Krsna Can't be Controlled (except by Pure Devotion)
BY: ROCANA DASA
Oct 01, CANADA (SUN) — I'd like to offer some follow-up commentary on my previous articles on Rtvik, and in this case, I also want to address one of our regular contributors, Kurma dasa (Not the Chef) from Australia. Our regular Sun readers will know that Kurma dasa has adopted and embraced the Rtvik philosophy, which he sometimes promotes in the context of his theme on ISKCON's rubber-stamp guru program. Having been one of the disappointed disciples of Kirtanananda, he went on to embrace the Rtvik conception. I recently asked Kurma prabhu, since he has become a regular contributor, to give me his specific comments on, or objections to, my Sampradaya Acarya paper, since it represents the foundation of my position against Rtvik-vada. One of his qualifying expressions is answered in this article.
We have facilitated Kurma dasa in reiterating his primary theme, which is preaching against ISKCON's 'Bogus Guru program', which basically asserts that all ISKCON gurus are bogus diksa gurus. Personally I can't say one way or the other, because I haven't met all of the ISKCON gurus, and therefore can't determine from my own analysis whether they're all bogus. Of course, the adherents of Rtvik philosophy generally preach that all ISKCON gurus are bogus, if for no other reason than because they were voted-in, or they accept and participate in a system that votes others gurus in. Now to a certain degree, I agree with concept, but I also accept the aspect of our philosophy that makes it clear that you cannot make statements that restrict Krsna. Krsna is Absolute, and that's central to our philosophy. Anything that presumes to restrict Krsna -- whether it's ISKCON's voted-in guru process or the Rtvik philosophy – cannot be accepted. You can't say that Krsna can't empower any individual to offer diksa within the context of our Sampradaya, and likewise, you cannot say that every ISKCON guru is bogus, which assumes that Krsna has not chosen to empower one of them, regardless of how they came into their guruship.
I personally try to speak from my own experience, and I know that Kurma has his own experiences. He is an individual, as is Krsna, and every living entity, so we have to respect one another's individual experiences, and our individual perceptions and relationships with Srila Prabhupada. Eventually we'll also understand what our relationship with Krsna is, if we follow and get the blessings of the disciplic succession wherein Krsna is to be understood and known.
Another of the Rtvik proposals is that the sound vibration coming from Srila Prabhupada, primarily through his books, lectures and communications, is non-different than Srila Prabhupada, so in that sense, why do we need to get initiated by anyone other than Srila Prabhupada, if that's the personality you're absorbed in? To a degree, my presentation of Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya is based on that principle as well, but of course, the Rtvik principle is that you have to take diksa, and as such you have to take diksa from Srila Prabhupada, even though he's not personally, physically manifest.
So we find that there is some confusion amongst Rtvik supporters, who promote the concept that because we have Srila Prabhupada's sound vibration, one doesn't really have to take diksa -- the Holy Name has enough potency in itself.
So while the Rtviks offer many quotes in this regard, we find that there are many other references in the sastra to the deities, and Tulsi Devi, and primarily all the devotional practices, wherein their potency will remove the burden of all your sinful activities if you follow and engage them properly.
We also have the concept of Caitya-guru, which is seldom mentioned these days. We know that Krsna is within the heart, witnessing, and Krsna knows us better than we know ourselves. As such, the Lord of the Heart is directing our wanderings by fulfilling our desires. And if our desire is to be initiated, for instance by Srila Prabhupada, then according to our philosophy that is possible. One simply has to cultivate that desire and strengthen it by serving Srila Prabhupada, hearing from Srila Prabhupada, being absorbed in Srila Prabhupada, then going to be with Srila Prabhupada in one's next life, if one reaches that degree of purity. In order to reach that degree of purity it may be helpful, appropriate, or a benediction to have some assistance, and whoever Krsna arranges to assist us in our spiritual development, that person (or persons) essentially takes on the designation of guru.
Bhakti yoga is a science, and the great Acaryas within our lineage have presented Krsna Consciousness as a great science. They have categorized or designated certain types of personalities who may help us in our advancement as different kinds of guru: vartma-pradarsaka, siksa, and diksa. So this is all very personal and individual, and as such, I agree with Kurma dasa, and with many others that this aspect of Krsna's involvement is there in our spiritual life. It is essential and always present, and you can't interfere with it. You can't restrict it whatsoever, and you can't control it externally. You have to allow this process to unfold, and to judge it or to control it, or to institutionalize it, is a grave mistake. And it's an offense to the individual.
