httpv://youtu.be/R49QxjiIMqU
video: BhaktaRobin
Read “On my Behalf” @ http://www.harekrsna.de/reform/e_pr_omb.htm
July 9th 1977 Letter by Srila Prabhupada:
http://theharekrishnamovement.wordpress.com/category/july-9th-letter/
“These are my memories of the main pastimes that happened in Swami Srila Prabhupada’s garden in Sri Vrindavan Dhama when I was personally serving him in 1977.”
“Yes Robin, you can put this video on your site. If that’s possible. Yes devotees need to know that they can and should accept Srila Prabhupada as their guru. He is living in his books, pictures and Murti’s and the followers live with him. You may want more details that are in my eye/ear witness report, “On My Behalf” you can Google it. All glories to our sweet Lord Krsna and our sweet guru Srila Prabhupada! \o/”
(Source: Swami Prabhupada’s Garden – gauridasapandita – )
” Yes devotees need to know that they can and should accept Srila Prabhupada as their guru. He is living in his books, pictures and Murti’s and the followers live with him.”
Re above quote from above article, again i ask this question. Do the ritviks consider themselves as
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples or only as his followers.
ALL GLORIES TO HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C.BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI SRILA PRABHUPADA!–Gauridasa Pandit dasa Prabhu, thanks very much for sharing with us your 1st person account of SRILA PRABHUPADA’s instructions concerning Gurus and the Vyasasana issue. Also,”SG”, as a ritvik servant of SRILA PRABHUPADA I consider myself a follower AND a disciple, since SRILA PRABHUPADA Himself said that the people initiated after his disappearance would be His disciples. JAI RADHE!
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Yes we are Srila Prabhupadas real followers, because unlike the GBC, we follow the direct instruction given in the July 9th 1977 letter(please stud ythat letter):
http://theharekrishnamovement.wordpress.com/category/july-9th-letter/
If you are not familiar with the crimes of the GBC Gurus, who pose as pure devotees, while engaging in all kinds of sinful activities, please read:
http://www.harekrsna.org/gbc/black.htm
We do not claim to be perfect, we simply accept that we are conditioned souls and Srila Prabhupada is the only pure devotee(Diksha Guru) of ISKCON for the next 10000 years.
With kind regards,
Bhakta Robin
Srila Prabhupada is the eternal spiritual master of his followers and of all generations of followers still to come. His Divine Grace likened initiation to the admissions procedure at school. He said it was more or less a formality. He surely never wanted this initiation issue to divide his followers into different camps.
The essence of the process of devotional service is to surrender to the spiritual master. A disciple accepts
the discipline taught by Krishna’s pure representative. He does not manufacture his own way. In that sense, followers are disciples, and Srila Prabhupada will deliver them to Krishna. As far as the formalities of diksa are concerned, in the ritvik system of initiation that should have been implemented in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, diksa was to be given by the ritvik acarya acting on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, in other words, with transparency to the founder acarya. When Srila Prabhupada was asked whose disciples they would be, he referred to them as his granddisciples. That means that the ritvik acarya who was giving diksa by officiating would also be connecting the disciples to Krishna’s pure devotee through whom Krishna’s mercy would flow directly to them. It is only in terms of formalities that the ritvik acarya would be considered the initiator, and that is a principle that cannot be ignored. However, because his role is to officiate, he does not become an absolute authority or the object of meditation and worship for the disciple. As Krishna’s empowered emissary, that is Srila Prabhupada’s role, and no attempt should be made to usurp his position.
One should not be upset thinking himself unfortunate not to have been directly initiated by Srila Prabhupada during the lifetime of the founder acarya. If the official initiator is capable of acting as a transparent medium, and if the disciple takes full shelter at the lotus feet of the eternal spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, the difference is in name only. Besides, Srila Prabhupada used to say that although the ever-liberated spiritual master is kind to his direct disciples, he is even kinder to grand disciples.
Thank you for the clarification, Locanananda Prabhu.
Nevertheless, please correct me if I’m wrong. Although I am fully FOR the implementation of Prabhupada’s ritvik system in ISKCON, a ritvik cannot give diksha.
By definition, a ritvik is a representative priest – hence the initiation he gives is only and fully on behalf of the acarya, whether physically present or not. Hence, there is no question of grand disciples of the acarya at all.
In the May 28th conversation, Prabhupada mentions the word “grand-disciple” on condition “When I order” them to become gurus. Since we all know the order never came (instead, the ritvik order came), therefore there are no such thing as grand disciples. Everyone is disciple – the only distinction that one can impose is whether the disciple was initiated on or before 1977 or not. But that makes no essential difference at all.
My viewpoint again is: no ritvik gives his own diksha hence there are no grand-disciples in question.
Hare Krishna.
There is nothing in the July 9th letter which indicates that initiation which was delegated to his selected senior disciples to preform on Srila Prabhupada behalf was to continue after his departure.
” The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book.”
The whole reason why the July 9th letter came about was because Srila Prabhupada himself could not do initiation due to poor health etc. and there was an increasing number of devotees waiting to take initiation, so he delegated that part of his responsibility to his selected senior disciples to do the initiation for him after which the initiated names was then to be sent to Srila Prabhupada for him to record in his ” Initiated Disciples ” Book.
That is all there is to it in this letter. So, why use this July 9th letter to claim that this is how Srila Prabhupada wanted initiations to be preformed even after his departure. There is no mention of it
at all.
