Pandu Das: Is ‘Contemporary Rtvik’ Against Sastra?

Sep 30 2009, Pennsylvania, USA: Dear Mr. Vidyavan, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I often see faulty arguments opposing Srila Prabhupada’s ability to continue to accept disciples, but I have little time to write a response. Today I’m feeling a little guilty about that, so I’ll offer something even though I don’t expect to have time for a big debate.

Your recent article, “Real Guru Always Available“, begins with the presumption that “the posthumous initiation idea is non-Vedic,” and you give as proof a hypothetical meeting with an anonymous person in Mumbai, as if this should somehow be relevant to my spiritual life. I am not a Hindu, and I have practically no interest in what is considered Hindu tradition today. I am simply interested in Krishna consciousness as Srila Prabhupada taught.

Your proposal supposes that presenting oneself as a disciple of Srila Vyasadev is the same as presenting oneself as a disciple Srila Prabhupada initiated after the conclusion of his manifest pastimes. Of course these are different individuals with different pastimes. Vaisnavas do not accept the mayavadi idea that all souls are one, so let’s stick to what Srila Prabhupada taught, please.

Changing the subject to Vyasadev makes an especially odd comparison because I once heard that Vyasadev is still present and living on Earth hidden somewhere, though I don’t presume He is accepting disciples now. As I understand it, accepting disciples is the service of the current acarya. It’s interesting to note that the back cover of my first copy of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, a 1983 edition, described Srila Prabhupada as “the current representative” of the disciplic succession. Apparently they forgot to change that until later.

In all seriousness, the obvious difference between being initiated by Srila Vyasadev today compared to Srila Prabhupada is that Vyasadev did not institute a system of accepting disciples by the rtvik method whereas Srila Prabhupada did. Of course there were many things that Srila Prabhupada did that Srila Vyasadev did not, but we would not judge Srila Prabhupada’s activities as partially invalid because he did some things new. Srila Prabhupada created an institution, and as Founder-Acarya of that institution, I do not find it at all strange to think that he intended to remain the diksa guru within the institution. Actually in retrospect it seems like it was a very intelligent idea. What better way to ensure continuity of his teachings? Haven’t we seen enough gross deviation and scandal to know that artificially promoting a disciple to worship-able guru is dangerous?

If Srila Prabhupada intended his Rtvik system to terminate upon his disappearance, why did he not say that? It would have been simple enough. On the other hand, considering the way ISKCON’s leaders behaved after his disappearance, it’s not surprising to hear that a great many tapes are missing around the time when one would expect him to talk about this subject. In any case, I think the burden of proof is on those who want Srila Prabhupada’s order terminated.

If it is supposedly against sastra for him to continue accepting disciples, where is that rule clearly given? I cannot count how many times I’ve been told that the contemporary Rtvik concept is against sastra, but I have never seen anyone give proof. If devotees are going to cancel an order by Srila Prabhupada, denying his right or ability to continue accepting disciples and claiming basis in sastra, at least one should have to offer conclusive proof from sastra. If Srila Prabhupada felt that his society would be most successful with him continuing to accept disciples, why should he be prohibited from doing that?

You make the argument that a disciple needs to have the guru to guide him, and I agree; but your idea seems to be that Srila Prabhupada cannot continue to guide anyone. Why did he write so many books, if not to guide us? Beyond that, there are abundant tape recordings that any sincere disciple can listen to every day for purification and guidance. He initiated many disciples during his manifest pastimes, some even very late in his lila, and many whom he never met. Was that irresponsible, since he could neither train nor guide them? Must they seek out another diksa guru since Srila Prabhupada supposedly can’t do his service now? I presume you would say no, but what is the difference? If these disciples are spiritually weak due to their perceived absence of Srila Prabhupada, how can they safely accept worship on his behalf?

I have often heard the objection that the guru needs to have the ability to accept or reject a disciple, and that Srila Prabhupada’s ability to choose ended with his manifest pastimes. That argument seems to ignore the fact that Srila Prabhupada instituted acceptance of disciples via the rtvik method. As I understand it, the point of the letter dated July 9, 1977, was to fully divorce himself from the practical obligations of giving initiations while allowing his giving of initiation to continue.

Indeed, forbidding aspiring devotees from being initiated by Srila Prabhupada is also denying Srila Prabhupada the choice of whether to initiate disciples, and it is stopping his choice in a way that contradicts his mood and written order. Srila Prabhupada gave standards by which he would accept disciples and wrote them in his books as ISKCON’s protocol. The anti-Rtviks seem to have this idea that Srila Prabhupada was all about rejecting disciples, making this the default choice that they insist upon. Many would make an aspiring devotee go away rather than become Srila Prabhupada’s disciple. That just breaks my heart.

Mr. Vidyavan Prabhu, you say that devotees “don’t want a real guru for surrender,” but in my view Srila Prabhupada is a real guru. I feel much more connected to him than to the guru who supposedly gave me initiation. The problem is that if I openly surrender to Srila Prabhupada, the rubber stamped gurus and their disciples won’t let me come to his temples. These gurus have led ISKCON through so many scandals that I can’t distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books without at least warning people to be careful about getting involved.

You say that Srila Prabhupada is “not even on this planet.” I recall reading in one letter that he wrote to a disciple saying he will not leave the universe while he still has disciples here; so where do you think he is? I don’t expect to see him walking around, but neither do I think he is far away. I also feel he is there looking at me when I see his picture or his murti. He is my connection to Krishna consciousness.

Of course, I can be disobedient if I want, and suffer the consequences; or I can do as I should and advance in devotional service. He surely had some disobedient disciples during his manifest pastimes and also after. The choice to obey or disobey the spiritual master is always the disciple’s prerogative, is it not? So what has changed in that regard?

From what I’ve seen, giving a mixed devotee the power to initiate his own disciples and accept their worship gives him more power to deviate and harm others. Having so many imperfect gurus in ISKCON makes it easier to forget Srila Prabhupada, and that seems to be happening. I remember, for example, the first time I distributed books in street sankirtan. The temple president gave me three titles to sell, only one of which was written by Srila Prabhupada. Mostly the focus was on his guru.

When a disciple accepts a spiritual master, he should accept the guru’s understanding of tradition, not necessarily that of his uncle or grandma or the neighborhood sadhu. Therefore on May 28, 1977, the GBC asked Srila Prabhupada how he wanted initiations done after his disappearance. I presume these GBC members were somewhat familiar with Hindu tradition, and they also knew Srila Prabhupada’s teachings pretty well, yet there was still enough uncertainty that they felt the need to ask, and Srila Prabhupada gave his answer: “Officiating acarya,” a.k.a. “Rtvik acarya.” After hearing Srila Prabhupada’s direct answer to that question, turning to someone else’s understanding of tradition is inappropriate.

Considering the evidence we have available, it seems to me that Srila Prabhupada chose to continue accepting disciples and that it is within his power to do so, regardless of what any Hindu thinks. I’m still waiting for someone to prove to me otherwise.

Hare Krishna.

Sincerely, your servant,

Pandu das