Connecting to the Sampradaya Through the Sampradaya Acarya
BY: ROCANA DASA
Nov 28, CANADA (SUN) — I have read with interest the most recent discussions on guru tattva and Rtvikism between our Sun contributors, and would like to add a few comments.
Srila Prabhupada's deputed mission was panoramic, and initiating diksa disciples is/was a relatively small object on a wide-angle skyline. His role as Founder-Acarya of the institutional version of ISKCON may be seen as a skyscraper in a New York-style cityscape. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, created for the sole purpose of printing his many pure Vaisnava writings, is no doubt the Empire State building. His spiritual status as a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya encompasses all these major responsibilities, besides innumerable other empowerments.
The reality is that during Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period, the formal aspect of diksa was reduced to the bare necessities in comparison to the many books that were being produced and distributed worldwide to his disciples for their education and enlightenment. The institutional framework for autonomous local temples functioned nicely without the burden of top-down management. The Acarya's mission, methods, mood and message were, for the most part, hear and understand, loud and clear. Srila Prabhupada didn’t micro-manage, quite the opposite. He clearly instructed his GBC to follow his example, do as I do!
The sad moment arrived nearly thirty years ago when He/Krsna ended Srila Prabhupada's worldly pastimes. Since that moment, the good ship ISKCON was minus a Sampradaya Acarya/Captain. A true depiction of post-samadhi ISKCON history speaks for itself and verifies that the point I’m trying to make is accurate (that Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya).
Being connected to our Sampradaya via the medium of a genuine Acarya is an absolute requirement. True followers completely accept Srila Prabhupada as an absolute transparent via media. The question at hand is whether it is absolutely required to be completely connected to Srila Prabhupada and the parampara through diksa-samskara. Ideally, yes.... absolute necessity, no! Today, all disciples must be connected to our Sampradaya by means of the book-bhagavat commentaries, the Bhaktivedanta purports. If the love is not there for hearing from Srila Prabhupada, then regardless of formal diksa initiation by an “authorized” ISKCON guru, a Gaudiya Matha Godbrother lineage, or even a mystical Rtvik style process, there is no spiritual power being transmitted.
All the Sampradaya Acaryas are speaking through Srila Prabhupada -- that's what disciplic succession means on this elevated level. The parampara as it pertains to us, or to less realized gurus, whether diksa or siksa, is what you might call the 'vertical' connection, whereas on Srila Prabhupada's level, it's the horizontal connection. He's on the top level, you can't get any higher. He's on an equal level with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and all the other Acaryas listed in the list of 32. We could never, ever dare, should never dare to try and compare or qualify these elevated devotees. Those underneath them, whether connected as disciples or gurus who have disciples, are in a far more relative position as madham adhikaries, at best. So in that regard, yes, there's some leeway to criticize and compare, but not with Srila Prabhupada.
I have come across many diksa disciples who haven’t even read Srila Prabhupada’s books through once. They don’t know the contents of the Bhagavad-gita. One of our temple authorities here in Vancouver frequently comments on and quotes from the Mahabharata, and has admitted that he never read Srila Prabhupada's books. Is such an important local ISKCON representative truly connected to our disciplic succession?
Keep in mind, that we haven’t had a local Temple President here for many years. Hari Vilasa dasa, the GBC from Seattle and official Temple President, arranged to have his friend Akrura dasa parachuted in as temple Vice President. The Temple President seldom attends local board meetings in person, but is instead heard on the speaker phone. Akrura dasa's diksa guru is one of our co-GBCs, Gopal Krsna Goswami, who spends a total of two weeks per year in Vancouver, on good years. Meanwhile, much-anticipated monies for a new temple are expected to come from the wealthy Vice President and his family. This "management" dynamic is becoming quite familiar in ISKCON.
Under the above set of hard to dispute circumstances, who honestly believes that ISKCON Western Canada is truly reflecting the wishes of “all the assembled devotees”, meaning the transcendental disciplic succession consisting of Sampradaya Acaryas going back to Lord Brahma’s creating of the entire universe? There is no wonder that so many long-time devotees have, out of desperation and/or ignorance, taken shelter of Rtvik-ism or Narayana Maharaj. But how connected are either of these alternatives to the true Sampradaya? At least the Rtviks emphasize Srila Prabhupada and studying his Books exclusively. Unfortunately, the Rtviks buy into the “diksa pre-requisite" myth, a primary tool used to empower the religionist elite.