Ash, while you have pointed out the differences between ritvik initiated devotee and a grand disciple you seem to have lost your objectivity in describing guru and initiated disciple. “Everyone is disciple — the only distinction that one can impose is whether the disciple was initiated on or before 1977 or not. But that makes no essential difference at all.”
Hare Krsna.
Hare Krishna
I believe that Locanananda Prabhu gave a very good explanation. Patticularly his statement:
“The essence of the process of devotional service is to surrender to the spiritual master. A disciple accepts the discipline taught by Krishna’s pure representative.”
If we are following the instructions of Srila Prabhupada namely chanting 16 rounds and following the 4 regulated principles, then we are disciples of Srila Prabhupada, because we have surrendered to the spiritual masters instructions.
Also, I was just reading from Easy Journey to Other Planets the other day, and came across this list of instructions. Of particular note is No. 13 wherein it states:
13 .” He must not take on unlimited disciples. This means that a candidate who has successfully followed the first twelve items can also become a spiritual master himself, just as a student becomes a monitor in class with a limited number of disciples.”
Also this quote just arrived in my mailbox the other day:
“This is disciplic succession. We, we have to become puppet. That’s all. As I am puppet of my Guru Mahārāja, if you become my puppet, then that is success. Our success is there when we become puppet of the predecessor. Tāṅdera caraṇa sevi bhakta sane vāsa. To live in the society of devotees and to become puppet of the predecessor ācārya. This is success. So we are trying to do that. Kṛṣṇa consciousness society and serve the predecessor. That’s all.”
Morning Walk — April 19, 1973, Los Angeles
General practice (positive functions):
1. The serious candidate must accept a bona fide spiritual master in order to be trained scientifically. Because the senses are material, it is not at all possible to realize the Transcendence by them. Therefore the senses have to be spiritualized by the prescribed method under the direction of the spiritual master.
2. When the student has chosen a bona fide spiritual master, he must take the proper initiation from him. This marks the beginning of spiritual training.
3. The candidate must be prepared to satisfy the spiritual master in every way. A bona fide spiritual master who is fully cognizant of the methods of spiritual science, learned in the spiritual scriptures such as the Bhagavad-gītā, Vedānta, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Upaniṣads, and who is also a realized soul who has made a tangible connection with the Supreme Lord, is the transparent medium by which the willing candidate is led to the path of the Vaikuṇṭhas. The spiritual master must be satisfied in all respects, because simply by his good wishes a candidate can make wonderful progress along the path.
4. The intelligent candidate places intelligent questions to the spiritual master in order to clear his path of all uncertainties. The spiritual master shows the way, not whimsically, but in accordance with the principles of the authorities who have actually traversed the path. The names of these authorities are disclosed in the scriptures, and one has simply to follow them under the direction of the spiritual master. The spiritual master never deviates from the path of the authorities.
5. The candidate should always try to follow in the footsteps of the great sages who have practiced the method and obtained success. This should be taken as a motto in life. One should not superficially imitate them, but should follow them sincerely in terms of the particular time and circumstances.
6. The candidate must be prepared to change his habits in terms of the instructions contained in the books of authority, and for the satisfaction of the Lord he must be prepared to sacrifice both sense gratification and sense abnegation, following the example of Arjuna.
7. The candidate should live in a spiritual atmosphere.
8. He must be satisfied with as much wealth as is sufficient for maintenance only. He should not try to amass more wealth than is necessary to sustain himself in a simple way.
9. He must observe the fasting dates, such as the eleventh day of the growing and waning moon.
10. He must show respect to the banyan tree, the cow, the learned brāhmaṇa and the devotee.
These are the first stepping-stones toward the path of devotional service. Gradually one has to adopt other items, which are negative in character:
11. One should avoid offenses in the discharge of devotional service and in chanting the holy names.
12. He should avoid extensive association with nondevotees.
13. He must not take on unlimited disciples. This means that a candidate who has successfully followed the first twelve items can also become a spiritual master himself, just as a student becomes a monitor in class with a limited number of disciples.
14. He must not pose himself as a vastly learned man simply by quoting statements in books. He must have solid knowledge of the necessary books without superfluous knowledge in others.
15. A regular and successful practice of the above fourteen items will enable the candidate to maintain mental equilibrium even amidst great trials of material loss and gain.
16. In the next stage, the candidate does not become afflicted by lamentation and illusion.
17. He does not deride another’s mode of religion or worship, nor does he deride the Personality of Godhead or His devotees.
18. He never tolerates blasphemy against the Lord or His devotees.
19. He should not indulge in the discussion of topics dealing with the relationship between man and woman; nor should he engage in useless topics concerning others’ family affairs.
20. He should not inflict pain—either in body or in mind—upon other living beings, whomsoever they may be.
Out of the above twenty items, the first three positive items are imperative and most essential for the serious candidate.
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
SG Prabh said “There is nothing in the July 9th letter which indicates that initiation which was delegated to his selected senior disciples to perform on Srila Prabhupada behalf was to continue after his departure.”
If Srila Prabhupada gives an order, this order has to be followed until, he gives another order.
As simple as that. Don’t you have common sense? Do you think Srila Prabhupada would forget to mention that he wanted another system, after his departure?
It is simple for the simple. But crooked people will never understand this simple order given in the July 9th 1977 letter.
