspectives on the issue. I point out the above simply to illustrate one of many instances of seeming misrepresentation of what PL presents, in order to make it easier to attack.

You also write:

"Can you find any justification anywhere outside of the speculations of unqualified people that that list comprises the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters who are to be considered bona fide representatives of the parampara?"

Similarly, neither Dhira Govinda Prabhu nor I assert that Vaisnavas on the list are the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters... PL asserts the opposite, and I've also clearly expressed that. Still, you've created an argument that's easy to attack and defeat, so you're sticking to it, at the expense, it seems, of attempts to genuinely deepen understanding.

For example, a basic premise of PL is that transmission of transcendental knowledge is the essence...the most important component...of the process of initiation. There is abundant sastric evidence for this, much of it provided in PL. Following from that we state the reality that many devotees, regardless of their date of initiation or whether they've even participated in a ceremony of formal initiation, primarily and directly receive divya-jnana from Srila Prabhupada. Thus, for these devotees Srila Prabhupada is the main guru and primary link to the parampara.

Already I've presented that in various ways on the Sampradaya Sun blog. It's simple and straightforward.

I whole-heartedly recommend that you invest the time to read the Response to the SAC. It is only 12 pages long in Microsoft Word.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 01:03 AM PST

Alex you say I am providing "smoke and mirrors"? I asked questions and got back nothing of any value. I gave my objections to what you posted here and what I read at the PL site. The PL is hardly a "book" and I read it in less then 2 hours. I dont need to read anything more then I have read already. Yours and Dhira Govinda's writings and responses have been been amatuerish at first and now your responses have turned into feeble whining.

You say I misrepresented your views? How did I do that? All I did was quote from both you and Dhira Govinda and then comment on those words which I quoted.

I disagree with his opinions and yours and gave my reasons why. You guys provided nothing of any value in response. Yet you say I misrepresented what you guys wrote and didn't read what you guys wrote? After reading your last post I was ROTGLMAO ;)

Good luck with all that. It was fun, we had a few laughs, I did anyways. Thanks for that.

Posted by Alex @ 11/08/2005 07:58 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You wrote:

"Are you saying that unless you are on that list you are not a bona fide spiritual master as described in sastra?"

(...)

"How does that list invalidate the position of a bona fide spiritual master as described in sastra if he is not on that list?"

I experience the above statements as either misunderstandings or 'smoke and mirrors'.

I'm willing to take you at your word that you read the PL book in one day. I'm willing to assume that this was enough time to dispassionately digest it. I'm also willing to assume that you read the book without an agenda...and with an awareness of your own potential personal 'information filters'.

Yet you seem to me, to be either knowingly, or unknowingly, misrepresenting some of the ideas in the book.

If you have not yet done so...I feel that it is of value to read the Response to the SAC which appears on this site:

http://www.geocities.com/pointofsurrender/pl-response_to_the_sac.htm

If we are going to talk about PL, then it is valuable to at least have read both of the texts, so as to be familiar with the principles that they actually present.

I don't expect you to necessarily agree with everything in the PL book and Response to the SAC.

I remain open to your perspective.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/08/2005 06:09 PM PST

Alex you wrote:

It seems to me that the list shows the most prominent links in the paramapara. To me, it shows those who are the most prominent in terms of giving divya-jnana.

Whether that is true or not is besides any point that I can see. What relevance does that list have in your argument here? Are you saying that unless you are on that list you are not a bona fide spiritual master as described in sastra? While we accept all the names on that list as being bona fide acaryas, we do not even accept them all as authoritative. The tattvavadis of that time were not worshippers of Radha Krishna and they differed in some other areas as well from the Gaudiya conception. In fact Sri Caitanya said:

sabe, eka guna dekhi tomara sampradaye
satya-vigraha kari' isvare karaha niscaye

"The only qualification that I see in your sampradaya is that you accept the form of the Lord as truth."

Purport

...Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu points out that Sri Madhavendra Puri accepted Madhvacarya only because his sampradaya accepted the transcendental form of the Lord.

Why is that list important to you? How does that list invalidate the position of a bona fide spiritual master as described in sastra if he is not on that list?

The sastric position as I have shown is that the bona fide spiritual master is considered to be an incarnation of Krishna, regardless if he has one disciple or 1 billion disciples.

Sri Caitanya Caritamrata Adi.1.46

acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guruh

One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.

PURPORT

...Following in the footsteps of Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and Srila Jiva Gosvami, later acaryas like Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura have confirmed the same truths. In his prayers to the spiritual master, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura confirms that all the revealed scriptures accept the spiritual master to be identical with the Personality of Godhead because he is a very dear and confidential servant of the Lord.

Nowhere will you find any reference in any sastra or acaryas writings about having to be on a list of prominent vaisnavas to be qualified to be respected as described above.

From Srila Prabhupada:

660729BG.NY Lectures

That is a chance given, that you can become a brahmana, you can become a great devotee of Lord Krsna, and you can become the spiritual master of the world. That is the... And I think you should take seriously.

761210DB.HYD Lectures

We got this information from His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that knowledge is still going on. You are receiving through his servant. And in future the same knowledge will go to your students. This is called parampara system. It is not that you have become a student and you'll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, not that perpetually... Yes, one should remain perpetually a student, but he has to act as guru. That is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu... So we should become always a very obedient student to our guru. That is the qualification. That is the spiritual qualification.

710718RC.DET Conversations

Prabhupada: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters.

680817VP.MON Lectures

Spiritual master is not a new invention. It is simply following the orders of the spiritual master. So all my students present here who are feeling so much obliged... I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become the spiritual master. That is the science of becoming spiritual master. To become a spiritual master is not very wonderful thing. Simply one has to become sincere soul. That's all.

720518AR.LA Lectures

So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge. People are suffering.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.51

sa vai priyatamas catma
yato na bhayam anv api
iti veda sa vai vidvan
yo vidvan sa gurur harih

One who is engaged in devotional service has not the least fear in material existence. This is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supersoul and friend of everyone. One who knows this secret is actually educated, and one thus educated can become the spiritual master of the world. One who is an actually bona fide spiritual master, representative of Krsna, is not different from Krsna.

PURPORT

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says: saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih **. The spiritual master is described in every scripture as the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spiritual master is accepted as identical with the Supreme Personality of Godhead because he is the most confidential servant of the Lord (kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya). The purport is that both the Supersoul and the individual soul are very dear to everyone. Everyone loves himself, and when he becomes more advanced, he loves the Supersoul also. A person who is self-realized does not recommend the worship of anyone but the Supersoul. He knows that to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead is easier than to worship various demigods under the influence of lust and the desire for material enjoyment. The devotee is therefore always engaged in the loving devotional service of the Lord. Such a person is a true guru. In Padma Purana it is said:

sat-karma-nipuno vipro
mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad
vaisnavah sva-paco guruh

"Even if a brahmana is very learned in Vedic scriptures and knows the six occupational duties of a brahmana, he cannot become a guru, or spiritual master, unless he is a devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. However, if one is born in a family of dog-eaters but is a pure devotee of the Lord, he can become a spiritual master." The conclusion is that one cannot become a spiritual master unless he is a pure devotee of the Lord. One who is a spiritual master in accordance with the above descriptions of devotional service is to be understood as the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally present. According to the words mentioned here (gurur harih), consulting a bona fide spiritual master means consulting the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally. One should therefore take shelter of such a bona fide spiritual master. Success in life means accepting a spiritual master who knows Krsna as the only supreme beloved personality. One should worship such a confidential devotee of the Lord.

Posted by Alex @ 11/08/2005 03:10 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

It seems to me that the list shows the most prominent links in the paramapara. To me, it shows those who are the most prominent in terms of giving divya-jnana.

There may have been others who were 'qualified spiritual masters in their own right', and yet they weren't included in this list.

Vamsidas Babaji was considered pure by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and yet he is not included in the list.

My understanding is that we are a 'siksa paprampara'. It seems to me that the most prominent givers of divya-jnana are listed.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/08/2005 02:40 PM PST

Alex what does that list have to do with anything?

If there were many pure devotees giving diksa and having disciples hear from them and they were not included on that list, so what?

The names on that list are there to show the continuance of the parampara, it isn't meant to teach us that there were only those people who were qualified spiritual masters in their own right. There are only a handful of devotees in that list after the time of the 6 goswamis and a large number before Sri Caitanya. Those before Sri Caitanya were mostly tattvavadis. We don't accept almost all of the names on that list previous to Sri Caitanya as authoritative spiritual masters in our sampradaya, we reject tattvavadi doctrine, we accept them as links in the parampara because that is the lineage Sri Caitanya took diksa from.

Can you find any justification anywhere outside of the speculations of unqualified people that that list comprises the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters who are to be considered bona fide representatives of the parampara? Can you provide any source which justifies the ideology that the vaisnavas on that list were the only bona fide spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Sampradaya?

People can speculate endlessly unfettered by inconvenient facts if they choose to rely upon their own speculation while ignoring the doctrine and actual philosophy of that which they claim to support.

Posted by Alex @ 11/08/2005 02:14 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura is listed in Srila Prabhupada's introduction to the Bhagavad Gita As It Is...as the 29th link in a chain going back to Sri Krsna.

http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en

This Bhagavad-gita As It Is, is received through this chain.

There may have been other pure devotees (and self realized souls) on the planet at the same time as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura…and yet, they are not listed in this chain by Srila Prabhupada.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/08/2005 01:29 PM PST

Alex your response did not present any kind of philosophy, rather it was just demagogic tautological sentimentalism.

Since you seem to wonder why anyone would object to Dhira Govinda's opinions after I have already given numerous reasons backed by guru, sastra, and sadhu; I can only conclude that you have a very short memory or that your response is some kind of demagogic tactic to sway people to your position.

Most of yours and Dhira Govinda's contentions are merely some type of sentimental rigamarole and this was proven when in response to my challenge you both responded with tautological demagogic rhetoric. I have already given numerous reasons and sastric citations and words from Srila Prabhupada why those ideas are not acceptable. Simply disagreeing because you "feel" you know what is right may be good enough for you and Dhira Govinda, I can't take it seriously.

Tautological demagogic rhetoric is not debate, and it certainly carries no weight if you employ it for the purpose of trying to establish what it is your are trying to do. Guru, Sastra, and Sadhu are the principles upon which philosophical doctrines have to be in accord with. By presenting and defending the PL model in the way you guys have done, you have failed to come up to the expected standard.

Posted by Alex @ 11/08/2005 09:37 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In your most recent post you address a number of points, among them is the following:

"Thanks for the two recent posts and emails from Dhira Govinda. I have already given my reasons for my objection to those points he emailed you about in my earlier posts."

The emails from Dhira Govinda Prabhu that I posted were in connection with the following statement by you:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alex your response to me was not a response to what I wrote. I objected to this statement:

“Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement? A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara.

And to this one:

Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I asked you if you have some sort of sastric confirmation of these ideas. I refered to tradition in the sense of the tradition of the Gaudiya Sampradaya..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dhira Govinda Prabhu's emails address the above two quotes from the PL book. He did not include sastric quotes, but he did clarify the statements in light of the tradition of our parampara.

Your objection, I assume, is connected to the statement in the PL quotes...that being a pure devotee is not the same as being the direct link to the parampara...and also perhaps to the statement that pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement would be happy to establish others in a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada.

When we look at the disciplic succession given at the beginning of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is (BGAII)...there is a list of the members of the disciplic succession of Srila Prabhupada's movement.

The PL book understands each of those members of the disciplic succession as being the prominent links to the parampara for their each of their particular times.

It is not inconceivable that during the lifetime of these prominent links to the parampara...that there were other pure devotees (or self-realized souls) on the planet.

But still, Srila Prabhupada does not choose to include them in the list of prominent links given in the Bhagavad Gita As It Is.

So…for example… in Guarakisora dasa Babaji’s day there may have been other pure devotees who were participated in the parampara. Yet none of them is included, by Srila Prabhupada, in the list of prominent links to his parampara that is given in the BGAII.

The same may be true for pure devotees living during the time of the others acaryas who are included in the BGAII list as members of our parampara.

Srila Prabhupada is seen as the prominent link to the parampara because, in general, he is the devotee giving the most divya-jnana.

Srila Prabhupada is doing this through things like his books, lectures, videos, the temples he founded, the morning program he instituted, the Deities that he installed, the devotees he instructed, the recipes he imparted, his bhajans, the ideas about varnasrama that he introduced, and other aspects of his mission.

Srila Prabhupada also said that his books would be the lawbooks for the next ten thousand years. This is a strong statement.

From what I've read from Srila Prabhupada on the topic, I understand that ten thousand years is the projected length of the existence of his movement.

So, during the time that Srila Prabhupada's movement exists...Srila Prabhupada's books will be the law books.

To me, this implies that his books will be foundational. They will communicate tattva and the application of tattva.