Granted, the Rtvik priest has far less sway over the diksa disciple than big local leaders typically have over the disciples. Madhu Pandita dasa Adhikary, who is now the “absolute-in-charge” Temple President of ISKCON Bangalore, is able to operate in a manner much closer to Srila Prabhupada’s plan since the Rtviks took over that temple. He no longer has to tolerate the ex-Zonal Acarya GBC/Gurus who were always messing-up his successful programs, and the temple has become a great success. It appears to me that Madhu Pandita’s Rtvik conversion was more a prudent political maneuver than the result of a “come to Jesus” moment preached by Rtvik evangelists like our friend, Visnurata dasa. As Srila Prabhupada often said, “these things are going on”.
Payonidhi dasa’s position also begs some comment. It is a fact that over the eons of time, there have been an inconceivable number of sub/smaller branches on the wish-fulfilling tree known as our Sampradaya. Until the advent of the three successive appearances of nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acaryas -- namely Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, and Bhaktivedanta -- there was at least one healthy small branch represented by Gaurakisora and Jagannatha das Babajis.
Considering the documented historical reality, what makes the present diksa disciples of ISKCON or the Gaudiya Matha so confident that they are the notable exception to the phenomenon of sub-branches coming from the main branches (i.e., coming from the Sampradaya Acaryas), which eventually just dry-up? What makes them think that their sub-branch isn't going to dry up, even as a result of their impurities or their disciple's impurities? Why isn't this phenomenon being preached and explained to everybody, especially by the gurus to their own disciples? People should be informed that history has shown that innumerable branches or sub-branches in our Sampradaya have not lasted to the present day. This takes into account the fact that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's lila was just 500 years ago. How many of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's disciple-branches have continued on? So how many of Srila Prabhupada's sub-branches can we expect will continue on, especially when we're talking about the 10,000 year phenomenon?
There's a statement by Srila Prabhupada that he will survive and be recognized and known 10,000 years from now, but what are the chances that this applies to his Godbrothers? Very unlikely, I think. That's just historical perspective and reality.
In other words, it's more than likely their branches may die out. There are many ISKCON initiated members who have had to jump like monkeys from one branch to another, many times, in some cases. The present ISKCON institution would like us to believe that for the first time in recorded Vaisnava history, an institution rather than an individual represents a bona fide branch. Srila Prabhupada and his transcendental ISKCON may well be considered synonymous, but not the shadow ISKCON of today.
In his article Srila Prabhupada is the Living Guru, Visnurata dasa offered this quote:
"So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorized selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya.”
(SP Letter to Rupanuga, April 28, 1974)
Does Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "acarya" in this quote refer to a Sampradaya Acarya, or is he referring to a "small A" acarya like a diksa guru, "Zonal Acarya" or imitation acarya -- great Acaryas in their own mind and in the minds of their few foolish followers? The dual use of the terms 'diksa guru' and 'big A' Acarya has been so commonplace in ISKCON that no one even challenges the meaning anymore.
When recruiting, training, and engaging sincere souls sent to you by Paramatma and eventually giving them diksa, imparting the essence of the truths presented by the bona fide Sampradaya Acaryas, that education has to include as top priority the doubtless recognition of Srila Prabhupada as a truly exalted maha-bhagavata, nitya-siddha. Within the boundaries of this scenario I would applaud someone qualified giving diksa. Those in tune with the present day worldwide community know that the circumstances I described are non-exist or very rare, especially amongst those branches claiming to be attached to the ISKCON part of the tree.
The Formalities of Diksa Initiation
Tamoharadasa, in his article entitled Gurus Present, Initiations Real, has come down on the other side of the equation in regards to his proposal that the present diksa guru arrangement be supported, even though in his article he acknowledges that he has some problems with ISKCON's rubber-stamping of gurus. Regardless, he still feels that this is what Srila Prabhupada wanted, that these diksa lineages should sprout from his major limb of his tree.
At the same time, he makes the statement:
"However, I also accept the ritvik initiation mode, both, and feel that ritvik disciples of Srila Prabhupada should be accepted and accommodated with no prejudice."
He may consider himself open-minded by making this proposal, and to a certain degree it would be nice if that were to be the case. More often, we hear the Rtvik born-again mood wherein the Rtviks feel it is their duty to make their position known at every opportunity and to try to influence as many people as possible into seeing it their way. In fact, their treatise by Krsna Kanta, commonly known as The Final Order, to them is gospel. They're very much like evangelical Christians. Not all of them have this mood, of course. I have friends who are far more low-key and tactful about the way they communicate their support of Rtvik-vada and deal with interfacing with the rest of the Vaisnavas, especially in ISKCON.