(no offense, I just get the impression most people comment here against Srila Prabhupada’s Ritvik order)
Bhakta Robin
No offence taken Bhakta Robin.
So, what is this simple order you are referring to that Srila Prabhupada has given in the July 9th 1977 letter that one must follow which requires the use of common sense and people who are crooked will never understand?
Srila Prabhupada was asked how initiations would be conducted when he would no longer be present. The answer was: by officiating acaryas. This is synonymous with ritvik acarya. Let’s be careful not to drop the “acarya” from “ritvik acarya.” Acarya means guru. One who is giving diksa is guru, and in ISKCON he who gives diksa is supposed to act as an officiating acarya. If you think you are more than that and greater than your godbrothers, because of your pride Krishna will eventually cut you down. Everyone giving diksa in ISKCON should accept Srila Prabhupada’s nomenclature and stop expecting to be worshiped. Hasn’t this unauthorized worship gone on long enough?
I wanted to clarify for readers here that what may be called the final order was not the July 9th, 1977 letter but was rather the May 28th directive spoken by His Divine Grace, that initiations given after his worldly pastimes had ended would be conducted by officiating acaryas. This would be the second phase of the ritvik initiation system. The first phase was set forth in the July 9th letter which, by the way, did not mention anything about that time when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be with us.
In the July 9th letter, it was stated that Srila Prabhupada had named eleven disciples who would immediately begin to act as “rittik”-representatives of the acarya. This is not the same as “ritvik acarya.”
Srila Prabhupada had said on several occasions that during the spiritual master’s lifetime, the disciple should bring others to the spiritual master to be initiated. It was mentioned again on May 28th. When the ritvik acarya would give diksa after Srila Prabhupada had entered samadhi, those initiated would be his disciples and Srila Prabhupada’s grand disciples. If Srila Prabhupada had some other intention, he would have stated it clearly on that occasion when asked:
TKG: These ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa. The people who they give diksa to — whose disciples are they?
Did Srila Prabhupada answer, “They are MY disciples.”? No. He said, “They are HIS disciples,” referring to the ritvik acarya.
So here Srila Prabhupada rebuts the misdirected understanding of his ritvik system phase two which incorrectly holds that he would continue to initiate disciples when he would no longer be physically present. In fact, he never made such a statement at any time, nor is there any precedent for doing so in our disciplic succession. To the contrary, Srila Prabhupada said the spirit of the parampara system cannot be changed.
The word “officiating” is used in the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is found in Canto One, Chapter 13, Verse 15.
“As long as Vidura played the part of a sudra, being cursed by Manduka Muni, Aryama officiated at the post of Yamaraja to punish those who committed sinful acts.”
So for one hundred years, Aryama, the son of Kasyapa and Aditi, took charge of the office of Yamaraja, who is one of the twelve Mahajanas.
One who acts as an officiating acarya is authorized to give diksa, just as Aryama wasa authorized to do the work of Yamaraja and punish the sinful. Because the focus of every devotee’s efforts is to please Srila Prabhupada knowing him to be Krishna’s pure representative, we can understand that the officiating acarya’s function is to formalize the disciple’s connection with Srila Prabhupada and the disciplic succession by the giving of diksa. Just as we do not think of Aryama as the actual Lord of Death, similarly we do not think of the officiating acarya as the deliverer of the devotee he initiates. The expression devotees heard Srila Prabhupada use was “ritvik acarya, transparent to the previous acarya.”
According to this correct understanding, the officiating acarya is not particularly empowered to take those he initiates back to Godhead. But if he is capable of acting as the transparent via medium to the founder acarya, he is certainly to be honored and shown great respect. However, so that Srila Prabhupada remains the central figure and worshipable spiritual master within the Hare Krishna movement, no other spiritual personality should become his competitor by exacting worship from disciples. It is the responsibility of the GBC to preserve this unique role as exclusively the position of Srila Prabhupada.
Dear Locanananda dasa,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Following you own logic, that the disciples initiated by the Ritvik Acharya are the disciples of the Ritvik Acharya and not Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, why the hell would we need a Ritvik system?
If the disciples initiated by the Ritvik Acharya were not the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada, you basically support the current ISKCON initiation system.
This Ritvik Acharya is just an empowered priest, who assists Srila Prabhupada.
He is just a conditioned soul and not a pure devotee, so he can not accept any disciples as his OWN disciples:
”Leaders who have fallen into ignorance and who mislead people by directing them to the path of destruction [as described in the previous verse] are, in effect, boarding a stone boat, and so too are those who blindly follow them. A stone boat would be unable to float and would sink in the water with its passengers. Similarly, those who mislead people go to hell, and their followers go with them.”(Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.7.14)
This is why I say, it is simple for the simple.
Only Srila Prabhupada is the Diksha Guru, because he is the only pure devotee:
As for your next question, can only a few pure devotees deliver others, anyone, if he is a pure devotee he can deliver others, he can become spiritual master. But unless he is on that platform he should not attempt it. Then both of them will to go to hell, like blind men leading the blind.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, December 14th, 1972)
Nobody else can be the Diksha Guru, because all the disciples of Prabhupada or Gaudiya Matha are not Uttama Adhikaryies (pure devotees)
Bhakta Robin
Dear Robin,
If I am repeating what Srila Prabhupada said, then what I write is not a product of of my own logic and reason. On May 28th, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that when he would no longer be present, initiations would be conducted by officiating acaryas. After introducing the term “officiating acarya” he was asked,
“What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation….?”
