BY: ROCANA DASA
Oct 1, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
In recent segments of Obeisances we've covered the SAC Reports on female diksas and guru selection, archived in the Dandavats website. These SAC Reports have been very much inline with many of the topics under discussion recently in the Sun.
Today we review another of these archived SAC Reports, "Regarding Sukadeva Maharaja" (in Word). Here we have a perfect example of how the GBC are, in fact, approving/appointing gurus. The particular issue they were dealing with in this situation, which came under review in July 2005, was whether or not the GBC should approve Sukadeva Maharaja as a guru. This situation had a particular twist to it, bringing in the issue of re-initiation. This aspect of the GBC's guru-tattva is also a matter of serious debate.
The essence of the problem was that one of the pre-requisites for being approved as a guru is that you have to be initiated by someone who is in "good standing" in ISKCON. In this case, Sukadeva Maharaja was given both diksa and sannyasa initiation by Kirtanananda. One of the original Zonal Acaryas, Kirtanananda was the in-charge of New Vrindaban. After a long, horrendous history he ended up in jail. This created significant complications for the GBC as they considered Sukadeva Maharaja's bid for guru-ship.
Before I provide detailed comments on the article, I suggest that the devotees carefully read and consider this SAC Report for themselves. Studying the Report in the context of topics currently under discussion, including the most recent Balabhadra issue, devotees should see for themselves what kind of foolish complications a religious institution gets embroiled in when they engage in approving diksa gurus and sannyasis.
Let's not forget that this whole problem not only arose from the fact that they introduced the Zonal Acarya system, which was a GBC-approved move, but also when they tried to maintain this power base by switching to their most recent version of what it means to be a guru in ISKCON, i.e., the Guru Rubber Stamp program.
Of course, the SAC does what it usually does and just provides a list of sastric quotes on the subject. They are quite handicapped by the fact that they can't address the real issues, because the key person on the GBC, who's asking for this report, is one of the surviving Zonal Acaryas, namely Jayapataka Swami. He also happens to be one of the architects of the modern system that ISKCON is now working under. Obviously, it's not a wise thing to go against Jayapataka or say anything that would indicate that he's very much responsible for this whole mess.
It's very ironic that the GBC Executive Committee should be asking for this particular report considering the fact that Jayapataka was not only one of the original architects of the original bogus system, but also re-instated in ISKCON his good friend Bhavananda, another one of the fallen Zonal Acaryas. In fact, Bhavananda is very similar to Kirtanananda in that they're both pedophiles with a long history of sexual abuse against the devotees.
The first question is, how is it that anyone who's been initiated by people such as Kirtanananda can consider themselves part of the parampara? This question is especially pertinent when we consider the way that ISKCON is emphasizing the whole concept of taking diksa initiation as a pre-requisite for entrance into the Sampradaya. This alone is a significant contradiction in terms.
Here they're trying to apply their siddhantic construct to the problem of Sukadeva Maharaja's request for guru-ship. He didn't take re-initiation, so is he really initiated by an ISKCON guru in good standing? Is he really connected to the Sampradaya through initiation by Kirtanananda? Let's also keep in mind that Kirtanananda was more than just a guru in good standing. During the Zonal Acarya era he was actually considered to be the most outstanding guru. In fact, the whole Zonal Acarya system was designed so that others could enjoy the same kind of power and prestige that he had corralled at New Vrindaban, where he had essentially been the Zonal Acarya even before Srila Prabhupada departed.
So here we have a unique circumstance with Sukadeva Maharaja. Of course, we didn't hear anything directly from Maharaja himself at the time. There's no explanation, philosophical or otherwise, of why he didn't comply with ISKCON's policy of getting re-initiated, nor do we know anything about his character or qualifications. But when he appeared before the GBC, what could they do but pass the buck over to the SAC in order to get them to voice their opinion, which they obviously hoped would be inline with the opinions of leaders like Jayapataka Swami. I don't know if Sukadeva Maharaja was ever approved as a result of this Report, but perhaps our readers can inform us.
In next week's segment we'll explore this SAC Report in far more detail, looking at the question of whether or not the original fallen gurus were ever gurus themselves, the concept of re-initiation, and the question of whether an institution should put itself in the position of approving anyone for initiation -- diksa, siksa, or sannyasa, given that the phenomenon of initiation is strictly a personal matter, as it was understood in the days of the varnasrama system. In the meantime, we hope all our readers will take the time to review the SAC Report on Sukadeva Maharaja.
Obeisances to Dandavats, to HH Sukadeva Maharaja, and to the Sastric Advisory Committee.
