Practical Siddhanta
BY: ROCANA DASA
Jun 29, UK (SUN) — In the time it's taken me to sit down and pen a response to Praghosa dasa's latest articles, "Praghosa Responds and All the Hoopla", several replies have manifested, including those by Janardan das, Rasarani devi dasi, and Vyswambhara dasa.
I'll refrain from re-stating the points these authors made so convincingly, and will instead address, first and foremost, Praghosa's challenges to my "Sampradaya Acarya" paper. I appreciate having this opportunity to elaborate and expand upon some of the points that I attempted to address in that paper. I've been looking for an opportunity to re-write and update the paper, which was written in 2003, and perhaps some of the comments Praghosa prabhu has made will help me in this regard.
Praghosa seems to fully agree with my proposal that Srila Prabhupada is the current link to the spotless parampara, he says going back to Lord Caitanya. But what I addressed in my paper was the 'List of 32' Acaryas given to us by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, to which Srila Prabhupada added his name. And although Praghosa claims that this was all common knowledge back in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period, the very fact of the Zonal Acarya takeover indicates otherwise.
Right after Srila Prabhupada departed, our senior godbrothers at the time easily duped us into accepting the Zonal Acarya asiddhantic conclusion, which was not based on the philosophical conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was a nitya-siddha maha-bhagavata, and had a rightful place on this 'List of 32'. Instead, they convinced everyone that their name deserved to be included after Srila Prabhupada's on the list because they were, according to them, krpa-siddhas.
These leaders didn't conclude that Srila Prabhupada was nitya-siddha, as witnessed by the conclusions put forth in their biographical creation, the Lilamrta. This portrayal of Srila Prabhupada encourages the reader to make the assumption that Srila Prabhupada was a sadhana-siddha, not a nitya-siddha. Satsvarupa also peppers the book with rhetoric that is intended to convince the reader that he and his associates were essentially krpa-siddhas - the emphasis being on siddha - not that they were sadhana-bhaktas attempting to reach the siddha platform. To this very day, this same philosophical analysis of Srila Prabhupada stands as ISKCON's official presentation of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual status. While Praghosa doesn't advance the argument in his article, we often hear that it doesn't really matter whether one is a nitya-siddha or sadhana-siddha, because once one has reached the siddha level one immediately becomes nitya-siddha, never falling down. But as I pointed out, there is a great deal of difference between the two, and it behooves us to understand that difference, particularly with respect to our own Spiritual Master.
We must come to understand not only Srila Prabhupada, but all those Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati included on the 'List of 32', with whom our Srila Prabhupada is associated. And as I've elaborated in my Sampradaya Acarya paper, it is my thesis that three successive nitya-siddhas were sent by Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai to fulfill the prophecy that Krsna consciousness would be spread throughout the world. Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada is on an equally exalted level as his predecessor Sampradaya Acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur. This, too, is not a conclusion presented by ISKCON. Perhaps after concluding their ongoing committee meetings, where they're still discussing who Srila Prabhupada is, they'll come to a similar conclusion. Let's hope so. It's long overdue.
So while Praghosa attempts to minimize my position by saying that it's all 'common knowledge', Srila Prabhupada is clearly not seen in the way that I describe him, as a Sampradaya Acarya. Instead, the GBC and ISKCON leaders are presenting their own concept of how the parampara continues, which is by means of GBC-approved diksa gurus. The clear message is that these diksa gurus should be seen by their disciples on a similar if not equal level as Srila Prabhupada, the only distinction being that Srila Prabhupada is the "Founder/Acarya" of ISKCON -- not that he is a Sampradaya Acarya in the way that I describe him.
Praghosa further states that I my conclusions don't lead to any practical application, but as we've been taught by the Sampradaya Acaryas, and most importantly the current link, Srila Prabhupada, every action that is taken by an individual, group, nation or culture is ultimately based on their adopting a philosophical understanding of life. Srila Prabhupada zeroed in on Darwinism as being the essence of the problem with Western culture having adopted this demoniac philosophical Theory. Similarly, I am zeroing in on the issue of Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, and the fact that this understanding is the essence of where we should be taking aim in terms of our dealing with the multitude of problems facing us. I'm saying that unless and until we clarify Srila Prabhupada as being a bona fide Sampradaya Acarya and we philosophically elaborate on this, bringing in the principle of guru, sadhu and sastra and distinguishing very clearly the difference between a sadhana-bhakta diksa guru or, for that matter, siksa guru, and a nitya-siddha, maha-bhagavata Sampradaya Acarya.
I make the point that the whole concept of linking up with the Sampradaya Acarya through one of two bonafide gurus, diksa or siksa, is what Srila Prabhupada preached and what is backed up by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and all the previous Acaryas. The first prerequisite in being bona fide is that the “guru” completely accepts Srila Prabhupada as a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya.
We hear nowadays through official ISKCON policy that one has to accept a Spiritual Master, but that Spiritual Master must be connected to the Sampradaya through the current link Sampradaya Acarya. Praghosa agrees with me that this link is Srila Prabhupada. But that philosophical point has not been expanded upon or presented conclusively by the GBC or any of their pandits, or by Praghosa dasa. Unless and until that philosophical point is clearly understood and asserted, ISKCON and the devotees will continue to be plagued by all sorts of asiddhantic conclusions surrounding the whole issue of who is a bonafide Spiritual Master, such as Zonal Acarya-ism, Gopi-bhava club, the Reformed Guru, post-samadhi re-editing of the Sampradaya Acarya's sastra, just to mention the most contentious.