The questionner wants to know what the relationship is between the officiating acarya and the devotee he gives initiation to. Srila Prabhupada replied, “He’s guru. He’s guru.”
So I ask you, when Srila Prabhupada says “He’s guru,” who is he talking about? The answer is simple: the oficiating acarya is guru and he is giving initiation.
Later in the conversation, Srila Prabhupada is again asked about the initiations performed by the officiating acarya (a/k/a ritvik acarya):
Q: These ritvik acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa. The people who they give diksa to — whose disciples are they?
SP: They are his disciples.
Robin, I think you have to ask yourself why you cannot accept these words of the spiritual master. You sound like an intelligent, sincere devotee. Srila Prabhupada is saying that when the ritvik acarya is giving diksa, those who receive diksa from the ritvik acarya are disciples of the ritvik acarya. He did not say, “They are MY disciples,” which is what you would like to believe. It just isn’t so. The conversation continues:
Q: They are his disciples? (They are disciples of the ritvik acarya?)
SP: Who is initiating. (Of the ritvik acarya who has given diksa.) He’s grand disciple. (The new initiate is the disciple of my disciple)
I am not defending the ISKCON initiation system. ISKCON gurus never say they are officiating. Nor in thirty-five years has even one of them ever referred to himself as an officiating acarya. Instead of embracing Srila Prabhupada’s recommendation to have officiating acaryas perform initiations, the GBC introduced a system based on their own ambitions. For all these years, the movement has been held back, first, because of the conflict brought about by the non-parallel lines of authority created by a concocted initiation system and, second, because of the ever-present ambition of the leaders which have caused them to neglect Srila Prabhupada’s order, an ongoing offense to His Divine Grace that has curtailed the spiritual advancement of these leaders as well as that of their followers.
Hare Rama,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Well I will be honets that I hear this for the first time.
Can you provide a source from Vedabase or causelessmercy.com ?
Still I gave you the proof that conditioned souls can not be Diksha Guru quoted from Srila Prabhupada.
As I understand Srila Prabhupada means they are Shiksha Gurus.
This would totally contradict any other teachings of Srila Prabhupada that conditioned souls can not be Diksha Gurus. So I personally highly doubt this.
The whole issue is, wheather conditioned souls who have illicit sex with “men,women and possibly children”(according to GBC) can be Gurus. According to your interpretation a child molester can be Guru??? This doesn’t make any sense, compared with Srila Prabhupada’s letters saying only pure devotee cna be Diksha Guru…
Greetings,
Bhakta Robin
Thanks, Robin, for your reply. We have all felt great disappointment with the path taken by ISKCON’s leadership. As for myself, I have been assaulted, banned for thirteen years (and counting) from giving classes or leading kirtana in my local zone (but not everywhere) — even had donations returned to me on the order of the local GBC — just for explaining what it was that Srila Prabhupada wanted implemented after his departure from this world.
All I have said is taken from the May 28th, 1977 conversation in Vrndavana, India. Srila Prabhupada had called the entire GBC body to convene there because there was a strong possibility that he might be called back to Godhead by Lord Krishna. The meetings took place from May 27-29. A select committee that consisted of the six GBC members who were on the original GBC formed in 1970 went into Srila Prabhupada’s room to ask specific questions concerning how to manage ISKCON when he would no longer be with us. They asked about future translation work, about how long GBC members should serve, and about how initiations would be conducted. A summary report of the outcome of the meetings was sent to all temple presidents. I still have my copy, as well as the July 9th letter I received in the mail in Amsterdam. In this report, there was no mention of Srila Prabhupada’s response to the question concerning initiations. However, the answers he gave to all other questions were reported to the temple presidents.
Why was there no mention that Srila Prabhupada intended to have initiations performed by officiating acaryas? The report skirted the issue by saying that Srila Prabhupada would answer other questions in the future.
What Srila Prabhupada explained on that occasion had mainly to do with management. For example, how would initiations be managed? Srila Prabhupada certainly did not want to create a conflict with the existing management structure and chain of command. His perfect and divinely inspired recommendation was to have the most acarya-like (again, his term) leaders officiate as ritvik acaryas, transparent to the founder acarya.
Your question is a valid one, as to whether anyone in today’s ISKCON is qualified to act as an officiating acarya? Obviously, those who reject the idea altogether are not qualified to act as officiating acaryas, even though the concept was clearly stated by Srila Prabhupada on May 28th, 1977. Personally, I would say that those who do not fight to have the correct system of initiation implemented in ISKCON are not sufficiently advanced to occupy that position.
At one point in the conversation, Srila Prabhupada refers to the ritvik acarya as a “regular guru.” There is no other instance we know of where this term was used by Srila Prabhupada. Arjuna is referred to as a “regular disciple” in the Bhagavad-gita, but I could find no other reference to “regular guru.” The interesting thing is that Srila Prabhupada says:
“When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. Just see.”
The whole conversation is about the officiating acarya, also known as ritvik acarya, giving diksa and acting as a regular guru. So what did the GBC not like about it and why did the GBC keep this instruction hidden for so many years? Have you figured it out yet? The reason is because 1) There would be no worship connected with officiating at initiations and therefore their absolute power over the life decisions of the disciple was being denied, and 2) They could not see the scriptural or historical precedent for such initiation protocols.