Different individuals, according to their personality, nature and circumstance, may really need the physical presence of some personality, and ideally that is the case. Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya in his ISKCON lila gave many of us in the west the opportunity to associate with him. To varying degrees, some of us had his direct association, physically being in his presence, whereas others were serving in the various centers that Srila Prabhupada had established. And Srila Prabhupada determined very strictly what would take place within those temples and asramas. As such, the devotees there had Srila Prabhupada's presence and mercy, and in that way they had his direct association. Of course, we see now through the eyes of history that having Srila Prabhupada's direct association didn't really seem to help many of those who had the opportunity. Many fell away who had his personal association, so anyone who thinks, "Oh, this person had Srila Prabhupada's direct association… he's more advanced, or he was far more fortunate, he got more mercy", he is making an incorrect assumption. And this is also clearly explained in the sastra. As Srila Prabhupada himself stated, having his personal association wasn't as important as one's unalloyed devotion and adherence to the principle of hearing from Srila Prabhupada in a regular, sustained and heartfelt manner.
Of course, Srila Prabhupada is the Sampradaya Acarya, and he did empower a great many of his disciples to fulfill the responsibility of representing him and helping his other disciples. And they did their best in most cases, sincerely trying to serve on his behalf. As a result, a great many devotees were trained up and became Srila Prabhupada's followers and disciples.
Now my position, as it differs from the Rtvik position, is stated in my Sampradaya Acarya paper. And as I've pointed out, one can become just as attached to following the Rtvik conception as they can to following a guru, such as Kirtanananda. How much association did many of Kirtanananda's followers have with him directly? In a sense, the situation was not much different that Srila Prabhupada, in that many of his disciples got to spend little or not time with him personally. Yet they became very attached. So becoming unquestionably attached to the Rtvik philosophy is not the same thing as becoming very attached to Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya.
So my position is that one should not be so attached to the Rtvik conception that they cannot keep their mind open to exploring the idea that they could be wrong, because Rtvik-vada is not based on sastra. It's not even based on sadhu, because there's no previous Sampradaya Acaryas have condoned this activity. In a sense it restricts Krsna, and that is simply not feasible.
As I've continued to emphasize, the importance of initiation is one thing, but initiation can take many different forms, and different avenues, because there's all these varieties of ways in which Krsna can direct us. But whatever the method, being connected to the Sampradaya through the Sampradaya Acarya is essential, regardless of what person is physically present to act in the capacity of guru. How connected are they? How attached are they as a representative of the Sampradaya Acaryas? And are they making you similarly attached? That is the test of the diksa guru, or siksa, or vartma-pradarsaka.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur named 31 Sampradaya Acaryas going back to Lord Brahma. We state that we have an unbroken chain of disciplic succession, and we know that Srila Prabhupada has said, don't worry about the gaps. The reason for that is that Sri Krsna has sent these Sampradaya Acaryas, and they have maintained our Sampradaya. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu has come himself to maintain the Sampradaya, and although the disciplic succession has come directly through the Lord Himself, just 500 years ago, at one point the Sampradaya became barely visible except through Jagannatha das Babaji. Then a series of great Sampradaya Acarya preachers manifested, as well: Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. So they manifested, and we have had this rare opportunity, in close time proximity, to hear from them and read their instructions, I personally feel it's much more beneficial to focus primarily on Srila Prabhupada, but if you want to become convinced that Srila Prabhupada is directly in the disciplic succession and a Sampradaya Acarya, just read some of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's writings, or Srila Bhaktivinoda's songs and writings.