To me, it makes sense that for the next ten thousand years, Srila Prabhupada will be the prime deliverer of divya-jnana...since his books will be the 'law books' (at least for the members of his movement) for the next ten thousand years.

Thus, it makes sense to me that he will continue to connect others to the parampara via the transmission of divya-jnana.

Since Srila Prabhupada is qualified and available as current link to the parampara, it seems to me like common sense that pure devotees would be happy to bring others to Srila Prabhupada. I would say that there is no inherent need for someone else to fill this role, since Srila Prabhupada is already effectively functioning in this capacity. I am not clear what are the rational objections to this.

The kind of ideas presented in PL remind me less of certain practices and ideas in Christianity and Islam...than they do of certain ideas and practices in the Sri and Madhva sampradayas.

The ideas in PL make me think of things like the Prappanamrta Tapana (PT),
and the concept of uddarika and upakarika guru contained therein. More importantly to me, they seem to me to be in line with what I have read from Srila Prabhupada over the past ten years.

In connection to the PT, I would like to share some excerpts from Suresvara Prabhu's contribution to the PL book:

"In his introduction to Srila Prabhupada's Centennial Vyasa-puja Book, Lokanatha Maharaja wrote that "some or maybe all of the problems that arose in our movement after Srila Prabhupada left have their origin in our not properly understanding this position of founder-acarya. A scripture from the Sri-sampradaya called Prappanamrta Tapana explains that a founder-acarya is known by five symptoms: First, he is udharika, which means that he is the savior of everyone. The Prappanamrta Tapana goes on to explain that those who come after the founder-acarya in the disciplic succession, who act as spiritual masters, are upakarika, his helpers. They are never to be equated, even after hundreds of generations, with the founder-acarya...Establishing a relationship with a spiritual master in the line of Srila Prabhupada first of all means establishing a relationship with him as founder-acarya."

(...)

"In the mid-90s, I had a powerful experience while living near Udupi, South India, the seat of the Madhva-sampradaya. For centuries, gurus and disciples have been carrying on Madhva's teachings, and it was very clear to me that everyone there identifies himself--mainly, primarily, directly, and foundationally--as a Madhvaite. His commanding image, sitting in his famous suddha-dvaita pose, is displayed and worshiped both inside and outside the temple, the seat from which he spoke is preserved in a sacred room and daily offered puja, and his life and teachings are continually recited by the sannyasis at "Shri Krishna Mutt."

Many of these sannyasis are "bala-sannyasis"; that is, based on strong sannyasa-yogas appearing in their horoscope, they were awarded sannyasis as boys and groomed to be spiritual leaders in the sampradaya as they grew up.”

(...)

"Observing how absolute faith in the life and teachings of Madhva had kept the relationships between gurus and disciples vital, intimate, and dynamic, and kept that sampradaya cohesive and alive for some 800 years now, I couldn't help but think of our Society, struggling to understand and apply guru-tattva globally, and how to realize enough of Prabhupada's ideal of love and trust to continue as a united Hare Krsna movement."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/07/2005 07:50 PM PST

The letter exchanges below between Dhira Govinda prabhu and another devotee can be best be titled, "His just my siksa guru." It explains a little bit more about Srila Prabhupada's position in *his* movement.

August 15, 2003

Dear [...] Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your letter sent earlier today. My comments are in brackets.

In a message dated 8/15/03 10:41:28 AM,
[...]@pamho.net writes:

The main points that I grasped are that;

- Initiation means transmission of transcendental knowledge.

[More precisely, the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge.]

- Because Srila Prabhupada is our main source of transcendental knowledge, he is our initiating guru.

[I'm not attached to using the term "initiating guru" to describe Srila Prabhupada, and defining such
terms is not the main point of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Still, Srila Prabhupada is the main source, and even the main direct source, of transcendental knowledge, for many, perhaps most, mmembers of his movement.Therefore, from the definition of initiation given above, he could be termed "initiating guru, and I think that it is important, philosophically and for unity of Srila Prabhupada's movement, for us, the GBC, and all entities within the movement, to be open and honoring towards that understanding.]

Dear Dhira Govinda
Please accept my humble obeisances
All glories to Srila Prabhupada

I Have three questions;

As I said before, it seems to me that the majority of the points you present in the Prominent Link would be pretty easily accepted by most devotees and even by the GBC, at least in theory. In practice, however, I have seen that there are still a good number of gurus who tend to eclipse Srila Prabhupada with their effulgence.

But I guess we have to start first at least with some kind of consensus on the theoretical before we can work together towards establishing it in practice throughout the movement.

It seems like kind of a subtle point, that Srila Prabhupada is our main source of transcendental
knowledge, and could therefore be considered initiating guru, but it is not important to use those labels (ie. Initiating guru or diksa guru). But if someone wants to use those terms, that should be
acknowledged... This is somehow hard to grasp for me.

[The terms we're using in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link are current link, prominent link,
primary guru, etc. These terms to describe Srila Prabhupada I'm clearly comfortable with. Other terms, such as initiator, or diksa guru, may be defined in various ways, and depending on those definitions, the terms may be applied and understood differently. But, based on the transmission of transcendental knowledge definition, it can clearly be stated that Srila Prabhupada is the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara, with "direct, current, and prominent link" defined as "the Vaisnava who directly gives transcendental knowledge more than any other devotee."
At least, Srila Prabhupada serves this role for many members of his movement, and I suggest that, ideally, it would be the healthiest situation if he served this role for all members of his movement. If we examine the list of the disciplic succession as given at the end of the BG Intro, I believe that the definition given above for direct, current, and prominent link, is the criteria that Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, uses to establish the parampara links. If someone has a more accurate definition, then I'm eager to hear it. The defining criteria of those links is transcendental knowledge, rather than something else, such as performnance of the formal initiation ceremony. So, Srila Prabhupada is serving that role as the main, direct deliverer of divya-jnana, and thus he can rightly be called the primary, direct link to the disciplic succession.
Whether he should also be termed diksa guru, or initiator, is a secondary question.]

My first question is, What would you say is the difference, exactly, between this idea and the "rtvik"
philosophy as it is generally presented?

[I hesitate to comment on the "ritvik philosophy as it is generally presented", because there are likely varying conceptions of what that philosophy is, just as there are varying views on what constitutes the "GBC position" on such issues. I consider that PL stands on its own, without reference to the GBC-ritvik discussions of the past dozen years or so. Those discussions largely focus on analysis and interpretation of documents such as the May 28, 1977 conversation, and the July 9, 1977 letter. Those documents are very important, as are all of Srila Prabhupada's words, and they need to be understood. PL comes from a perspective, however, of "Whatever your understanding of that conversation and that letter, the principles of PL still stand." In this way the tenets presented in PL can serve as a platform for conflict resolution for followers of Srila Prabhupada.The GBC-ritvik discussion tends to focus on the formal aspect of the process of initiation, and much of the
conversation revolves around who is the formal initiator. PL focuses on the essential aspect of the
process of initiation- the transmission of transcendental knowledge. With this focus, the question of the identity of the formal initiator is less important, though still important. If "formal initiator", or "diksa guru", is defined in terms of performance of the initiation ceremony, then the devotee who conducts that ceremony may adopt those terms. If "initiator" or "diksa guru" is defined in terms of the prime, direct deliverer of transcendental knowledge, then we might fruitfully consider that the terms may apply to Srila Prabhupada. Either way, the position and role of Srila Prabhupada as the direct and primary link to the parampara is clear and, in my mind, unassailable. If I had to determine a title for the Vaisnava who performs the initiation ceremony, I'd probably choose "Officiating Acarya". This is the term that Srila Prabhupada used when asked a clear, open-ended question by Satsvarupa Maharaja about how initiations would be conducted after Srila Prabhupada passed away. The May 28th conversation after that point, as far as I'm concerned, becomes a bit muddled in meaning (although it may be me that's muddled, but I'm applying my intelligence the best I'm able). Srila Prabhupada created the term "Officiating Acarya" to describe his followers who would perform initiation ceremonies after he disappeared from the planet. So,why not use that term?]

Second question is, if terminology such as diksa and initiating guru is not important, then why is it not appropriate to say that Srila Prabhupada is the central spiritual master of our movement as the Prominent Siksa Guru of everyone? Is the use of the term Siksa guru actually depreciative or does the
problem lie in the excessive focus given to the position of diksa guru in our movement?

[I don't view the term "siksa guru" as inherently depreciative. It's a glorious thing, to be a siksa
guru. But, as you indicate, labels such as "siksa guru" and "diksa guru" have become politicized, with
this process of politicization not necessarily reflecting the balanced perspective presented by Srila
Prabhupada and sastra. Because of the institutional filters that many devotees have acquired around these terms, to describe Srila Prabhupada as the prominent siksa guru may tend to minimize him from his actual position and relationship with the members of his movement. The conception may be there, that "he's just my siksa guru, but my diksa guru, and the guru who is most important to me, is..." So, it's not that the term is intrinsically minimizing, but the relationship to the term of many ISKCON devotees may be so. It has been and is known that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's siksa guru. Still, there are many in the movement who barely acknowledge Srila Prabhupada's vyasa-puja,
while celebrating in a big way the vyasa-puja celebration of their "real guru" (that is, the devotee
who performed their initiation ceremony). This is described in the PL chapter Terms of Relegation.
Clearly, whatever labels that the GBC has applied to Srila Prabhupada have not been sufficient to
substantially change the consciousness, to actually convey the realization that Srila Prabhupada is the main spiritual master, the main link to the parampara- actually the most important person in the lives of all persons in his movement. Thus, at this point in history I'm hesitant to apply terms, although those terms are true, such as "prominent siksa guru" to Srila Prabhupada, because they tend to take away, in a practical sense, from the fullness and importance of his role.]

Third question is, what would you say are the main objection that the GBC raises in regards to the ideas presented in the Prominent Link? Do they have some reasonable objections?

[In the Prologue to the Second Printing is A Preliminary Statement from ISKCON's Governing Body
Commission. That was the GBC's response to the paper. The Prologue responds to many of the points there. I believe that the Prologue addresses the points in that paper of the GBC. I don't believe that the GBC response contains reasonable objections to the principles presented in PL. I'd be glad to hear from you or anyone who perceives otherwise. More recently the GBC ratified a paper by the Sastric Advisory Committee, in response to PL. At some point, some time this year, I'll write a response to that also. If you read the SAC paper and have comments, I am interested to hear them. I stand behind my views, as expressed in PL. Reading and responding to these papers by the GBC,and to comments and responses from dozens of other devotees, have helped me to deepen and sharpen my understanding of these views. Actually, for years before I wrote PL I spoke and consulted with many devotees, including ISKCON gurus, senior devotees dissatisfied with the current system in the organizaiton, second generation disciples, and Vaisnavas from many sectors of Srila Prabhupada's movement. From each I absorbed and refined ideas, and I continue in that process. Thank you for your letter. I'll be glad to continue this correspondence. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Dhira Govinda dasa]

Your servant
[...]

PS I really enjoy these exchanges. I find this discussion quite interesting and relevant and
appreciate that we can discuss in a rational way. I also appreciate your timely responses. I can certainly learn from that example. I know you are very busy. Considering that please feel free to take your time in answering my letters.

Posted by shiva das @ 11/07/2005 07:43 PM PST

I just read the PL.

Here are some problems I have with it.

“Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed” (Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.23).

Of all the gurus in Srila Prabhupada’s movement, Srila Prabhupada is the one in whom implicit faith must exist in order for the imports of Vedic knowledge to be automatically revealed.

That is incorrect. Even if someone doesn't have implicit faith in Srila Prabhupada, if he or she has impicit faith in Krishna and another vaisnava as a siksa guru, and that other vaisnava is a qualified siksa guru then that is sufficient to "have all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed. The verse from the upanishads is not person or institution specific, it is a universal truth.

"Automatically revealed" means "as a matter of course". It doesn't mean that by faith alone some magical understanding will spontaneously descend to the disciple. It means that if you have implicit faith in Krishna and a spiritual master then as a matter of course, or automatically, all the imports of vedic knowledge will be revealed to you. Not by some mystic channel or event, but through the instructions of the spiritual master.

As the direct link, Srila Prabhupada is the person to whom the devotee surrenders absolutely. Many devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement, including many who were formally initiated after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, experience him in this capacity, as the primary guru who inspires full surrender. Srila Prabhupada’s followers who assist him by helping to connect a devotee directly to him, are not the point of unconditional surrender.

I disagree with the absolutist nature of that statement. It should say "may not be" instead of "are not". If there are self realized bona fide spiritual masters in Iskcon who are directly connected to Krishna then they also can be "the point of unconditional surrender".

For a devotee who comes to the movement Srila Prabhupada is the primary spiritual master, the Vaishnava to whom the devotee fully and unconditionally devotes his life.