One other thing I wanted to mention is that Srila Prabhupada has stated that a strict follower is qualified to act as guru even though he has not yet attained the highest platform of self-realization. I will try to find the exact quote for you. Also, scripturally, it is indicated that siksa guru and diksa guru are equal manifestations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are advised not to diminish the role of either. Please note that understanding the May 28th conversation from the perspective of management does not involve making a distinction between siksa and diksa guru. In fact, those terms were used only on very rare occasions in discussions between Srila Prabhupada and his ISKCON leaders, and not at all on May 28th.
Thanks for commenting on these important points! It is of course correct to always refer to what is stated in all documents/Vedabase.
However, there is also 35 years post samadhi ISKCON history with 110 fallen sannyasis, 41 fallen diksa gurus, mass exodus of thousands desperately disappointed devotees to join Gaudiya-matha camps, gurukula scandal, bookchange scandal. Last but not least, ISKCON’s educational reputation from spiritual point of view nowhere mentioned in any media.
In other words, intellectual Westerners consider this movement at present moment to be destroyed from within. So would it not be worthy to also include this present state of emergency in any discussion? When Prabhupada left he would leave behind a fully functional global Gaudiya Vaishnava Sankirtan movement. In order to have this previous status again reinstated what should be done next?
Dear Rukmini DD,
All of the things you mentioned are painful reminders of what we have endured over the past thirty-five years. I was reminded of a letter Srila Prabhupada wrote to me in 1972, when I was attempting to open a temple in Geneva, Switzerland. He used to say our movement was spreading like wildfire, and in that particular letter he spoke of a Japanese philosopher who predicted our movement would become the world religion by 1982 if it continued to grow at the current rate. Srila Prabhupada used to say, “The name of Krishna has become a household word,” indicating the success of the Sankirtana movement, but where are we now in terms of making the world Krishna conscious, and how are we going to get things back on track?
I very much appreciate your pro-active approach. I believe the first step is that devotees who are true followers of Srila Prabhupada, and who are not willing to drink the GBC kool-aid, should bond together to keep themselves spiritually strong. Everyone should appreciate what others are doing to serve Srila Prabhupada outside of the ISKCON mainstream. The same principle activities of book distribution, prasadam distribution and Harinam sankirtana can be performed by groups of devotees acting independently. In New York City, we formed our own Harinam party in 1998 and still go out every Saturday night to chant the Holy Name. You can get a glimpse of the ecstasy of the devotees in our party by going to Youtube and searching “Hare Krishna Explosion at Times Square,” which has had more than 100,000 hits.
Even if nothing changes for the better in ISKCON, we will have successfully played a small part in spreading Krishna consciousness by carrying out the order of the spiritual master to the best of our ability. These efforts will not go unnoticed. The sincere endeavor of the devotee never goes in vain, but instead attracts the attention of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
My impression is that the leaders of ISKCON have circled the wagons to protect the domain they control from the influence of outsiders. Presently, one sannyasi who by all accounts is a strict follower of the regulative principles and of sannyasa dharma is being banned here and there for strongly preaching against ISKCON’s mission drift. He is attempting to protect the legacy of Srila Prabhupada and the response is to ban him and reprimand him into submission. Good spiritual leaders would be very happy to discuss with him ways in which the direction of the movement could be strengthened to coincide with the intentions and priorities of the founder acarya, but it appears that ISKCON is devoid of such visionary leaders at the present time.
Do not wait for the next generation of devotees who are the children of devotees to rise up and take charge. They have been too traumatized to want to run the show. Nor are the current leaders making room for them to have managerial responsibility. And do not expect members of the predominantly Indian congregation to demand change. Their main interest is to visit the temple and see how the Deity of Krishna is being worshiped.
I used to think that the Lord in the heart would enlighten the leaders and give them inner strength, especially if we all prayed to Krishna to guide them, but now I realize that the leaders themselves must offer that prayer collectively if they really want inner guidance. We can be their well-wishers while we deal with them at arm’s length. To give you a hint why I feel this way, whenever I attend an ISKCON function I chant prayers to Lord Nrsimhadeva for my protection. Why? I have done that since being violently assaulted in front of the Deities at the 2004 NY Rathayatra parade. After the incident I had to go to the hospital to have x-rays of my back taken. I was not able to sit, stand or lie down comfortably for two weeks. One good sign was that the attacker finally apologized to me eight years later at this year’s Rathayatra festival.
I think what the GBC needs to do is open a venue of communication with devotees who would like to make suggestions. There should be GBC resolutions that revolve around healing these wounds and bringing about unity within the family of devotees. And they should stop passing resolutions that explain in detail how they intend to punish dissenters.
This is just a starting point, and I would like to hear what every devotee has to say in response to your last post dated October 21, 2012.
Your servant,
Locanananda dasa
Locanananda Dasa, sorry to hear about all those
bad thing that happened to you. As you were saying regarding ritvik,
your point is –
a) The July 9th 1977 letter issued was only meant for Srila Prabhupada’s 11 senior disciples to act as his representatives on his behalf to initiate waiting devotees and new ones for 1st and 2nd initiation during the period of his presence. The initiated devotees are Srila Prabhupada’s disciples.
This letter was meant to be effected only up till the time of his departure.
b) The May 28th 1977 short conversation that took place
in Vrindavan on future initiations of devotees in iskcon
was meant to be followed after his departure, the
representatives mentioned in the July 9th letter
becomes officiating archarias and the initiated disciples
become their disciples and grand disciples of Srila
Prabhupada.
