httpv://youtu.be/niwLEdABmuE
video: Srila Prabhupada sings Gaura Pahou (song by Narottama das Thakura, 1466-1572 AD )
Back To Prabhupada, Issue 35, 2012
In the last issue we detailed the resignation by Prabhavisnu Das from his guru and sannyasa positions. The GBC has now passed resolutions regarding the status of those who had their initiations conducted by Prabhavisnu Das, and they further confirm that their understanding of the initiation system in ISKCON is actually akin to that of a ritvik initiation system.
Ritvik initiation system
During Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence many devotees had an initiation conducted by someone other than Srila Prabhupada, henceforward denoted as the “person conducting the initiation” (PCI). This initiation’s characteristics were:
a) The initiates would trace their connection to the parampara (disciplic succession) via Srila Prabhupada, and not through the PCI, who was not a member of the parampara.
b) Even if the initiate subsequently had no contact with the PCI, the initiate advanced in Krishna consciousness by taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada and other senior devotees in ISKCON.
This initiation system was formalised by Srila Prabhupada on July 9, 1977, shortly before he departed from the planet, whereby now “ritviks” were appointed to oversee it by accepting the disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.
“Guru” function only ceremonial
The GBC has now confirmed that anyone who got initiated by Prabhavisnu Das is considered to be connected to Srila Prabhupada and the parampara, even though Prabhavisnu Das himself is not in the parampara:
“Those devotees initiated by Prabhavisnu Das continue to be connected to Srila Prabhupada and our entire Vaisnava parampara.”
(GBC Resolution 311, 2012)
They have further stated that these persons are able to carry on Krishna consciousness by taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada and other ISKCON devotees:
“Thus, they are encouraged to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and siksa gurus or other senior devotees as per their faith.”
(GBC Resolution 311, 2012)
And, in the case of the initiations conducted by another so-called ISKCON “guru”, Umapati Das, who, like Prabhavisnu Das, is also not considered a member of the parampara, Umapati Das was not required to have any special position even when he conducted the initiations:
“Umapati prabhu had misused his status as a guru to behave inappropriately with several male disciples over a number of years and that this behavior was of a sexual nature. […] ISKCON will not recognize initiations given by Umapati Dasa after February 2010. Devotees initiated prior to this date are accepted as duly initiated members of ISKCON.”
(GBC Statements from GBC meetings, 2010 and 28/2/2011)
All of the initiations that Umapati Das carried out before 2010 are considered to have connected the initiates to the parampara, even though during this period Umapati Das is deemed to have behaved “inappropriately”, with the behaviour being of a “sexual nature”. Thus, these ISKCON “gurus” fulfilled no more than the ceremonial role of conducting an initiation.
GBC’s ritvik parampara
Thus, the GBC has confirmed that one is connected to the parampara through an initiator who fulfils a function that is no different to a ritvik initiator:
a) He connects the initiate to Srila Prabhupada and the parampara, but he himself is not in the parampara;
b) Even when he delivered the initiation he did not require any special qualification;
c) The initiator is not required as a “living guru” for the initiate – who instead takes shelter of Srila Prabhupada and other senior devotees to actually advance in Krishna consciousness.
Previously, especially in the 1980s, if an ISKCON “guru” was considered to have “fallen” from his status as guru, the initiate was encouraged to take re-initiation, so that he would be connected to the parampara through a “bona fide spiritual master” who was supposedly in the parampara. Consequently, we find today there are devotees who may be on their 3rd or even their 4th ISKCON guru. However, with their recent resolutions, the GBC has now accepted that one can be connected to the parampara through Srila Prabhupada via a person who himself is not in the parampara, nor in the life of the initiate, nor who necessarily had any special spiritual qualifications at the time of the initiation – i.e. a ritvik.
And, as we reported in the last issue (please see “Creating a deviant parampara”), unless one accepts the ritvik reality of these initiations, we end up creating a deviant “invisible” parampara, whereby initiates are considered to be connected to the parampara via an “invisible man” who is himself not in the parampara.
The diagram above illustrates this “ritvik” parampara that recent GBC resolutions have established.
Conclusion
1) The GBC accepts that the initiate is connected to the parampara through Srila Prabhupada via an initiation that has the same characteristics as a ritvik initiation; the PCI is not in the parampara, nor in the life of the initiate.
2) Thus, the ISKCON “guru” is not required to fulfil any spiritual function other than that of a ritvik.
3) Therefore, the ISKCON guru system – in which the ritvik initiators are deliberately mislabelled as diksa gurus, whilst the real diksa guru Srila Prabhupada is deliberately mislabelled as being only a siksa guru – only exists in order to provide an opportunity for these ritvik initiators to be worshipped as good as God and procure enjoyment facilities for PAD (Profit, Adoration and Distinction).
All this people ( Iskcon/GBC, Krishnakanth, Rocana dasa etc. ) and all their arguments on guru, initiation, diksa, siksa etc., July 9th letter, ritvikism, how it should be, how it should not be etc., since the departure of Srila Prabhupada, reminds me of this story about the elephant and the blind men.
“The Elephant and the blind Men
Once an elephant came to a small town. People had read and heard of elephants but no one in the town had ever seen one. Thus, a huge crowd gathered around the elephant, and it was an occasion for great fun, especially for the children. Five blind men also lived in that town, and consequently, they also heard about the elephant. They had never seen an elephant before, and were eager to find out about elephant.
Then, someone suggested that they could go and feel the elephant with their hands. They could then get an idea of what an elephant looked like. The five blind men went to the center of the town where all the people made room for them to touch the elephant.
Later on, they sat down and began to discuss their experiences. One blind man, who had touched the trunk of the elephant, said that the elephant must be like a thick tree branch. Another who touched the tail said the elephant probably looked like a snake or rope. The third man, who touched the leg, said the shape of the elephant must be like a pillar. The fourth man, who touched the ear, said that the elephant must be like a huge fan; while the fifth, who touched the side, said it must be like a wall.
They sat for hours and argued, each one was sure that his view was correct. Obviously, they were all correct from their own point of view, but no one was quite willing to listen to the others. Finally, they decided to go to the wise man of the village and ask him who was correct. The wise man said, “Each one of you is correct; and each one of you is wrong. Because each one of you had only touched a part of the elephant’s body. Thus you only have a partial view of the animal. If you put your partial views together, you will get an idea of what an elephant looks like.”
The moral of the story is that each one of us sees things exclusively within one’s point of view. We should also try to understand other people’s points of view. This will enable us to get a proper perspective on different situations and events. ”
Each one of these egocentrics have an agenda of their own and they need to continue spinning their arguments to protect their “turf” for some cheap name, adoration from an equally egocentric worshippers and money from the general public.
Hare Krsna.