Maybe, Maybe not. Don't try and limit how Krishna can arrange to have more self realized souls manifest as spiritual masters. If we look at the Gaudiya sampradaya's history, then we can see that there have always been self realized spiritual masters around in every generation. Why should you think that Krishna will stop providing in that way after 28 years ago?

For devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement, however, the Vaishnava whose mercy without which we would not receive the benediction of Krishna and would not make advancement is Srila Prabhupada.

This is evidenced by the fact that the mercy and grace of other Vaishnavas may be withdrawn, and the former recipient of that mercy continues to make advancement in Krishna consciousness and to receive benedictions from Krishna. This is possible because Srila Prabhupada continues to bestow his mercy and grace.

That is incorrect. At first glance it seems alright. But what you are in effect saying is that Krishna is dependent on Srila Prabhupada alone. Krishna can arrange for anyone to advance and recieve His benediction without anyones help, or in whatever person or method he chooses to do that through. We shouldn't limit what Krishna can do by saying "Only through Srila Prabhupada etc"

We contend that Srila Prabhupada will continue to serve as the prominent link at least for the duration of his movement.

For some if not many that may be true. But you don't know what the future holds in store. Someone could have said the same thing about the previous acaryas before the emergence of a new acharya. It's pointless to make statements like the above knowing the history of the Gaudiya sampradaya. New acharyas have continually been empowered by Sri Krishna in every generation.

Also, we suggest that all who contact his movement should arrive at the point where they do experience Srila Prabhupada as the primary giver of direct divya-jnana in their spiritual lives. If someone has not come to this point then, we propose, he is not ready to be formally initiated.

Another pointless idea. What is the point of the above? You cannot legislate faith or how Krishna decides to enlighten someone. If someone is receiving more direct divya jnana from someone other then Srila Prabhupada and they are following the prescribed procedure then why should they be excluded from diksa in Iskcon? What do you suggest people do? Make an oath that Srila Prabhupada is their "primary giver of direct divya jnana" before they are allowed to be initiated?

The formal initiation ceremony is an official acknowledgement that the devotee has established a direct link with Srila Prabhupada. The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn’t be participating in the initiation ceremony.

You can see in that way if you like for yourself, but the sastric process mentions nothing about needing to "directly link" with Srila Prabhupada in order to be ready for initiation. The above quote is almost non different from the Christian who demands that you accept that Jesus died for your sins or else God will not be available for you.

Maybe the aspiring disciple has more affection and has an easier time understanding, spends more time hearing from and has more faith in someone other then Srila Prabhupada? Is that wrong and will Krishna not accept that? Is Srila Prabhupada the Jesus figure of Iskcon?

Srila Prabhupada is transmitting transcendental knowledge, and we are confident that he will continue to do so for many generations. In this essential sense, Srila Prabhupada is initiating sincere followers. In fact, we propose that accepting divya-jnana, or initiation, from Srila Prabhupada, and thereby directly connecting with him, is the qualification for one to become formally initiated in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

That seems like a silly thing to say. What if someone hardly ever heard from Srila Prabhupada but became a staunch vaisnava fixed up in the philosophy from someone else? They should not be allowed to be initiated? How do you go back in time and reverse that person's education so that he will be allowed initiation?

Look, I'm going to stop there. There is just one misconception after another in the PL and what is the point of me going on and on with more examples?

p.s

Thanks for the two recent posts and emails from Dhira Govinda. I have already given my reasons for my objection to those points he emailed you about in my earlier posts.

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/07/2005 07:36 PM PST

Dear Shiva prabhu,

Did I read right, or am I confusing you with someone else. I thought I read that you have never read the book "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link." If that is so, how can you be debating about something that you haven't even read?

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 07:21 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In your most recent post, you are looking at two quotes from the PL book.

The first PL quote states that those devotees who see Srila Prabhupada as their current link to the parampara,…must be allowed to worship him in that capacity.

The first PL quote also acknowledges that some devotees will choose to worship one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples as their current link to the parampara (or in some other philosophical capacity).

So, as I understand it, the first PL quote is dealing with the fact that some devotees choose to worship Srila Prabhupada as their current link to the parampara...and other devotees choose to worship someone else as their current link to the parampara.

My understanding is that PL does not directly address the issue of those devotees who choose to worship someone other than Srila Prabhupada as their current link to the parampara. It simply states that Srila Prabhupada is available and qualified for the role of current link to the parampara.

So that's how I see the first PL quote.

To me, the second PL quote is talking about something different.

The second quote does not directly address the issue of those devotees who choose to worship someone other than Srila Prabhupada as their current link to the parampara.

The issue being addressed in the second PL quote is that of 'pure devotees'.

The second PL quote states that 'pure devotee' and 'current link to the parampara' are not necessarily synonymous.

So the second quote does not directly address the issue of those devotees who choose to worship someone other than Srila Prabhupada as their current link to the parampara.

Nor does the second quote deny the possibility that when devotees choose to worship someone other than Srila Prabhupada as their current link...that they might be worshipping a pure devotee.

The second PL quote simply states that being a pure devotee is not necessarily the same thing as being the current link to the parampara.

To me, the two PL quotes are dealing with two separate, thought not unrelated, issues.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 06:27 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In a previous post, you mention that you objected to the following quote from the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' (PL):

"Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement?

A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara."

The above statement was written by Dhira Govinda Prabhu…and he recently emailed me in connection with your objection to it. I would like to reproduce his statement here:

"We don't claim that Srila Prabhupada was the only pure devotee on the planet when he was present. Perhaps he was, but we don't make that claim. The same for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta when he was on the planet, and Narottama dasa Thakur, and other members of our sampradaya. There may have been many pure devotees present, but they did not serve the function of direct link the parampara within our sampradaya. So, perhaps there are pure devotees within Srila Prabhupada's movement. That doesn't mean that they need to or are serving as the current link to the parampara. I suggest that members of Srila Prabhupada's movement, regardless of their level of spiritual advancement, would naturally be eager to connect persons to Srila Prabhupada as the current and direct link to the parampara. For me this seems like common sense, and is consistent with the tradition of our sampradaya."

Prabhu, you also mention objecting to the following quote from PL:

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

Again, the above was penned by Dhira Govinda Prabhu, and I received some further clarification about it from him via email:

"This is an assertion. If there is some rational objection to this assertion, I'll be glad to address it. As an example to support the assertion, consider the principle that the current and direct link to the parampara is defined as the Vaisnava who is the primary deliverer of transcendental knowledge to the devotee. So that principle, I assert, is valid regardless of the depth of spiritual realization of any individual or group of members within Srila Prabhupada's movement. And, from that principle we may deduce that Srila Prabhupada is serving as the primary link to the parampara for many, if not most or perhaps all, members of his movement, regardless of their date of formal initiation."

Hare Krsna. Your servant,
Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/07/2005 05:50 PM PST

Alex you posted this:

"Some devotees may choose to worship a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, such as the Vaisnava who performed the initiation ceremony, as the link to Srila Prabhupada, or in some other philosophical capacity. The PL framework does not directly address this, though it does contend that any member of Srila Prabhupada’s movement who accepts Srila Prabhupada as the guru to be worshipped as the current link to the parampara must be permitted to do so."

That's fine. I didn't know that there were people who were not being allowed to worship Srila Prabhupada as their "current link" in Iskcon. Are people being told they have to accept someone else as their main inspiration?

Another thing; previously you wrote this:

“Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement? A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara.

How does that coincide with the above quote from the PL? In the PL quote it says that the PL position doesn't address what you have addressed in the above in what I'm assuming are your own words. Were you speculating in the above or has the PL position changed since the first quote above was originally written down?

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 03:28 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am reading your comment:

"Alright Alex I can accept that, the revised comment is perfectly alright. But which position does the PL take? Can you find a quote?"

From what I understand, you are asking me whether or not PL takes a position like the one presented in my revised comment...and if I can find a quote that would show that PL takes a position like the one in my revised comment.

In the PL book, Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes the following about the PL model. I believe that here he is taking a position that is at least compatible with what I said in my revised comment:

"We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate.

The tangible issue at present is that the PL model is not even officially tolerated or accepted by managerial entities within ISKCON. Despite the widespread, albeit unspoken support for the ideas in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, such ideas are rejected and banned in the ISKCON organization. This is unfortunate. Whether or not the PL model is adopted as the dominant paradigm, we urge that it must at least be respected and allowed."

In another portion of the PL book, Dhira Govinda Prabhu states:

"Specifically, just as Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be the object of absolute surrender, and to directly give divya-jnana for the duration of his movement, he is similarly fully capable to be the Vaisnava to be worshipped as the primary link to the parampara by all of his movement’s devotees for the duration of his movement. This statement does not imply that some followers of Srila Prabhupada are not qualified to be worshipped."

(...)

"Some devotees may choose to worship a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, such as the Vaisnava who performed the initiation ceremony, as the link to Srila Prabhupada, or in some other philosophical capacity. The PL framework does not directly address this, though it does contend that any member of Srila Prabhupada’s movement who accepts Srila Prabhupada as the guru to be worshipped as the current link to the parampara must be permitted to do so."

In an article entitled "Focus on Srila Prabhupada", which appears on the PL website, Dhira Govinda Prabhu states the following:

"Some may assert that others are also qualified to fill the role of "absolute guru", "current link", etc. Fine. For now, let's simply acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is available for that service."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 02:38 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You also wrote:

"How about "We need to be open to the potential that we are mistaken and that some other understanding is the correct one.""

Yes, we are open to this. This is one of the reasons of why I wrote, in my reply to Hari Prabhu, that PL is an exploratory essay rather than a conclusive one.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/07/2005 02:29 PM PST

Alright Alex I can accept that, the revised comment is perfectly alright. But which position does the PL take? Can you find a quote?

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 02:08 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for drawing my attention to a potentially misleading statement that I wrote in my reply to Hari Prabhu. Perhaps I would have more effectively conveyed what I mean, if I wrote:

"In other words...in PL...Srila Prabhupada is presented as being available for the role of that guru without whose mercy we cannot advance in Krsna consciousness…he is available in this role for anyone who contacts his movement"

When I say this, I mean that Srila Prabhupada is available for the role of the guru referred to in...for example...the line "yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasado yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto 'pi".

I did not mean to imply that Srila Prabhupada is necessarily the only person available and qualified for this role. I meant to simply present that Srila Prabhupada is available and qualified for this role.

Thank you for helping me to clarify what I meant to communicate. I still plan to address your previous post, and I request your patience with me in this regard.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/07/2005 01:26 PM PST

Alex you wrote:

In other words, in PL Srila Prabhupada is presented as the guru wihout whose mercy we cannot advance in Krsna consciousness.

That is not Bhagavat tattva. That is Christian or Muslim philosophy. "You need to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior otherwise you are not saved" Or, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his (final) messenger".

In both of those religions they teach that without accepting Jesus Christ or Mohammed that you are cut off from God. Bhagavat tattva makes no such assertions about any single guru. Srila Prabhupada never made such a claim about his guru nor himself. Krishna's mercy is not limited to a single source.

If you claim that no one can advance in Krishna consciousness without the mercy of Srila Prabhupada then we have to wonder about all of the vaisnavas who lived before Srila Prabhupada or who were his contemporaries; were they also unable to advance without Srila Prabhupada? That would be a ridiculous claim. Yet when we make absolute statements about the absolute necessity of hearing from one acarya, then we fall into a swirl of contradictions.

Why the need to create new siddhanta? You will find nowhere in any sastra or the words of any acarya where we are taught the concept of one acarya as indispensible and whom we cannot possible advance without his guidance.

Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism.

Adi 1.44

yadyapi amara guru -- caitanyera dasa
tathapi janiye ami tanhara prakasa

Although I know that my spiritual master is a servitor of Sri Caitanya, I know Him also as a plenary manifestation of the Lord.

PURPORT

Every living entity is essentially a servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the spiritual master is also His servant. Still, the spiritual master is a direct manifestation of the Lord. With this conviction, a disciple can advance in Krsna consciousness. The spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna because he is a manifestation of Krsna.

Lord Nityananda, who is Balarama Himself, the first direct manifestation or expansion of Krsna, is the original spiritual master. He helps Lord Krsna in His pastimes, and He is a servant of the Lord.

Every living entity is eternally a servant of Sri Krsna Caitanya; therefore the spiritual master cannot be other than a servant of Lord Caitanya. The spiritual master's eternal occupation is to expand the service of the Lord by training disciples in a service attitude. A spiritual master never poses as the Supreme Lord Himself; he is considered a representative of the Lord. The revealed scriptures prohibit one's pretending to be God, but a bona fide spiritual master is a most faithful and confidential servant of the Lord and therefore deserves as much respect as Krsna.

Adi 1.45

guru krsna-rupa hana sastrera pramane
guru-rupe krsna krpa karena bhakta-gane

According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna. Lord Krsna in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees.

