The Contradictory Paradigm
BY: DUSYANTA DASA
Sep 29, 2010 — UK (SUN) — Further to my recent reply to Ajamila Prabhu's piece, there are numerous illustrations of the contradiction paradigm that we have in the hierarchy of ISKCON. There are so many contradictions concerning the whole Guru issue it would take weeks just compiling them all. And what a bore!
Since the demise of Jayatirtha and then Bhagavan (Goswami) in the UK, we were directed by the GBC to find yet another "diksa" guru. How many diksa gurus do we need? My quest was to assess the available "gurus" for me to take shelter and so .........! What I found out was substantially shocking. The main problem I kept coming up against was the written word. It's easy to misunderstand someone speaking or maybe following a speaker might be difficult, or they just speak too quickly, but the written word is the crux of the matter when analysis is required to evaluate a "guru".
The quantity of contradictions that have been written by the "hierarchy" of ISKCON is unbelievable. To navigate around the contradictions, for a disciple, means to exist in denial. Emotionally taking shelter is still an option, otherwise it all goes out the window.
One of the main additions that ISKCON has been exposed to since 1977 has been the "physical presence" philosophy of the Guru. It seems that this theory was spawned by the hierarchy of ISKCON in response to the Rtvik ideology of accepting Initiation from a representative of Srila Prabhupada AFTER His disappearance. Seems like everyone is chilled out about the Rtvik process of representatives accepting disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada when He was physically present.
The booklet produced, written and published by HH Sivarama Swami in the early 1990's is an example of the type of contradictory paradigms that have been introduced since 1977. This is just one example from just one devotee, a respected Sannyasi, with sound credentials, no doubt. The members of ISKCON have had 1000's of similar paradigms thrown at us by 100's of devotees over the years since Srila Prabhupada left. How this can be described as "educating" the devotees is anyone's guess. For me and the many other devotees who care to discuss the subject, its been about the "mushroom" programme. This is where you keep mushrooms in the dark and feed them bullsh** for nourishment. So on to the example at hand.
In the booklet entitled, "Continuing the Parampara", we find different sections covered. It's like a logical progression, but we have to read it all to achieve a complete picture. In the section entitled, Physical Presence 4.3, we find a number of points outlined. The intriguing one for me was like this:
But then earlier on in the booklet we find under the title "2.4 "Becomes":
"The list of such discrepancies is long. However the most glaring is the title of the booklet, "Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple."
What is the implication here?
That you are NOT his disciple.
However everyone IS Prabhupada's siksa disciple already. Srila Prabhupada states:
"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 offence in the discharge of devotional service."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.47.)
"If one recognises the benefits of Srila Prabhupada's shiksa through the medium of His Books and Instructions, all the devotees for generations to come will be satisfied with being His disciple."
So we find two mutually exclusive paradigms as set out in these quotes and opinions:
1. The siksa and diksa gurus have to be physically present to act in that way. Unless the guru is physically present, there is no question of disciples because the guru can't ACT as a guru unless He is physically present. According to the logic of that statement, as soon as a Guru disappears he can no longer act as Guru. That's a problem for the disciples then!
(The verb word in sentence 1) is "act", and the application of the verb is physical presence. So to function as Diksa Guru and Siksa Guru requires physical presence, if you're not physically present you can't ACT as a Diksa Guru or Shiksa Guru. Lastly, the use of the word "must" is an auxiliary verb which emphasizes necessity or obligation.)
2. The contradiction to the above paradigm is that we are told in no uncertain terms that we are all, nay everyone for the next generations to come, are all already Srila Prabhupada's Siksa disciples. Therefore Srila Prabhupada is acting as a Siksa Guru AFTER His disappearance and we are all Siksa disciples.
If we introduce the quotation from Caitanya-caritamrta Adi lila 1.47, that we must not discriminate between the Instructing and Initiating Guru, then that adds a complication. If the Siksa Guru can act as a Siksa Guru after His disappearance, as we are told, and He can be after his disappearance because we are all His siksa disciples already, then it stands to reason and sastra that the Diksa Guru can act as a Diksa Guru after his disappearance, too.
(The second paradigm which contradicts the first paradigm illustrates that a departed Siksa Guru, Srila Prabhupada, IS everyone's Siksa Guru already. The physical presence paradigm magically disappears for the Siksa Guru, which means a differentiation between the Diksa Guru and Siksa Guru is made, which is an offence in the discharge of devotional service. If physical presence is not required to act as Siksa Guru, then the same must be required for the Diksa Guru.)
Whether any of this is true or not is not the point of writing. The point of writing this is to illustrate the continuing contradictory paradigms we have to face as members of ISKCON from the ones who are supposed to know the Truth. That is what a Guru is, he is heavy with Transcendental Knowledge, not contradictory paradigms. When we find qualified writing as evidenced by Srila Prabhupada we find cohesive, coherent continuity in themes and philosophy. The strength of the written word is also the weakness of the written word when in the hands of a lesser qualified devotee, whoever they may be.
As I say, that's just one point from one booklet from one devotee from one written word from one guru from one GBC representing one ISKCON. If we were to multiply out how many of these "educational" points the members of ISKCON have been presented with over the years, it would be well over thousands.
If we introduce the writings by the GBC since the mechanistic days of Zonal initiation, we have a frenzy of contradictions, spiritual corrosion, u-turns, spin doctors and political maneuverings that make non-devotees appear saintly.
To further the bona fide debate in ISKCON on the Guru issue and the Rtvik process, it be-hooves us to represent all parties in an accurate and friendly demeanour. We don't have anything to "win" or "lose" by honest Vaisnava debate. And if we are shown to be wrong then we should put our hand up and apologise for our mistake and error. The Vaisnava Way of patience and tolerance will always accept some deviation back into the family just as we would a son or daughter who behaves badly but is sorry. We must forgive because without forgiveness, we will bear the pain.