I would like to know if this is also the same with the
ritvik practice of iskcon Bangalore and IRM? If not
what type of ritvik are they practicing?
Another question is, why didn’t Srila Prabhupada
issue another letter along with the July 9th letter
in regards to future initiation since the issues
regarding Srila Prabhupada’s poor health,
the increasing number of devotees waiting
for 1st/2nd initiation and future initiations
after his departure were all discussed during
the same period?
Dear Prabhus,
Srila Prabhupada set up his movement quite simple – senior devotees appointed/voted as TPs, GBCs and those who perform initiations on his behalf (ritviks). No room to speculate about different types of ritvik. We cannot have at this forum endless back and forth debates if Srila Prabhupada appointed Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda, Harikes, Bhavananda, TKG, etc. as pure Vaishnava diksa-guru acaryas, yes or no?
Those of you who still believe that Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda, Harikes, Bhavananda, TKG, etc. were appointed by Srila Prabhupada as his successors, full-fledged diksa-gurus, maha-bhagavatas, might discuss all this with the editors of Sampradaya Sun who still worship Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Kirtanananda, Harikes, Bhavananda, TKG, etc. as saksadhari, directly Hari, on their home altar. Thank you for your understanding.
Jaya-Gaura das ,
Who are you? Are the moderator of this web site? What is your problem if we discuss the issue of ritvik. Do you have some fear that the readers might find out something incorrect about ritvik. If you have something intelligent to contribute to the issue i would like to hear. If you have none, please just step aside.
SG — Your points a and b show how simple Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik order was, managerially speaking.
I might add that in the May 28th, 1977 conversation the first phase of ritvik protocols was also brought up for discussion.
When the devotee refers to the ritvik acarya initiating on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, Srila Prabhupada took that to mean “during his lifetime.” In terms of the formalities of initiation, he said:
“Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf.”
Then he stated that the devotees he was going to name would be qualified to act as initiators:
“On my order, he is actually guru.” But the vaisnava etiquette would be to honor Srila Prabhupada by bringing all aspiring disciples to him during his lifetime by initiating them on his behalf.
The conclusion of all of the details of this explanation is to point out the limitless benefits to be derived by following Srila Prabhupada’s instruction without interpretation, such as
1) ISKCON management would not be disrupted by those giving diksa trying to control everything.
2) There would be no worship of any non-liberated souls, even if they were strict followers of sadhana bhakti.
3) Srila Prabhupada’s priorities for expanding Krishna consciousness would remain intact within ISKCON.
4) Srila Prabhupada’s authoritative teachings would remain the absolute reference point and fundamental basis for all preaching activity as well as management decisions.
5) The extent to which a devotee could represent Srila Prabhupada with transparency is the extent to which he could serve as officiating acarya.
6) No personality cults or factions
would disturb the peaceful execution of devotional service.
7) All devotees would be recognized as most valuable assets in fulfilling the mission of the spiritual master.
8) No one would be ostracized or forced to leave ISKCON because their presence threatened the absolute control of someone who thought of himself as Srila Prabhupada’s successor.
I could go on and on, but the next step is to find a way to convince others of Srila Prabhupada’s actual intention in laying out a ritvik initiation system. It was not to end the parampara with himself as the last guru in our line. It was not to push aside what he himself referred to as the “law of disciplic succession.”
It was to introduce a method by which millions of souls throughout the world could be initiated into the society of vaisnavas and attain the mercy of Krishna and the previous acaryas on their journey back to Godhead.
Dear Locanananda prabhu, Hare Krishna. Please accept my obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
I wanted to reply to your recent comments, however my inquiry to you became longer than a comment so I’m posting it here. I hope you have some time to clarify my misunderstanding.
According to your understanding of the ritvik system, who is actually the Diksa guru ? Are you saying that the officiating acaryas Prabhupada selected have become the diksa gurus now in Srila Prabhupada’s physical absence ? It’s somewhat confusing because you are saying that they should be currently called officiating acaryas, and they’re to do the initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, but that the disciples are their own, and are the grand disciples of Srila Prabhupada.
If that is the case, then what is the point of calling them officiating acaryas ? If you are saying that the initiated devotees are their own disciples, then that would mean the persons doing the initiations are actually the diksa gurus. According to the following though, the definition Srila Prabhupada has given for diksa guru is the one guru who is the primary spiritual master, the one who is to be worshiped as good as God – receive guru puja, vyasa puja etc., the one who must be a mahabhagavata pure devotee, and the one who is the foremost instructor of spiritual knowledge:
So we see that on one hand one should not discriminate between the diksa and siksa gurus, but simultaneously they are one and different. Their purpose is one and the same because they both deliver the same message, however they both have different functions and qualifications, specifically that the diksa guru must be a mahabhagavata and is to be worshiped as good as God.
And then Prabhupada has defined the essence of diksa as the reception of transcendental knowledge, with the ceremony being a formality.
So if Srila Prabhupada’s books are the essence of this whole movement, the primary source of knowledge and instruction (the essence of diksa), and Prabhupada is the one to be exclusively worshiped as good as God, then how can we be saying that he is not the diksa guru ?
As for the idea that calling Prabhupada the diksa guru would mean ending the parampara, where has Prabhupada defined disciplic succession as a chain of physical bodies ? Prabhupada has defined parampara essentially as the continual unchanged acceptance of the spiritual teachings.