PURPORT

The relationship of a disciple with his spiritual master is as good as his relationship with the Supreme Lord. A spiritual master always represents himself as the humblest servitor of the Personality of Godhead, but the disciple must look upon him as the manifested representation of Godhead.

Adi 1.47

siksa-guruke ta' jani krsnera svarupa
antaryami, bhakta-srestha, -- ei dui rupa

One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.

PURPORT

...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.

If we promote Srila Prabhupada as the only person worthy of surrendering to then in effect you are minimizing every other spiritual master as being unworthy. That is an offense.

Then you quoted from Dhira Govinda:

We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate.

How magnanimous. He is open to the potential of other understandings being equally legitimate? How about "We need to be open to the potential that we are mistaken and that some other understanding is the correct one."

I've never read the PL, but in the few tidbits that have been presented here I have found error after error. I am sure that I am not alone in this. Anyone who is a bit familiar with Gaudiya tattva on these topics will find the PL to be unsound in it's philosophical reasoning. I can guarantee that Iskcon will not be budged by such writings. The only way to change Iskcon is to make a presentation that is supported by guru, sadhu and sastra. An even then it will be very difficult. But in such a presentation as PL, all I can say is you could find better things to do with your time. It is an exercise in futility and egotism.

Posted by Alex @ 11/07/2005 06:16 AM PST

Dear Hari Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

"have you guys heard what Danavir Maharaja has to say? maybe read his response to this, in short Dgovinda does not accept Danavir Maharaja as his guru but accepts Prabhupada as such-this is called "jumping over""

Yes, I read it when it was first made public. Your original statement was that Dhira Govinda Prabhu had "rejected" Danavir Maharaja.

While acknowledging that Danavir Maharaja may have a different perspective, Dhira Govinda Prabhu states that...at least from his side...there has not been had any sort of falling out with Danavir Maharaja.

In other words, it seems to me that it might not be Dhira Govinda Prabhu who is doing the “rejecting”.

In a section of PL, Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes:

"I have full respect for Danavir Maharaja, and his staunch example continues to inspire me. I have no anger or resentment towards him."

The PL book acknowledges that devotees have many gurus. The book also explores Srila Prabhupada's use of the term 'diksa'. This in turn, leads to an exploration of the term 'diksa guru' or 'initiator'.

I appreciate the following excerpt from Dhira Govinda Prabhu's response to the Sastric Advisory Committee:

"If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the first initiation ceremony, then my initiator is Bhagavan Prabhu. If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the second initiation ceremony, then my initiator is Danavir Maharaja. If initiator is defined in terms of the prime giver of transcendental knowledge (as Srila Prabhupada uses the term on the first page of the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta), then my initiator is Srila Prabhupada. Whatever definition you are comfortable with, that's okay with me (not that acceptance by me need be relevant for any of the recipients of this posting). . . . The assertions in the essay are not dependent on this discussion of terminology, which isn't to say that this discussion of terminology isn't important (it is important)."

In connection with the above statement, Dhira Govinda Prabhu recently posted the following to the PL email conference:

"The above points to the importance, for true communication to take place, of clearly defining terms, or avoiding potentially ambiguous terminology in favor of concrete and observable descriptions."

You also wrote: "I have read PL and it is wierd okay?"

For me, the main take home message of PL is that Srila Prabhupada is available and qualified to serve in the role of 'guru in the singular' for anyone who contacts his movement.

In other words, in PL Srila Prabhupada is presented as the guru wihout whose mercy we cannot advance in Krsna consciousness.

Prabhu, you also wrote:

"It may interest you to know that PL and the sampradaya acarya theory have been rejected by the GBC as bogus not only because of its apasiddanta content but also because the authors of such are not seen as iskcon members in good standing."

In my experience, the term "devotee in good standing" is not necessarily indicative of someone with strict sadhana, strong morals, and a clear understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

In my experience, the term "devotee in good standing" is, at least sometimes, used as a political term...meaning: "a devotee who agrees with the GBC politically".

If I choose to let the members of the current GBC body do all of my thinking for me...then it seems to me that I am drifting away from Srila Prabhupada's idea of having devotees who are independently thoughtful.

In addition to the above, Dhira Govinda Prabhu is not the only contributor to the second edition of the PL book.

There are also contributions from Ambarisa Prabhu, Balavanta Prabhu, Suresvara Prabhu, Mother Malini, Krsnadasa Kaviraja Prabhu, Govinda Prabhu, Bhusaya Prabhu, Bhakti Marga Swami, Naveen Krsna Prabhu, Madhuha Prabhu, Partha Prabhu, Ganapati Maharaja, Yamala Arjuna Prabhu and others.

PL is an exploratory essay rather than a conclusive one.

Hari Prabhu, you also wrote:

"dhira govinda proposes that gurus dont have their pranams chanted nor bhoga offered to them. this is not the system. prove otherwise"

From what I have read, Dhira Govinda Prabhu proposes that devotees have the option of chanting Srila Prabhupada's pranam mantra and offering bhoga to Srila Prabhupada.

It's true that these practices seem to be different from the system in the Gaudiya Matha...but that does not mean that they are inconsistent with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

In another section of PL, Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes the following about the PL model:

"We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate.

The tangible issue at present is that the PL model is not even officially tolerated or accepted by managerial entities within ISKCON. Despite the widespread, albeit unspoken support for the ideas in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, such ideas are rejected and banned in the ISKCON organization. This is unfortunate. Whether or not the PL model is adopted as the dominant paradigm, we urge that it must at least be respected and allowed."

I look forward to hearing from you. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by hari dasa @ 11/07/2005 02:17 AM PST

first this:

"Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/04/2005 07:38 PM PST

Hari das,

I find your remarks about Dhira Govinda prabhu irritating and irresponsible, to say the very least."

response- if what i write irritates you, dont read it!

"You have some nerve to sit up there in your great white horse handing out judgements! How dare you!"

-ooooooooh angry are we? well how do you think i feel when i read lots of things that are NOT in accordance to our philosophy? what to speak of blasphemy of my guru? It may interest you to know that PL and the sampradaya acarya theory have been rejected by the GBC as bogus not only because of its apasiddanta content but also because the authors of such are not seen as iskcon members in good standing.

"First of all, what you say is totally false. For that alone you should be sue for slander."

response-then sue me! and how is it false? dhira govinda proposes that gurus dont have their pranams chanted nor bhoga offered to them. this is not the system. prove otherwise

"Please do us a favor and stand up like a man and tell us what *YOU* think about the Prominent Link principles as oppose to parroting what others say. This would be better than just cowarding behind childish character assasination remarks, which nobody is interesting in hearing. Or is that too much to ask of you? "

-grow up mataji, i expressed my opinion and you didnt like it. if you like PL okay then surrender to Dhira Govinda as he according to you knows more about SP and how to approach him more than his disciples. I have read PL and it is wierd okay?

and then this quote from Dgovinda

"Danavir Maharaja became upset with me when I wrote The Humble Guru, and then again when I wrote Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Before The Humble Guru he was not upset with me. There was nothing that could remotely be called a "falling out" prior to The Humble Guru. From my side I can say that I have not had any sort of falling out with Danavir Maharaja, at any time including the present, although his perspective might be different. I have great respect and admiration for Danavir Maharaja, while acknowledging that he is unfavorable towards PL."

-have you guys heard what Danavir Maharaja has to say? maybe read his response to this, in short Dgovinda does not accept Danavir Maharaja as his guru but accepts Prabhupada as such-this is called "jumping over"

Posted by Alex @ 11/05/2005 08:58 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I thank you for your post. I appreciate the quotes from Srila Prabhupada. I see them as valuable for me to read and absorb.

I appreciate that you clarified for me what are the PL statements that you object to...and that you clarified for me what sort of things you are looking for in my response (i.e. quotes from sastra).

I accept that you feel that some of what I wrote was a waste of time to
you.

As for myself, I don't feel that I wasted any of my time by sharing that stuff. It honestly presents how I see things. I feel fine in having invested the time to write it.

I won't speak on behalf of 'everyone else' as to whether or not I wasted their time. I assume that since people are different, there will not be one uniform opinion about this.

My point about buddhi was that I see it as valuable, not that I see it as infallible...and that I see no valid reason to whimsically discount it.

I did not claim to be pure enough to be in touch with Supersoul directly. I don't think that way.

I claimed that like all living beings I am in contact with Supersoul indirectly, via his 'form-direction', buddhi. And buddhi is available even to the common man. Buddhi is one of the tools that I have to work with. Just as you work with yours.

I don't think that I made absolute proclamations. Rather I spoke about my own valid, though limited perceptions of sastra and Srila Prabhupada...as mediated by own imperfect, though honed, buddhi.

My point about the acaryas was that I choose to see them through Srila Prabhupada and not vice versa.

It seems that you attribute some things to me that I do not state in my post.

In connection to 'tradition', I would like to present something that I feel somewhat clarifies what I want to communicate.

I appreciated a recent post that Dhira Govinda Prabhu made on the Prominent Link forum. With his permission, I wanted to share an excerpt here:

"This discussion of "tradition" is interesting, and thought-provoking. As Alex Prabhu indicates above, "tradition" is sometimes used to support the current system in ISKCON. An implication of this is that "tradition" is of one particular flavor, which clearly isn't the case if we examine the tradition of our sampradaya. We might not generally think of "tradition" as indicating that a disciple initiates while his initiator is still present. However, preceptors such as Brahma and Vyasa are present, and generations of their spiritual descendants have initiated. Generally we think of tradition as implying that when the Vaisnava who conducted the formal initiation ceremony passes away, then the initiate accepts disciples, meaning that the initiate conducts initiation ceremonies. As is increasingly understood, the tradition of our parampara is not based on the performance of initiation ceremonies, and thus the standard of tradition described in the previous sentence does not apply, though of course in some instances the performance of the initiation ceremony is performed by the same Vaisnava who is the direct link to the parampara. The tradition of our parampara is that sometimes the links are not even on the same planet at the same time, during any part of the course of their lives.

Thus, there are several anomalies to the "standard tradition" in our own parampara, to the extent that I believe we must consider the relevance of this conception of the "standard tradition", with "the guru" being the devotee who conducts the ceremony, and when he passes away then the disciple accepts disciples, etc. It seems that this is not our tradition, though in some cases the precedents of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya overlap with this, apparently cursory, sense of tradition. Of course we learn from various traditions, and even awareness of misapprehensions of them. While such historical study informs our practice and understanding, I think it important that it not overshadow or interfere with a direct consciousness of Srila Prabhupada's intentions and instructions, which sometimes conform with tradition and sometimes not. For me, an understanding of "acarya" is that Srila Prabhupada is empowered to diverge from tradition, powerfully conveying to us the essence of the message from Sri Krsna in a manner perfectly applicable to our situation."

Before, responding to the unanswered points in your post, I would like to re-read them carefully.

I will strive to clearly address those points that you mention. I request your patience with me.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/05/2005 03:00 PM PST

Alex your response to me was not a response to what I wrote. I objected to this statement:

“Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement? A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara.

And to this one:

Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I asked you if you have some sort of sastric confirmation of these ideas. I refered to tradition in the sense of the tradition of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, not the vedic tradition, not the possible but unknown tradition of the Sri Sampradaya, nor the tradition of the Gaudiya Math, whatever that is.

You then did a dance of prevarication without refering to any sastra or words of any Gaudiya acharya but at the same time assuring us that you are in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

That was a waste of your time and everyone elses.

You then told us that when people use the writings of the previous acharyas that you do not accept that. Well that is certainly your right. But it is the tradition in the Gaudiya sampradaya when discussing philosophy to cite sastra and earlier acharyas. Srila Prabhupada did it, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did it, Srila Bhaktivinoda did it, and on back all the way to the beginning of the Gaudiya sampradaya. That is the correct procedure. You may not like that, you may want to eliminate everyone from the paramapra and ignore their teachings, but that would be against the teachings of Srila Prabhupada whom you claim to be the only bona fide source of knowledge for us. Not only did Srila Prabhupada advise us to study the writings of the previous acharyas but his commentaries and purports were full of citations from them and the purports themselves were mainly taken from the previous acharyas.

From the intro to Srimad Bhagavatam by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

Many devotees of Lord Caitanya like Srila Vrndavana dasa Thakura, Sri Locana dasa Thakura, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, Sri Kavikarnapura, Sri Prabodhananda Sarasvati, Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Sanatana Gosvami, Sri Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami, Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and in this latter age within two hundred years, Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Sri Syamananda Gosvami, Sri Narottama dasa Thakura, Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura and at last Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (our spiritual master) and many other great and renowned scholars and devotees of the Lord have prepared voluminous books and literatures on the life and precepts of the Lord. Such literatures are all based on the sastras like the Vedas, Puranas, Upanisads, Ramayana, Mahabharata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized acaryas. They are unique in composition and unrivaled in presentation, and they are full of transcendental knowledge. Unfortunately the people of the world are still ignorant of them, but when these literatures, which are mostly in Sanskrit and Bengali, come to light the world and when they are presented before thinking people, then India's glory and the message of love will overflood this morbid world, which is vainly searching after peace and prosperity by various illusory methods not approved by the acaryas in the chain of disciplic succession.