All the ISKCON leadership manages in this regard is to push the concept that you have to have a diksa guru. In fact, they push this principle to the extreme in the sense that until you've accepted one of their diksas, you're never really included in the community as a "serious devotee" by the leaders. You're labeled "Bhakta Whoever", and you naturally feel the pressure of being an outsider. And, unless you have firmly put down boundaries on the issue, you're continually approached by emissaries of the diksas, who seek to convert you on behalf of their guru.
Praghosa states that back in the ISKCON lila period, the disciples accepted and treated Srila Prabhupada spontaneously as a Sampradaya Acarya. This, of course, is one of the central points that I've made in my presentation - it is one of the proofs positive that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya. In other words, we spontaneously called him Srila Prabhupada, treated him as the most exalted personality whenever he made his appearance throughout his travels, during festivals, etc., installing a large vyasasana along with daily guru puja in all temples, and all the glorification we could muster. Of course, his godbrothers didn't approve of this, which is a sign that they didn't understand his exalted position. At the same time, we ourselves did not philosophically understand who Srila Prabhupada was - we simply loved and worshipped him. Later, however, the imitation acaryas assumed the same external profile as a Sampradaya Acarya, and they still do to this very day, calling themselves "Acaryadeva", having their feet bathed and enjoying big, opulent vyasasanas, even though the present GBC has passed resolutions forbidding this. Unfortunately these GBC mandates are devoid of any real philosophical presentation of why the present gurus should be differentiated from Srila Prabhupada, and how so. So consequently their disciples just ignore the resolutions against opulent guru worship.
ISKCON continues to perpetrate the whole bogus philosophy that even though you accept Srila Prabhupada in your heart as the Sampradaya Acarya, it's impossible for you to be initiated, i.e., connected to the parampara. Even if you're ready to follow all his instructions, accept everything he has written as being unquestionably true - still, according to ISKCON's policies you're not connected to the Sampradaya through Srila Prabhupada. You have to go through one of the persons who is approved [rubber-stamped] as a via media to the Sampradaya Acarya, even though ISKCON's post-samadhi history says it all in terms of how many of these so-called bona fide spiritual masters have been exposed as unqualified and bogus. The question remains, are those people who got initiated by the fallen gurus connected to the Sampradaya Acarya, or not? ISKCON says they're not, until they get re-initiated. This is another asiddhantic conclusion.
ISKCON has been unable to challenge the Gaudiya Matha representatives who have lured so many of Srila Prabhupada's followers away. They follow the same principle, that they are a via media, not to Srila Prabhupada as the current link, but to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. They do not accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, and in fact, they don't consider Srila Prabhupada to be on the same exalted level as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. And because ISKCON doesn't officially or conclusively accept Srila Prabhupada in that position, the devotees are left vulnerable to be seduced by these so-called siksa gurus.
So while Praghosa accuses me of having formulated an impractical philosophical position, all the things that I've mentioned above have their obvious practical application in terms of keeping ISKCON and the community together. And in my Sampradaya Acarya paper and the subsequent Q&A pieces, I've stated further practical aspects of the position not mentioned here.
Praghosa should acknowledge that this philosophical analysis of Srila Prabhupada's position has not been presented, but rather an asiddhantic conclusion has been presented. I have written about the practical application of my position, while in ISKCON we are seeing the impractical and disastrous results of not having our siddhanta in line with the Sampradaya Acaryas around this very important point.
As all this applies to Indradyumna Swami, we don't see any of these important philosophical questions discussed in his Diary meditations, or in any other writings or presentations he makes on Srila Prabhupada. The Swami doesn't use the term "Sampradaya Acarya", or any other term that distinguishes Srila Prabhupada in this way. But then, he seldom writes about Srila Prabhupada - he is too busy writing about himself, or blowing bubbles. This is true of all the segments of his Diary that I've read, as they've been systematically presented on the Dandavats website and elsewhere on the Net. His Diary is obviously not just for the consumption of his followers, but for ISKCON in general, and it's hard to deny that the focus is on him and not on the Sampradaya Acaryas -- not even Srila Prabhupada.
The conclusion an uninformed reader would come to is that Indradyumna Swami is the bona fide Spiritual Master, regardless of the fact that what he says, and what he says he's doing and thinking, are light years away from the actions and thoughts of the true Sampradaya Acaryas. Therefore one could only conclude that this Diary is transcendental if they're a fool, although that is precisely what Indradyumna Swami would like his readers to conclude. I know that Praghosa has taken great offense to my insinuating that he is also a fool, but as Bhurijana dasa expressed in his biography, "My Glorious Master": My only qualification is that I am a fool. Srila Prabhupada then looked at him sharply. Yes, but you should not remain a fool." (MGM 16)
And, we recall the story of a devotee saying to Srila Prabhupada in a self-deprecating mood, "I'm the most fallen". Srila Prabhupada replied, "You're not the most anything."
There are a few questions I'd like Praghosa dasa to answer briefly, even with just a yes or no:
1. Do you feel that the GBC are presenting Srila Prabhupada in the way that you and I (apparently) both agree is the truth: that Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha, maha-bhagavata Sampradaya Acarya, and the current link to our sampradaya?
2. Do you feel that the Lilamrta properly describes Srila Prabhupada as such? And if not, do you think that ISKCON should officially state that it does not approve of Satsvarupa's version of who Srila Prabhupada is?
3. What are you doing about the fact that ISKCON is not recognizing Srila Prabhupada as the current link, or as a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya?
I'll hold my comments on Praghosa's Hoopla article for a later date, and in the meantime will look forward to his answers.