You have stated that Prabhupada had to honor the law of disciplic succession, thus by giving some disciples some official title, but when Prabhupada referred to his Godbrothers he said:
“Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them.” (Letter 4/28/74)
Evidently Prabhupada did not endorse any of his Godbrothers taking the title of diksa guru. It seems the law of disciplic succession does not mean that anyone qualifies for the title of diksa guru just because their guru has passed on.
So if everyone is worshiping Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru, taking his books as the primary instruction, and passing on the message without change, how you could say the parampara would end ? What could actually end the parampara is changing Prabhupada’s books and watering down the message.
Today we have so many camps with everyone asking “who is your guru ?”, accepting all kinds of persons as their diksa gurus, and changing from one diksa guru to the next as each one falls. It’s practically always the first question that anyone asks when some other devotee walks into an ISKCON temple – “who is your guru?”. This itself is practically another type of designation of duality.
Whereas, if everyone is understood to be Srila Prabhupada’s disciple, this duality is eliminated and there could be more unity. Today though, being a Prabhupada disciple has become largely a matter of elitism, prestige, honor and recognition. Prabhupada disciples should be respected but being a Prabhupada disciple should not be an elitists group.
Doesn’t it make alot more sense to honor Prabhupada as everyone’s diksa guru – at least for anyone initiated in ISKCON ? This would comply with Srila Prabhupada’s will that only his initiated disciples would manage ISKCON properties for all the future. How would this be possible if the future generations are to be Prabhupada’s grand disciples and great grand disciples etc. How do you explain this ?
As for the May 28th conversation, there has been a lot of discussion over Prabhupada’s mention of grand disciples, initiates becoming disciples of his disciples, and doing the ceremony on his behalf as a formality because one cannot become a diksa guru in his presence. There are more than several interpretations on this.
From this conversation one could even try to make a case that Prabhupada authorized these eleven disciples to become full fledged diksa gurus after his departure. Any way you look at it, there are always questions to be asked. But for one thing, the authenticity of that recording has been put under question and supposedly it was professionally forensically analyzed and reported to be spliced.
I’ve listened to that recording closely though and it at least sounds pretty consistent. So even assuming that it is genuine, there are points in your explanation which still leave many questions.
For one it doesn’t make much sense that Prabhupada would have, when asked specifically about what would happen after his departure, give an answer which only refers to before his departure, and then issue a letter to the whole society (apparently the only letter dealing with initiations ever issued to the whole society), and not mention a single thing about what would happen after his departure. Does this make sense ?
You are assuming that the July 9th letter is irreleveant to after his departure, but it does not specify that the system should end after his departure, that is an assumption. It does even refer to the May 28th conversation where Prabhupada was asked specifically about after his departure and he said he would select some ritviks, or officiating acaryas. The letter intentionally neither specifies whether it is intended to end after his departure, or continue after his departure.
At least it does not specify in these particular terms. But it does say it should be implemented “henceforward” and does not say it should end at any time. Why would Srila Prabhupada need to emphatically state 3 times in the letter that the initiates are his disciples ?
Wouldn’t that be obvious if it was intended only for his physical presence ? And why would Srila Prabhupada need to have this distributed to the entire society, placing so much emphasis on his last few physically present days, without issuing any particular instructions for after his departure ? That doesn’t make much sense.
One perspective of understanding the conversation is in looking at the last statement of Prabhupada on the matter:
Prabhupada: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it. […] And Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya guru hana. One can understand the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who understands his guru’s order, the same parampara, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you.”
Prabhupada says “when I order”, but where was that order ever actually given ? It appears that it was not, and that Prabhupada left his instruction, like a test, in such a way for everyone to have to intelligently inquire and not blindly follow.
I believe that Prabhupada, knowing of the ambitions of his disciples, did not want to crush their ambitions, but rather intelligently keep them ambitiously engaged so that the most important work, publishing and distributing his books, was not hampered.
Krishna fulfills everyone’s desires, so it seems He allowed them to believe what they want to, and Srila Prabhupada answered the May 28th question in such a way, and delivered the letter in such a way, that requires everyone to study the matter and – “understand his guru’s order” – , as he stated, almost as if spoken like a parable, to be understood only by revelation to the truly sincere. And one who understands it properly, Prabhupada says, he can become guru. What kind of guru Prabhupada has described here:
What Prabhupada describes is a monitor, someone with a limited role, in other words, a siksa guru. Why couldn’t the parampara continue through a multitude of siksa gurus, or preachers, distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books and expanding the family of disciples and worship of Srila Prabhupada, encouraging the world to become his disciple and take his shelter ? What could be wrong with that ? It seems that only because of desire for honor, position, recognition, friendship, society, and all the rest, that there is disagreement with this.
So please do clarify on your explanation of what you understand to be Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and let me know where if I am mistaken. Is Srila Prabhupada not the diksa guru ?
Thank you kindly,
Bhakta Sean
Seanika;
Rshiji, I hope you don’t mind me adding the ika to your name. After reading your post it seems appropriate.
It is not that Locanananda can’t see the truth, more like, he doesn’t want to. Since he himself is an unauthorized so-called diksa guru, (I heard this from a very reliable source.)
These points and similar have been brought to his attention in the past. A typical responce is that he feigns indignation and quits the discussion, as in with the IRM. Then brings forth the same defeated points at an opportune point in time, maybe a little re-hashed to suit the occassion.