And then in your next post you go into a bit about how your intuition or gut feeling has been honed through years of study and that to ignore that intuition would be a bad thing. You quote from a purport by Srila Prabhupada where he talks about how Sri Paramatma reveals understanding through our intelligence.

Yes that is true but like you also mentioned it is not a foolproof method of gaining understanding and that is why it is recommended to read from the sastra and hear from liberated souls until you can directly speak to Sri Paramatma.

From S.B. 4.28.41

In this way King Malayadhvaja attained perfect knowledge because in his pure state he was directly instructed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By means of such enlightening transcendental knowledge, he could understand everything from all angles of vision.

PURPORT

In this verse the words saksad bhagavatoktena guruna harina are very significant. The Supreme Personality of Godhead speaks directly to the individual soul when the devotee has completely purified himself by rendering devotional service to the Lord. Lord Krsna confirms this also in Bhagavad-gita (10.10):

tesam satata-yuktanam
bhajatam priti-purvakam
dadami buddhi-yogam tam
yena mam upayanti te

"To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."

The Lord is the Supersoul seated in everyone's heart, and He acts as the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within. However, He gives direct instructions only to the advanced, pure devotees. In the beginning, when a devotee is serious and sincere, the Lord gives him directions from within to approach a bona fide spiritual master. When one is trained by the spiritual master according to the regulative principles of devotional service and is situated on the platform of spontaneous attachment for the Lord (raga-bhakti), the Lord also gives instructions from within. Tesam satata-yuktanam bhajatam priti-purvakam [Bg. 10.10]. This distinct advantage is obtained by a liberated soul. Having attained this stage, King Malayadhvaja was directly in touch with the Supreme Lord and was receiving instructions from Him directly.

And also from the purport to S.B. 4.29.50

Everything is being directed by the Supersoul within the body; therefore the better part of valor is to take His direction and be happy. To take His directions, one needs to be a devotee, and this is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (10.10):

tesam satata-yuktanam
bhajatam priti-purvakam
dadami buddhi-yogam tam
yena mam upayanti te

"To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."

Although the Supersoul is in everyone's heart (isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrd-dese arjuna tisthati [Bg. 18.61]), He talks only to the pure devotees who constantly engage in His service.

So while Dhira Govinda's theories may come from his intelligence and from his study of sastra, without having direct communication from Sri Paramatma it would be a fool who would accept his own speculations to be 100% reliable as divine inspiration without fault. The fact is that Sri Paramatama is guiding everyone through there intelligence, but for the conditioned souls that intelligence is in the service of materialistic desires. Everyone is receiving whatever inspiration and intelligence they have to do anything, from God.

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.

So it's not that just because your intuition or feeling or intelligence is ultimately the work of God that it is without faults, anyone who does anything can claim that he is inspired by God, and he would be correct, on one level.

ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

And in fact a self realized soul sees that reality at all times. He sees everyone serving the will of Krishna.

From the purport to CC Madhya 16.74

When teaching Sanatana Gosvami, the Lord further said:

sastra-yuktye sunipuna, drdha-sraddha yanra

'uttama-adhikari' se taraye samsara

"One who is expert in the Vedic literature and has full faith in the Supreme Lord is an uttama-adhikari, a first-class Vaisnava, a topmost Vaisnava who can deliver the whole world and turn everyone to Krsna consciousness." With great love and affection, the maha-bhagavata observes the Supreme Personality of Godhead, devotional service and the devotee. He observes nothing beyond Krsna, Krsna consciousness and Krsna's devotees. The maha-bhagavata knows that everyone is engaged in the Lord's service in different ways. He therefore descends to the middle platform to elevate everyone to the Krsna conscious position.

A person on the highest level knows and sees that everyone is serving Krishna either willfully or not. So in order to preach he has to tell people to give up what they are doing and follow the path of Bhakti, in that way he has to neglect what what he sees to be the truth i.e that everyone is already serving Krishna. In this way it is described that the highest level devotee comes down to the Madhyama adhikari level because the Madhyama adhikari doesn't see everyone serving Krishna, he sees the devotees serving Krishna to one degree or another and everyone else serving their desires for sense enjoyment.

But in truth everyone is serving is Krishna. So my point is that just because you have some intuition and feeling based on your study and that you understand that your intelligence is guided by Sri Paramatma, that doesn't mean that your philosophical conclusions are faultless. Everyone is guided by Paramatma in everything they do. As cited above it is only when you have come to the highest level when your ability to take instructions from Sri Paramatma will be perfected. At that stage Krishna speaks to you directly, not through intuition alone.

From Lord Kapila speaking to His mother in Srimad Bhagavatam:

When the mind is thus completely freed from all material contamination and detached from material objectives, it is just like the flame of a lamp. At that time the mind is actually dovetailed with that of the Supreme Lord and is experienced as one with Him because it is freed from the interactive flow of the material qualities.

Thus situated in the highest transcendental stage, the mind ceases from all material reaction and becomes situated in its own glory, transcendental to all material conceptions of happiness and distress. At that time the yogi realizes the truth of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He discovers that pleasure and pain as well as their interactions, which he attributed to his own self, are actually due to the false ego, which is a product of ignorance.

Posted by Alex @ 11/05/2005 08:48 AM PST

Dear Krishna Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for sharing your feelings and perceptions. You wrote:

“You seem to have more air than Dhira Govinda Prabhu. Please try to keep your comments succinct.”

Me:

This sums it up: "I feel that substance will save us, even if it is not encased in this or that form. I feel that form without substance will not save us. I feel that form without substance is an empty and hollow shell."

My post is long but the above sums up my view.

Krishna Prabhu:

“Yet again you have given NO sastric proof.”

Me:

Personally, I find CC Madhya 15.108-111 (verses and purports) to be instructive and illuminating on this profound topic. I find it valuable to read these over more than once...and with rapt attention...taking in all the nuances.

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/108/en

I also value the following quotes from Srila Prabhupada:

"Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge,
and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

(Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)

"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real
initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination,
that is initiation."

(BTG, Search for the Divine)

"...one who is situated on the platform of love of Godhead chants the holy name loudly for all concerned. As a result, everyone becomes initiated in the chanting of the holy names..."

(Chapter 18 of the TOLC)

"This diksa, second process is not very essential. The essential is to
chant."

(...)

"In this age there is no need of this second initiation, but those who are going to [should] be recognized as properly initiated, so this second instalment was introduced by Sanatana Gosvami."

(Srila Prabhupada - lecture 05/21/68)

Krishna Prabhu:

“In your first response and second response to my letters you just quoted PL.”

Me:

I want to clarify what the PL model is...and what it isn’t. So it makes sense to me to quote directly from the book that presents that model:

http://www.geocities.com/pointofsurrender/index.htm

Krishna Prabhu:

“Now in this letter you quote your feelings.”

Me:

I would like to address this. The answer is long...but I feel it has value.

Of course, you may choose to read it or skip it, depending on whether or not you are interested in reading what I have to say on this topic. Here it is:

When I talk about something feeling right or wrong to me, then I am
talking about a perception that is shaped by intuition, reason and
instinct. It might be sentimental or whimsical to accept such a
perception as all I all...yet I see no reason to whimsically ignore an
intuition...that to me also seems 'sentimental'.

I see buddhi as a factor in things like intuition, reason and
instinct. I see buddhi as the form direction of the Supersoul. Even
as a non-liberated person, the Supersoul has a presence in my life
through my buddhi.

When something feels wrong to me...when I feel 'red flags' going up around an issue...I have various option. I could choose ignore this
intuition...or I could choose to honestly look at it.

I see intuition and instincts as a valuable internal guidance system,
which are honed and perfected by chanting Hare Krsna and by hearing
from Srila Prabhupada. I think they are valuable because they are
aspects of the form direction of Supersoul.

This buddhi is filtered through my gunas, desires, prejudices, etc. So my buddhi is partially distorted. The more sattvic I am, the less distorted it is. The more rajastic and tamasic I am...the more I am seeing buddhi refracted through a 'coloured glass' of my own maya. In all cases I see and experience the world partly as it is...and partly as I am currently (influenced by my conditioning and coverings).

When I am more sattvic...then I see and experience the world more like
it really is. I am better able to receive guidance from buddhi and to
put it into practice. Buddhi-yoga.

Srila Prabhupada apparently once talked about how there are different cultures...the culture of the body...the culture of the mind...the culture of the intelligence and the culture of the soul proper.

I don't remember the exact wording. He seemed to be talking about
places where these different cultures (or cultivations) take place.

For the culture of the body, he mentioned some places where the
physical body is cultivated. I don't remember the actual example
given...but from what I remember it was something like a gym or a
place where you train and make your physical body stronger and healthier.

For the culture of the mind...I believe that Srila Prabhupada
mentioned a University...or some other such place of 'learning' where the mind is cultivated and cultured.

For the culture of the intelligence...the culture of buddhi...he mentioned the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita is the arena in which intelligence (buddhi) is cultivated...cultured...made stronger and healthier.

For the culture of the soul proper...Srila Prabhupada mentions the Srimad Bhagavatam.

I see my gut feelings as part of the imperfect...yet not
useless...'form direction' from Supersoul. This 'form direction' is as imperfect as I am...because it takes on the 'form' of my gunas. It
takes on the form of those aspects of material nature that I am
identifying with...and by which my perception is being at least
patially skewed.

The original message from Supersoul is perfect and pure, but I distort
it. I do this in part by my own personal filters.

Just as I am not useless...despite my short-comings...my buddhi is
also not useless...despite its short-comings.

The more I engage in the culture of the intelligence (Bhagavad Gita)
and the culture of the soul proper (Srimad Bhagavatam)...the healthier
and stronger my buddhi becomes. The more I focus on japa that it is
good quality and quantity...the stronger and healthier my buddhi becomes.

One of my favourite texts and purports in this connection is SB 2.2.35:

"The Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna is in every living being
along with the individual soul. And this fact is perceived and
hypothesized in our acts of seeing and taking help from the intelligence."

The purport in its entirety can be found here:

http://vedabase.net/sb/2/2/35/en

Here are some of my favourite excerpts from the purport:

"He can perceive that intelligence is the form-direction of the
Paramatma plenary portion of the Personality of Godhead. The presence of Paramatma in everyone's company is not very difficult to realize, even for the common man."

"Intelligence gives one direction like some higher authority, and the
living being cannot see or move or eat or do anything without the use
of intelligence. When one fails to take advantage of intelligence he
becomes a deranged man, and so a living being is dependent on
intelligence or the direction of a superior being. Such intelligence
is all-pervading. Every living being has his intelligence, and this intelligence, being the direction of some higher authority, is just like a father giving direction to his son. The higher authority, who is present and residing within every individual living being, is the Superself."

"We can easily attain to the true, spiritual conception by recognizing
the Superself (Paramatma) to be our friend and guide and by dovetailing our intelligence with the superior intelligence of Paramatma."

"So if we stick to our determination and pray for the mercy of the director of intelligence sitting within the same bodily tree, like a bird sitting with another bird (as explained in the Upanisads), certainly the purport of the revealed information in the Vedas becomes clear to our vision, and there is no difficulty in realizing the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vasudeva."

I especially like the following line:

"When one fails to take advantage of intelligence he becomes a
deranged man, and so a living being is dependent on intelligence or
the direction of a superior being. Such intelligence is all-pervading.
Every living being has his intelligence, and this intelligence, being the direction of some higher authority..."

Of course we also have the following famous line from the Gita (BG.10.10):

"To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."

My understanding of this...in light of SB 2.2.35...is that to the
degree to which we are serving Krsna in pure devotion...to that degree we are purified...and to that degree we are able to receive
understanding (buddhi) from Krsna.

The purport in its entirety can be found here:

http://www.bhagavadgitaasitis.com/10/10/en

I really connect with the following excerpt from the purport:

"...Krsna from within gives him instructions so that he may ultimately come to Him without difficulty."

To get communication directly from Supersoul I have to always engage
myself in Krsna consciousness and with love and devotion render all
kinds of services to Krsna. I don't claim to be on that platform.

And yet, as a common man, I can perceive that intelligence is the
form-direction of the Paramatma. His presence in my...and
everyone's... company is not very difficult to realize, even for a
common man like me.

My gut feelings (like the ones I have about 'diksa') give me direction like some higher authority. Supersoul is always there...communicating with me via my imperfect buddhi. I cannot even see or move or eat or do anything without the use of buddhi...without Paramatma's form-direction...without his help and guidance.

If I ignore my perception...if I ignore my intuitions and instincts...if I ignore the internal 'red flags' that come up in certain situations...if I ignore my reason...if I ignore my buddhi and fail to take advantage of it...then I feel that I become a ‘deranged man’. Just as the infant, or the animal is dependent on instinct...I am dependent on intelligence because it is the direction of a superior being. It is just like a father giving direction to his son.