The fact is that with respect to the other gurus on the landscape today, whether they be diksa, siksa, or vartma-pradarsaka, while some may be qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of being diksa, they are not on the same elevated platform as the Sampradaya Acaryas. They are sadhana-bhaktas. Granted, some of them may eventually become sadhana-siddha, coming up to the stage of siddha from which they will never fall down again, thus becoming nitya-siddha. But regardless, we know that they required the sadhana to achieve the siddha. In this regard, the landscape of Krsna Consciousness today is full of variegatedness. We now only have the ISKCON diksa gurus to consider, but also Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, who I believe are sadhana-bhaktas. I accept that many of them have reached a very high degree of advancement on account of their dedication to sadhana, but I distinguish Srila Prabhupada as being a nitya-siddha – he didn't require sadhana in order to become perfect, because he was born a pure devotee.
It's my personal conclusion that Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, e.g., B.R. Sridhar Maharaja or Srimad Puri Maharaja, or any of the other advanced godbrothers that he associated with and who were part of his history, were not nitya-siddha like Srila Prabhupada. From the very time Srila Prabhupada departed, whether or not his godbrothers recognized and declared him as the Sampradaya Acarya, then was the litmus test. And from the ISKCON perspective, this is a very important point. First of all, none of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers could compare themselves to him, because none of them were obviously nitya-siddha. At best, they could purely represent Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, accepting their own disciples because that's sastrically verifiable, and they could preach on behalf of the Sampradaya, and train and initiate. But of course, they didn’t do that. They would not recognize Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya, or as being on the same elevated platform as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Bhaktivinoda. Instead, they became Big Acaryas themselves, and several took on the persona of being the maha-diksa guru. This was very dangerous, and very foolish. And that's a whole other subject in reference to the institution.
If the godbrothers had recognized and accepted Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, then we would not have seen an exodus of the ISKCON devotees to B.R. Sridhar, for example. If at the time the devotee went to Sridhar Maharaja for shelter and guidance, they had simply asked him the question: do you accept your godbrother, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya, or as a nitya-siddha on the same level as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati? Of course, that question was never presented to Sridhar Maharaja, and we can't say what he would have answered, although I suspect he would have said "No." And the same goes for Narayana Maharaja, and all the modern-day representatives of the Gaudiya Matha. So if the ISKCON devotees had only recognized Srila Prabhupada's exalted status themselves, then they would have been able to say to Sridhar Swami at that point, "We don't accept you, because you don't accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, or in that capacity." Instead, they were too busy trying to eclipse Srila Prabhupada themselves, which of course they did a very poor job of.
I don't know any of my godbrothers who can personally even begin to compare themselves with Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, let alone with Srila Prabhupada himself. Many of them don't accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, and don't declare him as such, and for that reason I think they're also foolish. While it's hard for me to determine to what degree, I think they are also offensive in this regard.
Our whole philosophy is based on the principle that the great Sampradaya Acaryas are primarily in the business of convincing us that Krsna is God, that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu is God. Of course, the other Sampradaya Acaryas are nitya-siddha, whether it be the Six Goswamis, or all the personalities preceding them. You can be sure that the Six Goswamis would have declared Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur to be in the category of Sampradaya Acarya, just as they would have recognized Srila Prabhupada as being in this category.
So this is why I keep bringing the point up. If you connect with the Sampradaya Acaryas, if you connect with the Sampradaya through the bona fide gurus who are the eternal nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acaryas, if you connect by diksa through any one of the guru-representatives, but primarily if you connect through the sound vibration of Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions, becoming absorbed in Srila Prabhupada, then you are connected to the Sampradaya. When it comes to my differences with the Rtviks, the only think I'm adamant about is that none of these Sampradaya Acaryas had the idea of taking diksa through a Rtvik representative, post-samadhi. There is no category called "Rtvik guru", there is only the rtvik priest. As such, I could never accept this Rtvik philosophy. So I challenge, Kurma dasa or any of the Rtvik adherents, or any ISKCON devotees, to provide that anything I've stated in this regard is philosophically or sastrically unverifiable. It is sastrically verifiable. It's stated very clearly. And it's logical, as well.
So that's my answer to the recent questions from Kurma prabhu and the Rtviks. And my question to them, and to all my GBC-ISKCON godbrothers, and those who have taken shelter of the Gaudiya Matha or Narayana, is: do you, or do you not accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, i.e., as being a highly exalted Acarya on the level of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivinoda, and as differentiated from the sadhana-bhakta "regular diksa" gurus?
So I hope that answers some questions, and makes my position more clear. Thank you very much.