The practical reality is that ISKCON gurus don't want to compete with Srila Prabhupada. That's one of their motives for banning Rtviks. They're actually in a subtle form of competition amongst themselves, regardless of whether they want to admit it or not, and their power within ISKCON is somewhat proportionate to the number of disciples they have, especially if those disciples are contributing time and money.
ISKCON likes to couch their real motives in banning the Rtviks behind the guise of preventing asiddhantic philosophy from being promoted and propagated in the form of Rtvik-ism, but they themselves have strayed time and time again in major ways from our siddhanta. Their own asiddhantic positions have gone on for extended periods of time, and they've just shrugged them off without any explanation as to just how asiddhantic they were or what aspects were against our siddhanta. They haven't made informed retractions of things they've said in the past in regards to their position on the Zonal Acarya system. They haven't disclosed their philosophical position on the Gopi Bhava Club, on re-initiation, on book changes, etc. In some cases they've already admitted that these things are asiddhantic, but in other cases they haven't, and they don't admit that even within ISKCON and amongst the leaders, there's all sorts of controversy about whether or not these things are asiddhantic or offensive. Of course, if something is asiddhantic it's automatically an offense, because the Sampradaya Acaryas are most offended by the preaching of asiddhantic philosophy. So in those terms, I have to say that I feel that Rtvik philosophy is asiddhantic. It's not supported by guru or sastra. Of course, I'll get an immediate response saying 'what about this, that and the other', as we read from Visnurata dasa.
In my mind, for any individual devotee to take up the preaching of Rtvikism, based on the kind of evidence they've come up with to support their position, is extremely risky to one's spiritual life. It's not supported by sastra and frankly, I don't think it's supported by guru, either. It's been my position that they could have accomplished what they most wanted to in terms of putting the focus back on Srila Prabhupada just by removing the whole concept of post-samadhi diksa initiation, and stressing the emphasis on Srila Prabhupada.
Going back to Tamoharadasa prabhu, he first gives us an insight into his relationship with Srila Gour Govinda, which is interesting and personal, and I appreciated hearing it. I myself have never had that kind of association with Gour Govinda, but I have read a certain amount offered by the Orissan devotees who are, as Tamoharadasa says, convinced of his advanced nature. Of course, I haven't found anyone who's so advanced that I could accept their analysis with 100% accuracy, but I don't believe that Tamoharadasa's experience is anything but genuine.
As the title of his article indicates, he also includes the telling of his '3D experience' after being initiated, after which he essentially claims to have been reborn. That in itself infers that it's some kind of verification of what's supposed to happen to every disciple that takes diksa. Are we to believe that this is what the diksa candidate can expect, even if he's not qualified by his personal realizations? Tamoharadasa doesn't qualify his description of the experience by explaining that he was a neophyte devotee and can't genuinely say that the experience is backed up by sastra, neither did Srila Prabhupada say you can expect this experience after being initiated. Nor did Srila Prabhupada say that he had such an experience after being initiated. Therefore, I feel that Tamoharadasa should have made a qualifying statement that this could well have been something other than ecstasy -- it could have been his mind, it could have been many other factors other than what he likes to believe it is. By qualifying his statements, he would not have given the reader an impression that this is what they can expect by getting initiated.
Of course, Tamoharadasa was initiated by a Sampradaya Acarya in the Holy Dhama. That factor alone has to be taken into consideration. I often relate how I felt when I got initiated personally by Srila Prabhupada. As individuals having a relationship with Srila Prabhupada, I'm sure we have some unique memories and realizations due to being initiated, but the actual formality part of it is really subjective. In other words, you could be a very advanced disciple and not have the same experience that Tamoharadasa is describing directly after your initiation, but that doesn't indicate anything - that you are a better devotee or that it was some indication that you're destined for great things.
In short, I don't think that what Tamoharadasa has said refutes my argument that the formality part is minor in comparison to the actual connecting to the Sampradaya through a Sampradaya Acarya, and having full faith in them and everything that they say as being absolutely true. That is really a far more mature approach to initiation than the anticipation of a neophyte that they're getting a new name and are going to have a mystical experience, which is misleading and sastrically unverifiable.
In most ISKCON temples, Rtviks are not told that they can't come in and worship. The temple authorities just don't want them setting up a table or sitting on the asana preaching Rtvik-vada, or cornering new people and pointing the finger at them, getting red-faced in an attempt to convert them over to Rtvik. Frankly, if you just quietly attend the programs, most people won't even know if you're a Rtvik. It's the proselytizing that's the real problem, and having the mood that Rtvikism is the silver bullet solution to everything.