The Superself is my friend and guide. It is beneficial for me to
dovetail my 'gut feelings' with the superior intelligence of Paramatma.

This dovetailing of my intelligence with higher intelligence comes to
me through the 'culture of intelligence'...through Bhagavad Gita and through the words and actions of the true guru...who is himself a transparent medium to Supersoul.

I internalize his words and actions and this further informs my
choices and perceptions...and informs my reactions and 'gut feelings'.

More and more...as I internalize his teachings...his words and actions become the voice of my conscience.

I cannot even see without the use of buddhi. The more I associate with Srila Prabhupada through the BG and SB...the more I understand and internalize his teachings...the more purified my seeing becomes...the more I can 'see through the eyes of sastra'.

My gut feelings about initiation are informed by my own ten years of
reading the Bhagavad Gita...including years where I read it every single day without fail.

My gut feelings are also informed by my reading of all of Srila
Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam. Some volumes of which I've read at
least twice. They are also informed by many hours of Srila Prabhupada's lectures that I've listened to.

These gut feelings are honed and purified by every morning program
that I've attended...every Gita class...every kirtan...every plate of prasadam that I've honoured.

All of the devotees who have shared with me their insights about KC
have helped to shape my buddhi.

If I ignore these gut feelings...this intelligence...then I feel that I gradually become more and more of a deranged man...a blind and stumbling follower...not 'independently thoughtful'...but rather a zombie. A zombie with neckbeads on.

If I ignore buddhi, then I also become someone who assumes that
everyone else's perception and experience of sastra, and of Srila
Prabhupada's teachings, is more valuable and real than my own
experience of these.

End of long response.

Krishna Prabhu:

“If we do not have the cultural external diksa ceremony chaos will reign. Just like if the formal marriage ceremony did not exist then we would have debauchees and prostitutes for ancestors. Please think carefully and clearly before trying to restructure the social fabric that Krishna has established. Also without sastric quotes our discussions become ramblings of the mind and benefit no one but on the other hand confuse all.”

Me:

Thank you for sharing your perceptions with me.

Personally, I feel that without the substance of mutual commitment (and often also commitment to God) that seems to have been traditionally synonymous with marriage...we might well have had ‘debauchees and prostitutes for ancestors’. I don’t feel that it was the marriage ceremony itself that was a ‘magic wand’ that kept society from falling into chaos. After all, ceremonies vary from culture to culture.

It is not unheard of for people to be ‘married’ in the eyes of the public, while at the same time acting like ‘debauchees and prostitutes’ in private. Again, the ceremony though it may be glorious, is not a valid replacement for two people making and keeping a commitment.

I see the initiation ceremony as important, valuable, but not as absolutely essential. I would disagree that to take part in an initiation ceremony is
synonymous to 'becoming initiated'.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/05/2005 07:15 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your feedback.

When I look at the issue of 'tradition', it makes me think of the terms 'upakarika guru' (assistant of the saviour) and 'uddharika guru' (the saviour), which apparently appear in the Prappanamrta Tapana.

The Prappanamrta Tapana is apparently a scripture used and accepted in the Sri-sampradaya. I have never read it myself, and my learned Sri Vaisnava friend has never even heard of it. I am open to the possibility that it exists and I would be interested in reading an English translation of at least the relevant sections.

One of the reasons why I find the existence of the Prappanamrta Tapana (and the concept of uddarika and upakarika guru) to be interesting is that...in my experience...'tradition' is often used as support for the current understanding of guru tattva held in the ISKCON organization.

In my experience, 'alternate models' of guru-tattva are accused of being speculative inventions that are not in line with 'tradition'. For example, some models are accused of being attempts to bring Vaisnava practice and understanding closer to Judeo-Christian ideas. Some 'alternate models' of guru-tattva are seen as being 'not Vedic' or 'not in line with the Vedic tradition'.

If the Prappanamrta Tapana exists...and if it does indeed define the terms uddarika and upakarika in the way described above then this would be one example of a Vedic tradition that seems to be closer to the PL model than does to the current ISKCON/GBC model.

It might be more accurate to say that some of these 'alternate models' of guru-tattva (like PL) are not necessarily in line with the traditions of the 'Gaudiya Matha' (GM) or of the 'Radha Kunda Babajis'(i.e. certain members of the 'traditional parivars'). This in itself does not mean that such 'alternate models' are not in line with Srila Prabhupada is teachings.

For example when we visit India, we may get some insights about Varnasrama Dharma...but at the same time we may understand that Srila Prabhupada does not accept the currently held idea of 'caste determined by birth alone' to be in line with the authentic Vedic daivi varnasrama dharma of days past.

So similarly, we may get some insight into guru-tattva by looking at the traditions of the GM or of the 'Radha Kunda Babajis'...but this does not necessarily mean that all aspects of those currently extant traditions are in line with the essence of what Srila Prabhupada received from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

It does not even necessarily mean that those traditions are in line with the authentic previously held Vedic understanding of the essence of guru-tattva. After all, if we accept Srila Prabhupada as an authentic ambassador of Vedic culture...then we can also keep in mind that he did at times make unpopular changes to 'tradition'...and he also did at times also speak critically of certain understanding and practices associated with the GM and the 'Radha Kunda Babajis'...including some understandings and practices associated with guru-tattva.

At this point, I would like to quote a portion of text that I find interesting. It is from an article posted on the Veda Veda website:

"There are many gurus, guru is one, yet the great acharya, such as Srila Prabhupada, continue to give more spiritual enlightenment than other gurus, because Srila Prabhupada left so many books and recorded conversations. And he left us so many stories of his life, which unlimited souls will read about, or hear from the continuing disciples of his movement. This is the same with other great acharyas, like the six Gosvamis, and Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva, and so on. Lokanatha Swami has explained that "some or maybe all of the problems that arose in our movement after Srila Prabhupada left have their origin in our not properly understanding this position of founder-acharya." There is a scripture from the Sri-sampradaya called Prappanamrta Tapana explains that a founder-acarya is know by five symptoms: first, he is udharika, which means that he is the savior of everyone. The Prappanamrta Tapana goes on to explain that those who come after the founder-acarya in the disciplic succession, who act as spiritual masters, are upakarika, his helpers. They are never to be equated, even after hundreds of generations, with the founder-acarya.

Establishing a relationship with a spiritual master in the line of Srila Prabhupada first of all means establishing a relationship with him as founder-acarya. Ramanuja and Madhva continue to be udharika acharya for their movements, and so it is proper for Srila Prabhupada to be udharika, or continuing savior for his movement. Several gurus of our society agree with this, and they feel themselves to be upakarikas, or helper gurus for Srila Prabhupada."

For those who are interested, the text in it's entirety can be found here:

http://www.vedaveda.com/anglais/news/006.html

I am open to the possibility that since 'udharika' refers to the 'salvific' figure...that it is also referring to the guru who is student’s absolute point of surrender.

I also find Lokanatha Maharaja’s parallel between 'udharika' and 'founder-acarya' (the pre-eminent siksa guru for the movement) to be interesting.

In this connection, I would like to share a portion of correspondence between Dhira Govinda Prabhu and a devotee who would rather remain anonymous:

“I don't view the term "siksa guru" as inherently depreciative. It's a glorious thing, to be a siksa guru. But, as you indicate, labels such as "siksa guru" and "diksa guru" have become politicized, with this process of politicization not necessarily reflecting the balanced perspective presented by Srila Prabhupada and sastra. Because of the institutional filters that many devotees have acquired around these terms, to describe Srila Prabhupada as the prominent siksa guru may tend to minimize him from his actual position and relationship with the members of his movement. The conception may be there, that "he's just my siksa guru, but my diksa guru, and the guru who is most important to me, is..." So, it's not that the term is intrinsically minimizing, but the relationship to the term of many ISKCON devotees may be so. It has been and is known that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's siksa guru. Still, there are many in the movement who barely acknowledge Srila Prabhupada's vyasa-puja, while celebrating in a big way the vyasa-puja celebration of their "real guru" (that is, the devotee who performed their initiation ceremony). This is described in the PL chapter Terms of Relegation. Clearly, whatever labels that the GBC has applied to Srila Prabhupada have not been sufficient to substantially change the consciousness, to actually convey the realization that Srila Prabhupada is the main spiritual master, the main link to the parampara- actually the most important person in the lives of all persons in his movement. Thus, at this point in history I'm hesitant to apply terms, although those terms are true, such as "prominent siksa guru" to Srila Prabhupada, because they tend to take away, in a practical sense, from the fullness and importance of his role.”

Personally, I feel that the current ISKCON/GBC definition of the term 'diksa guru' may be more in line with certain current traditions in India (i.e. those of the 'GM', the 'Radha Kunda Babajis', etc.)...than with what is found in the collected teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

I certainly open to the possibility that just as (according to Srila Prabhupada) the current caste system in India does not represent authentic Vedic Varnasrama...so some 'traditional' ideas about guru-tattva that are associated with certain Gaudiya Vaisnava groups in India might not necessarily be in line with an authentic Vedic and Vaisnava understanding of guru-tattva.

Perhaps in relation to a least certain guru-tattva 'management' issues...the Madhva or Sri sampradayas may even be closer to what is found in Srila Prabhupada's teachings that what is taught by the current 'GM' or 'Radha Kunda Babajis'.

I am also open to the idea that in Kali Yuga certain 'Vedic traditions' may in fact be distortions of earlier valid Vedic traditions.

But ultimately, for me, Srila Prabhupada is the interpreter of tradition...not the members of the former Gaudiya Matha, nor the members of the 'traditional parivars', nor even the Prappanamrta Tapana. I think it is valuable for me to hear from Srila Prabhupada to see how he presents the tradition.

In a sense, I feel that it is not even really necessary for me to make a separate endeavour to 'understand the tradition', because Srila Prabhupada already understands its essence...and I can hear it from him.

In connection with the practice of making appeals to 'tradition', I would like to quote something from Dhira Govinda Prabhu's response to the SAC.

“The SAC paper then provides several pages of analysis on the quotes from the Madhya-lila references above, concluding with the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "Of course, the properly observed vows of initiation do lead to the gain of spiritual knowledge and defeat of ignorance, but these are secondary characteristics."

In that section the SAC cites authorities such as Sanatana Gosvami, Narahari Sarakara, and Jiva Gosvami. As a general principle we refer to Srila Prabhupada to understand previous acaryas, not vice versa. We suggest that Srila Prabhupada's meaning in the cited purports of Madhya-lila are clear, and do not demand reference elsewhere for understanding. The SAC's linguistic analysis of the Goswamis' literature may justify a reminder cited in the SAC paper. "The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it." (Bhag. 1:4:1 Purport)”

I feel that I similar stance is valid vis-à-vis ‘tradition’...that we understand tradition through the lens of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and not vice versa.

I think that these topics are open to consideration, reflection and discussion. In this spirit, I would like to end with a link to a short article entitled ‘Caitanya-caritamrta- Page 1, and Conflict Resolution in ISKCON’:

http://www.geocities.com/pointofsurrender/pl-caitanya-conflict.htm

Thank you for your time and attention.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Krishna Das @ 11/05/2005 06:42 AM PST

Dear Alex,
You seem to have more air than Dhira Govinda Prabhu. Please try to keep your comments succinct. Yet again you have given NO sastric proof. In your first response and second response to my letters you just quoted PL. Now in this letter you quote your feelings. Well normally as Vaisnava’s we should quote sastra to establish tattva. But if you like I will give you my feelings and final word.

If we do not have the cultural external diksa ceremony chaos will reign. Just like if the formal marriage ceremony did not exist then we would have debauchees and prostitutes for ancestors. Please think carefully and clearly before trying to restructure the social fabric that Krishna has established. Also without sastric quotes our discussions become ramblings of the mind and benefit no one but on the other hand confuse all.
Hope this meets you well,
Signing off,
Krishna Das

Posted by shiva das @ 11/05/2005 03:42 AM PST

Alex you wrote:

“Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement?
A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara.

While all of your arguments that you have taken from Dhira Govinda may sound logical to you, we need to check and see if they are confirmed by the tradition they claim to want to enhance. Of course he nor you can provide any sort of sastric confirmation for such a declaration as above. If being a self realized soul in direct communion with God is not sufficient in your eyes or anyone elses eyes for that person to be a "link" in the parampara, then you need to get your eyes checked because you are spiritually near sighted. What more of a qualification could there possibly be?

At the most basic level there are two types of people in this world; the ones who know God directly and intimately, and everyone else. If your philosophy is teaching that the people who know God directly and intimately are not "links" to God; what justification can you provide for such a philosophy?

Why come up with a plan to organize a religious institution which is based on a long tradition if you neglect to first find out if that plan is copacetic with and able to find justification from the tradition's philosophical doctrines?

Clearly since such an apasiddhantic statement has been made on such a crucial matter it is clear the author has not done his homework, or if he has he disregards what he has learned.

All "pure devotees" are "current links" directly to God. That is Gaudiya siddhanta.

siksa-guruke ta' jani krsnera svarupa
antaryami, bhakta-srestha, -- ei dui rupa

One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.

PURPORT

Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami states that the instructing spiritual master is a bona fide representative of Sri Krsna. Sri Krsna Himself teaches us as the instructing spiritual master from within and without. From within He teaches as Paramatma, our constant companion, and from without He teaches from the Bhagavad-gita as the instructing spiritual master.

There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions.

Thus the instructions in the science of devotion are differentiated in terms of the objective and subjective ways of understanding. The acarya in the true sense of the term, who is authorized to deliver Krsna, enriches the disciple with full spiritual knowledge and thus awakens him to the activities of devotional service.

When by learning from the self-realized spiritual master one actually engages himself in the service of Lord Visnu, functional devotional service begins.
The procedures of this devotional service are known as abhidheya, or actions one is dutybound to perform. Our only shelter is the Supreme Lord, and one who teaches how to approach Krsna is the functioning form of the Personality of Godhead.

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.

Then you wrote:

Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

If someone is directly relating to Krishna he should be treated like everyone else and just be seen as a cog in the institutional machinery? Where do you come up with this stuff. Look, if you were talking about a university where the textbooks were all written by the founder of the university and all the teachers were meant to simply teach from the books, then your proposition would not be so off the wall. But we are not dealing with mundane concepts. We are dealing with a vital living spiritual tradition. The tradition that you want to change into a mundane religious school. Did Bhaktisiddhanta tell his disciples that after he left no one should act as an acharya? That he was the "current link" till the end of time in the organization he started? No, he didn't say that did he? He said that one of his disciples would stand out as a self effulgent acharya and that he would take up the role of acharya. If Srila Prabhupada would have followed the plan as layed out by Dhira Govinda then he would have had everyone see his guru as the "current link" instead of himself. And Bhaktisiddhanta would have told his disciples that his father was their current link, and on back through time all of the previous acharyas would have done the same. In effect Dhira Govinda's proposition would have none of the past acharyas as members or "links" in the parampara. But they didn't follow that path because that is not the tradition.

This whole idea of discriminating between self realized bona fide spiritual masters as if there is some difference in qualification amongst them is complete and total apasiddhanta.

A bona fide spiritual master is what he is, regardless of what you may think or how you may want to limit what he is authorized to do.

From CC Madhya lila

A Vaishnava acarya is self-effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment. A false acarya may try to override a Vaishnava by a high-court decision, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga.

From Srila Prabhupada at Bhaktisiddhanta's Guru Puja:

Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forrns to teach you, me and all others.In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth.''
Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acaryadeva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.In the Bhagavatam (11.17.27) it is said:

acaryam mam vijaniyannavamanyeta karhicitna martya-buddhyasuyetasarva-deva mayoguruh

"One should understand the spiritual master to be as good as I am," said the Blessed Lord. "Nobody should be jealous of the spiritual master or think of him as an ordinary man, because the spiritual master is the sum total of all demigods."

That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey.

Sorry to be so blunt, but all of Dhira Govinda's suggestions are based on a foundation that has no relevance to the tradition and teachings of the Gaudiya Sampradaya. He may have good intentions but he is not educated on the tradition, or at least when he wrote these things he wasn't.

The whole thing is based on a misconception and is a recipe for creating a mundane religious organization. The idea that liberated souls should not be respected and treated as bona fide spiritual masters who are direct links to the Supreme Lord is the very antithesis of Gaudiya siddhanta.

Posted by Alex @ 11/05/2005 12:11 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your comments. I would like to address some of the points that you have brought up. Since they are in relation to the Prominent Link model, I would like to respond with portions of text from the book ‘Srila Prabhupada:The Prominent Link’ (PL).

You wrote:

“If we extend this type of philosophy to it's logical end point we can conclude that all we really need is sastra because whatever a guru speaks can be found in sastra. What need was there of Srila Prabhupada or Bhaktisiddhanta, or Bhaktivinoda etc giving diksa?”

I feel that the following excerpt from PL relates to what you have written above:

“What if someone claims "By the definition given above, the direct link for me is Srila Rupa Gosvami [or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura]"?

The view of the PL model is that if someone did originally connect with the sankirtana movement through the books of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Gosvami, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Goswami would arrange to connect that person to Srila Prabhupada, because Srila Prabhupada is the current link for the present time. Still, we are open to hear and observe the experiences of others, and adjust our perspective accordingly. If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.

Srila Prabhupada’s organization is for those who are directly connected with the parampara through Srila Prabhupada. Someone may be primarily linked to the parampara through someone else, and that is appreciated. However, that linkage is not necessarily part of Srila Prabhupada’s institution. For example, if someone is in the line of the Sri-sampradaya, Srila Prabhupada’s followers honor that, while recognizing that it’s not in Srila Prabhupada’s line.”

Shiva Prabhu, you also wrote:

“So why is it recommended to sit at the feet of a spiritual master and inquire from him and serve him?

Two reasons. First you can inquire from him, he can monitor your progress. Secondly it is through the spiritual master that Sri Krishna can give you direct instructions meant especially for you.”

In this connection, I feel that the following section of text from PL is relevant:

“Q: In the PL model, how will the initiate know how to manage his devotional life?

A: Srila Prabhupada is his main guide, as his primary guru. Also, there are the sadhus in Srila Prabhupada’s movement from whom the initiate will naturally accept guidance. The initiate can choose where in Srila Prabhupada’s movement he wants to serve. He is then expected to cooperatively and submissively serve within the authority structure established by Srila Prabhupada.

Consider the situation in the mid-1970s, when Srila Prabhupada was physically present. A devotee who joined at that time accepted Srila Prabhupada as his spiritual master and link to the parampara, though he did not expect to receive personal training from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s assistants personally guided and instructed the new devotee. Upon joining ISKCON the devotee chose where in Srila Prabhupada’s organization to serve. Once choosing, he was expected to cooperate with the authority structure that Srila Prabhupada set up in that particular temple and to appropriately respect and serve all the devotees with whom he associated. Many of these devotees actively assisted him in spiritual life. In a sense they were his gurus, though he understood that Srila Prabhupada was his connection to the parampara and primary guru. Perhaps one of Srila Prabhupada’s assistants served as a primary assistant for the new devotee, though it was understood that Srila Prabhupada, and not the primary assistant, was the point of absolute surrender. In fact, the devotee may have had different primary assistants throughout his devotional career, though Srila Prabhupada as the main guru and primary deliverer of divya-jnana was constant.

With the PL model the management would be handled as described above. Many devotees and groups of devotees have commented over the years how the present system, with the devotee who performs the initiation ceremony intrinsically involved in the managerial mix, has caused much disturbance. The PL model proposes that we return to the system of management that was in effect when Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet. A devotee will naturally consult senior devotees whom he respects when making important decisions such as which temple to serve in and what service to perform. In the PL model there is no managerial control explicitly or implicitly assumed by the Vaisnava conducting the initiation ceremony over the Vaisnava being formally initiated, though there may be a managerial relationship, depending on the volition of the involved parties.

The PL model encourages devotees to serve and accept guidance and shelter from Vaisnavas who are physically present. These Vaisnavas to whom the devotee subordinates himself, and with whom the devotee develops close relationships, are spiritual teachers, though none of them replace Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession.

This paper describes devotees who genuinely experience Srila Prabhupada as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara, by dint of Srila Prabhupada being the primary Vaisnava who gives direct transcendental knowledge. Of course this can be misused by someone claiming "I'm directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, so I don't listen to anything anyone else says," and as an excuse for arrogance. If someone is actually connected with Srila Prabhupada then he won't exhibit such behavior. Srila Prabhupada wants us to serve submissively under the hierarchical structure that he created, in loving cooperation with his followers. This doesn't conflict with Srila Prabhupada being the direct link to the parampara for the members of his movement.”

I also want to respond to this statement:

“Just because there may be many unqualified people willing to give diksa and tell you what to do while telling you that they are the gateway to Krishna, that doesn't mean the process itself should be neglected in favor of "the sure and safe method" of rejecting the recommended process. Just because you have been unsuccessfull in finding a bona fide spiritual master that you can have faith in, that doesn't mean that such a person doesn't exist or that the recommended process should be taught as being irrelevant.”

Here is another excerpt from PL:

“Q: Does the PL model assume that there are no pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement?

A: No. There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara. Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada.”

Thank you for your time and attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/04/2005 11:36 PM PST

Dear Krishna Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your response. Yes, I do value the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' (PL). In my ten years of contact with Srila Prabhupada's teachings, PL is the most sensible view of guru-tattva that I've come across.

I believe strongly that Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta value substance over form.

It's not clear to me that conclusions about guru-tattva that appear to value form over substance actually come from Srila Prabhupada.

I am open to the idea that such conclusions...the ones that appear to value form over substance...may ultimately have grown out of things like the talks between ISKCON leaders and Sridhara Maharaja in the late seventies.

In a marriage, it seems to me that the mutual commitment between spouses is more important than the formalities of this or that ritual. It seems to me to be sine qua non. It seems to me that most (if not all) cultures have an institution of marriage.

The ceremonies that formalize the marriage commitment vary from culture to culture.

If two spouses have been properly married in strict accordance to this or that ritual...but they do not really have a commitment to each other, or to their marriage...or if they regularly cheat on each other...then to me, their marriage is not marriage.

To me the mutual commitment, care and dedication is the real thing...the ceremony is icing on the cake.

I value this quote:

"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination. That is initiation."

(Srila Prabhupada - morning walk, Seattle, 02/10/68)

I especially like the last part: "It is your determination. That is initiation."

Wearing a dhoti or sari all day and every day, may be helpful and glorious. Going to work everyday with tilak on may be helpful and glorious. Still, I would not see these as absolutely essential for perfecting one's life.

It feels to me that the initiation ceremony has become politicized. It often looks to me that today, it is primarily the formalization of one's allegiance to this or that faction...rather than as a spiritual event in line with what Srila Prabhupada is teaching.

The things that I read from Srila Prabhupada feel right to me. They are intuitively satisfying. Even those things that seem to shock my sensibilities and/or conflict with my social conditioning. Deep down inside they feel right...and I resonate with them on a deep level.

Some of what I read, in aspiring devotee circles, about the meaning of initiation does not feel right to me at all.

The stress on the seemingly absolute necessity of a formal initiation ceremony feels really weird to me. To be frank it feels kind of like a scam to me.

I imagine two hypothetical aspiring devotees. To me, they help to illustrate this principle:

One aspiring devotee has taken part in a formal initiation ceremony into one of the existing factions of aspiring devotees. He chants sometimes. He follows the regulative principles sometimes. He reads Srila Prabhupada's books sometimes. Because it's easier, he often eats in restaurants...and because it's easier, he regularly eats food with onions and garlic. This aspiring devotee lives his life in this way and eventually passes away.

Another aspiring devotee never takes part in a formal initiation ceremony...and has no plan to do so. He reads Srimad Bhagavatam every morning...even if only two pages. He reads the Bhagavad Gita every evening after dinner...even if only two pages. He reads Krsna book every night before bed...even if only two pages. He strictly chants 18 rounds per day...so as not to be satisfied with chanting the bare minimum. If he does not finish his 18 rounds one day...he makes time to finish them the next morning...before embarking on his next day's chanting. He listens to mp3's of Srila Prabhupada's lectures on his walkman whenever he is doing chores around the house. This makes the chores more bearable, and also gives him another excuse to hear Srila Prabhupada. This aspiring devotee offers all of his food to Srila Prabhupada...and is willing to only eat food that is offerable and offered. This aspiring devotee lives his life in this way and eventually passes away.

Who is more connected to Srila Prabhupada? Who is more initiated?

I don't see this or that protocol for the formalities of the initiation ceremony as a magic wand.

I feel that it is the substance that saves, heals, delivers, transforms and perfects us...not the form. I see the form as secondary...and ultimately as not very essential.

If the substance is encased in the proper form...then to me that's great. But I don't see form as a valid replacement for substance.

I feel that substance will save us, even if it is not encased in this or that form. I feel that form without substance will not save us. I feel that form without substance is an empty and hollow shell.

Hare Krsna.
Your servant,
Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/04/2005 11:10 PM PST

Dhira Govinda wrote:

Although the person may consider one or more of these other devotees to be on the absolute platform, it is not necessary that s/he considers as such, or that those guides and mentors be on that platform, because Srila Prabhupada is perfectly serving in that capacity for the aspiring devotee. Thus, to reiterate, Srila Prabhupada flawlessly fills the role of guru, in the singular sense of the term, for all who contact his movement.

If we extend this type of philosophy to it's logical end point we can conclude that all we really need is sastra because whatever a guru speaks can be found in sastra. What need was there of Srila Prabhupada or Bhaktisiddhanta, or Bhaktivinoda etc giving diksa? Sure they may be on the absolute platform but we can get the siddhanta from Sri Krishna, The Bhagavatam, The Upanishads, The Goswamis, etc. As long as we serve the source and sourceworks then there is no real need to hear from or surrender to anyone else who may be around physically.

So why is it recommended to sit at the feet of a spiritual master and inquire from him and serve him?

Two reasons. First you can inquire from him, he can monitor your progress. Secondly it is through the spiritual master that Sri Krishna can give you direct instructions meant especially for you.

So it's not that past acaryas or sastra is all that is needed. Well to be absolutely truthful you don't really need more then that. But for rapid advancement and personal attention from Sri Krishna it is advised to find a bona fide spiritual master and submit to him in the prescribed method because he has seen the truth and can impart that to you.

Just because there may be many unqualified people willing to give diksa and tell you what to do while telling you that they are the gateway to Krishna, that doesn't mean the process itself should be neglected in favor of "the sure and safe method" of rejecting the recommended process. Just because you have been unsuccessfull in finding a bona fide spiritual master that you can have faith in, that doesn't mean that such a person doesn't exist or that the recommended process should be taught as being irrelevant.

You can engage in devotional service under the guidance of the past acaryas without taking diksa and you will no doubt progress nicely. But there is no suitable replacement for the one on one guidance and association with a person who is directly a transparent via medium of Sri Krishna. By the mercy of Krishna you get Guru, By the mercy of Guru you get Krishna. It's not "By the mercy of Krishna you get the teachings of past acaryas".

We shouldn't take diksa just to take diksa, it has no potency. The potency isn't in the initiation itself, it is in the surrendering to the spiritual master in the recommended process.

"So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja." (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 10/12/76, Hyderabad)

"The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there."Â (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamala Krsna, 19 August, 1968)

"Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." (Srila Prabhupada, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/04/2005 07:38 PM PST

Hari das,

I find your remarks about Dhira Govinda prabhu irritating and irresponsible, to say the very least.
You have some nerve to sit up there in your great white horse handing out judgements! How dare you!
First of all, what you say is totally false. For that alone you should be sue for slander.
Please do us a favor and stand up like a man and tell us what *YOU* think about the Prominent Link principles as oppose to parroting what others say. This would be better than just cowarding behind childish character assasination remarks, which nobody is interesting in hearing. Or is that too much to ask of you?

Posted by Krishna Das @ 11/04/2005 06:43 PM PST

Dear Alex Prabhu,
It seems you are very loyal to the feelings and pathway pioneered by Dhira Govinda Prabhu. He is of course a scholar of sorts as well as a trained counselor. However, we have to follow the path of the Mahatmas.

For example, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati took initiation from Gaura Kishore das babaji even though he mainly expanded the work of his father. In fact his father warned him to take such initiation under the threat of being thrown out of the house.

Also the eminent Vaisnava Ramanujacarya took initiation from Mahapurna even though he followed the teachings of, and completed the work of Yamunacharya Yatiraja the guru of Mahapurna. Among all the disciples of Yamunacharya none exhibited the intellect and purity of Ramanuja, yet these selfless saintly disciples of Yamunacharya elected to put Ramanujacharya a disciple of their godbrother as the Acharya of their Math. So we see that a perfect example is set of having a diksa guru.

Even in the life of Jesus Christ we see that he took initiation from John the Baptist the Essene babaji. Why do all these great souls emphasize the importance of a living diksa guru?

It is true that Krishna is not bound by this system and He can exercise His will to welcome whomever He feels qualified to enter His Spiritual Realm. But we should never forget that Krishna has established this system and from time past to time future it shall endure. If our guru is trying to please Srila Prabhupada and gives us carte blanche to do the same then what is the problem? Let not our false ego’s flatten down our souls, but let our souls take the path of least resistance, the path our forefathers have taken, the path that Krishna espoused the true path. This will please you, Dhira Govinda Prabhu all our Guru’s, Srila Prabhupada and ultimately Krishna.

I remain,
dasanudas
Krishna Das

Posted by Alex @ 11/04/2005 11:49 AM PST

Dear Krishna Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I also wanted to respond to the following statement that you made:

"...by preaching covered Rtvik philosophy you will in fact take devotees away from their prominent link and be acting as an agent of chaos."

It seems to me that if we choose to refer to the points presented in the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' (PL) as "covered Ritvik philosophy", then we may be setting up a block to sober reflection and communication on those points.

If we do this, we may be inclined to whimsically reject the points presented in PL before even having looked at them in entirety, and with clear consciousness.

To further address your statement, I would like to include a short paragraph by Dhira Govinda Prabhu from PL:

"I would like to clarify a few points regarding the booklet Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. I am not in any ritvik camp and the essay was not written to support any ritvik agenda. One hope I had in presenting the essay was that the ideas therein would serve as a platform for resolving the ongoing conflict between advocates of the GBC position and advocates of ritvik ideas."

I would also like to include a section from the Preface to PL, written by Balavanta Prabhu:

"I, for one, as neither a "ritvik" or an "absolutist", welcome Dhira Govinda's paper. He has obviously put a great deal of thought and soul-searching into it. The product is a position that cannot be ignored. There are clearly people making spiritual advancement in ISKCON without being formally initiated. They utter the holy name, they read about the glories of Krsna in the books, they take prasadam. In this way they advance. There are others making advancement even after the person by whom they have been formally initiated has ceased the practices of Krsna Consciousness. How is this possible? Clearly, such persons are in contact with Krsna in some fashion. However, Krsna cannot be approached by the conditioned soul directly. Only through Krsna's pure devotee can He be reached. Thus, they have contacted Krsna through the mercy of Srila Prabhupada who expertly brought Lord Caitanya's mission to the modern West. This is a simple and somewhat obvious point, but we need to hear it openly. Sometimes, intelligence means to state the obvious clearly."

Thank you for your attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/04/2005 11:09 AM PST

Dear Krishna Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for sharing your perceptions. You wrote:

"Therefore we have a living Guru, meaning an ultimate authorized authority we take direction and instruction from. We should choose him carefully."

(...)

"Gour Govinda Swami preached that you must have a living Guru."

In this connection, I would like to share a section of text from the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' (PL):

"The principle of pleasing a "living" Vaisnava remains with the PL model. When we are inspired by a Vaisnava we want to please him or her, regardless of whether s/he has a title such as "diksa guru". To be an assistant to Srila Prabhupada is glorious and satisfying, not empty and hollow. Of course anything can become superficial if not accompanied by the proper consciousness. If someone is feeling some sort of degradation or humiliation at being Srila Prabhupada's assistant, there is something drastically wrong with his or her consciousness. If this is the case then of course they should not pose themselves as gurus of any sort. Our drive and inspiration should come from serving Srila Prabhupada's mission. When we see someone blissfully doing this, then naturally we become inspired by that Vaisnava and want to associate with and serve him. Change begins in the world of ideas. Due to persons being attached to a particular paradigm, there may be expected to be substantial resistance. But we must put out these ideas in order to genuinely establish Srila Prabhupada as the main spiritual master for his movement. Again, there are some sectors of the movement that are ripe to accept these ideas, and for others it may take some years, or even generations.

Further elaboration on the "living guru" idea: Srila Prabhupada is living. If it is maintained that he is not physically present, then the same argument can be applied, or will be able to be applied, to all the current initiating gurus in the near future. These gurus, say, will initiate disciples and die when they're 80 years old or so. When a guru is 79 he initiates 18-year-old disciples. These disciples live the next 65 years without a "living guru". How will they be inspired? How are those who took formal initiation from Srila Prabhupada inspired now, although they don't have a "living guru"? Guru is eternal. If we are properly connected we will never feel uninspired"

Krishna Prabhu, you also wrote:

"Krishna Says evam parampara praptam, who are we to advocate truncating this divine lineage! Or do you see it as circumventing?"

I would like to quote something from PL that I feel addresses the above:

"The listings of the pillars of the parampara, as listed at the start of Bhagavad-gita, may stop with Srila Prabhupada for the duration of his movement. But the parampara continues. When you explain to someone transcendental knowledge about Krsna and the soul, as learned from the Bhagavad-gita and the Vaisnavas, you are continuing the parampara. When that person absorbs the knowledge and explains it to someone else, then that person is continuing the parampara. Simultaneously, Srila Prabhupada is the direct and current link to the parampara for all who receive the knowledge within the umbrella of his movement and his teachings. Srila Prabhupada is alive through his teachings and instructions and he can continue to personally give knowledge through his books and his teachings."

Thank you for your attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/04/2005 10:24 AM PST

Dear Hari Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your post. You wrote:

"Dhira Govinda rejected his diksa guru- HH Danavir Goswami who is in excellent standing in iskcon and as such has broken his link to the parampara..."

I would like to share something in connection with the above.

The following are two excerpts from an article written by Dhira Govinda Prabhu, which appears in the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link':

"I have full respect for Danavir Maharaja, and his staunch example continues to inspire me. I have no anger or resentment towards him. My feelings for him, and for Bhagavan for that matter, are gratitude for how they've helped me in Krsna consciousness."

(...)

"The last time Danavir Maharaja visited Alachua, late in 2000, he stayed at my home for several days and I greatly appreciated his association. Since around January, 2002, around the time when Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link was issued, Danavir Maharaja, apparently, isn’t inclined to speak or be on friendly terms with me, and thus we have not had much contact for the past half-year or so. I do hope that we re-establish our closer relationship, as my relationship with him is one that I deeply value.

Danavir Maharaja became upset with me when I wrote The Humble Guru, and then again when I wrote Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Before The Humble Guru he was not upset with me. There was nothing that could remotely be called a "falling out" prior to The Humble Guru. From my side I can say that I have not had any sort of falling out with Danavir Maharaja, at any time including the present, although his perspective might be different. I have great respect and admiration for Danavir Maharaja, while acknowledging that he is unfavorable towards PL."

Hari Prabhu, you also wrote:

"...but according to his philosophy the diksa guru doesnt matter as Prabhupada is the all in all."

Have you read the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link'?

Thank you for your time and attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by hari dasa @ 11/04/2005 02:36 AM PST

Dhira Govinda is not a devotee in good standing in iskcon so anything he says is obviously not in line with the sidhanta.

I know of at least one person whom after attending one of his "tranformation workshops/life skills" was pretty much suicidal after it.

Dhira Govinda rejected his diksa guru- HH Danavir Goswami who is in excellent standing in iskcon and as such has broken his link to the parampara-but according to his philosophy the diksa guru doesnt matter as Prabhupada is the all in all.

He likes to jump over as do many of you it seems.

Posted by Krishna Das @ 11/03/2005 10:11 PM PST

Well, what a lot of hot air. The issue has been smoke-screened. Are we pure enough to take instruction directly from Srila Prabhupada now? It is a question of Adikara. Yes, we may be somewhat smart, having pea-brains of kali Yuga mix-breeds, but remember the question is not just the qualification of the Guru but also of the disciple. Therefore we have a living Guru, meaning an ultimate authorized authority we take direction and instruction from. We should choose him carefully. My param siksa Guru has always been Srila Prabhupada, but my authorized link (evam parampara praptam) is one of his disciples.

Most of us are trained in the Universities and the dominant Anglo Greek system of deduction. This system artificially gives rise to the pride of confidence that we are in control of our universe. But for others who do not trust the mind the living Guru is necessary to give practical instruction. Humility has the criteria that you feel yourself in need of a living friend, guide and link to serve the prominent acharyas and the Divine Couple. Gour Govinda Swami preached that you must have a living Guru. Krishna Says evam parampara praptam, who are we to advocate truncating this divine lineage! Or do you see it as circumventing?

As jnanis invent new philosophies seeking out cheap followers, so to do you, why else would you extrapolate and publish you imperfect mental chitta vritta's. We should exorcize our anarta's through chanting not by misguiding.

As Sanjaracharya preached ‘baudanam pratnam” or his covered Buddhism to bring the living entities back to the Vedas, so by preaching covered Rtvik philosophy you will in fact take devotees away from their prominent link and be acting as an agent of chaos.
Please think deeply of the effect of your words.

ISKCON has brought you to a position of prominence by giving you the leadership of our Child Protection office for so long. Is it that you used that as a platform to corral some followers? Please state you true intentions?

Posted by Yesu Bhaktan @ 11/03/2005 06:33 PM PST

Guru in the singular to me means Caitya-guru.

Hare Krsna

Posted by Sudama das @ 11/03/2005 03:47 PM PST

Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966. Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON.

He never authorized any of his disciples to become diksa gurus on their own behalf. He did, however authorize them to initiate new disciples on HIS behalf in his letter dated July 9th, 1977.

What is the justification for any other system of initiation for new devotees?

Add A New Comment

Name

E-Mail (optional)

Homepage (optional)

Comments

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |

Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.