As Prabhupada says, you can’t wake those who are pretending.
(SPL to Rupanuga, 14th March, 1969)
Sulocana bring up this point in “The Guru Business”:
As stated in a previous chapter the cause of disturbance in ISKCON is ignorance. That is clear. But there is also another cause as mentioned in the following letters: personal ambition. If the current leaders are sincere, then we can easily remove this disturbance by bringing out knowledge through discussion and debate. But if ISKCON’s disturbance is an intentional display of personal ambition, then it has to be removed by other means. You can only wake up a sleeping man, not a man pretending to be asleep. Srila Prabhupada here confirms the famous quote that power corrupts, and so naturally, absolute power corrupts absolutely when the “schemers” are not in absolute knowledge.
“Our life is very short. The Krsna consciousness movement is not meant for fulfilling one’s personal ambition, but it is a serious movement for the whole world.”
(Satsvarupa, 7/31/70)
“In my books I have tried to explain clearly this simultaneously one and different philosophy, ‘acintya bheda bheda tattva’, propounded by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. But sometimes it happens that this philosophy is given a self-interested interpretation. As soon as personal motivation comes in it is not possible for one to understand our Krsna consciousness philosophy.”
(Ishan, 9/70)
CHAPTER TWO – “DO NOT DISHONOR ME” – The Guru Business
Dear Bhakta Sean,
There are many, many important points raised in your very profound letter, but I will begin by saying
I do not have all of the answers you seek. I will have to rely on the Lord in the heart to give me
the right words to satisfy your inquiring mind and thirst for knowledge.
Concerning the issue of initiation, guru-tattva and the continuation of the parampara, devotees have been exposed to all sorts of interpretations, some inspired and some misleading.
I always give the benefit of the doubt to any devotee who wants to understand and then explain Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. The initiation issue is one that has divided our movement to the point of schism. Anyone who even appears to look upon ritvik advocates as devotees and befriends them can be immediately and without warning ostracized from ISKCON. These managers are not functioning on the spiritual platform where one interacts with everyone in a way by which they are encouraged to serve within the movement. To the contrary, they reside on the mental plane where they see others as either friend of enemy, and so whoever deals with them is subject to their whimsical policies of acceptance and rejection.
What I find most disingenuous on the part of ISKCON leaders is that they are rejecting Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on the matter of future initiations as if they knew scripture better than he did. All of the verses you quoted were known to all of Srila Prabhupada’s senior disciples, and they obviously felt the initiation protocols Srila Prabhupada was recommending were not supported by scripture. Otherwise, why would they not announce his declaration concerning officiating acaryas in the summary report of their May 27-29 meetings in Vrndavana in 1977? After thoroughly evaluating the role he intended them to play, they decided they hated his idea of officiating and taking karma without receiving worship. We all know that ISKCON still hates the idea of ritvik initiations. If they were obedient servants, they would have enacted resolutions in pursuance of Srila Prabhupada’s May 28th instructions. We find though that the GBC in its meetings and resolutions has never even raised the possibility of discussing having initiators act as officiating acaryas.
There is an important point I wanted to make at this juncture. In ISKCON as well as in the ritvik camp we encounter devotees who are focused on drawing a distinction between siksa and diksa guru. I think perhaps the most important thing to remember in this regard is that these are not titles. The tendency to make these titles is deeply engrained in our intellect. Awarding these names as titles has also been imbibed from association with the Gaudiya Math. Diksa guru is not a title, but everyone wants to know “Who is your diksa guru?” It’s funny that no one wants to know who is your siksa guru. It’s is also interesting that ritvik advocates will never name anyone as their siksa guru. For them, Prabhupada is everything — siksa, diksa, the deliverer from birth and death, and the ocean of mercy. In other words, he is the eternal spiritual master.
If we all think of Srila Prabhupada as our eternal spiritual master, there is no need to label him as our siksa or diksa guru. I was initiated in 1970, but I have never said, “Srila Prabhupada is my diksa guru.”
Prabhupada taught us to use the term “spiritual master,” just as in the Bhagavad-gita Arjuna surrenders to Krishna who agreed to act as Arjuna’s spiritual master. “Now I am a soul surrendered unto You,” had nothing to do with Arjuna receiving diksa on the battlefield. Krishna transmitted transcendental knowledge to His disciple and the relationship was technically a siksa relationship, but we don’t say “Krishna was Arjuna’s siksa guru.” Similarly, everyone is taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada and receiving transcendental knowledge, but they are receiving so much more. By his grace, we will be able to enter the spiritual abode and interact with Krishna face to face. Without pleasing Srila Prabhupada, one cannot even make one iota of spiritual advancement. So the term siksa guru does not apply.
For ISKCON-ites, Srila Prabhupada was proclaimed the pre-eminent siksa guru, but in ISKCON, worship of the diksa guru is more essential, as if the initiator is supposed to take the disciple back to Godhead. Srila Prabhupada wrote that the spiritual master is a resident of the spiritual world. A resident of the spiritual world comes here to deliver the fallen conditioned souls. He does not become attracted to the flirtations of maya. ISKCON gurus should cease and desist from all of those practices that call upon others to see them as liberated souls. I will not say that ISKCON gurus are not devotees, but I will say that some of them who were supposed to be as good as Jesus became less than cats and dogs. Srila Prabhupada used to say spiritual life was like a razor’s edge and the tragedy in ISKCON is that when so-called gurus falter, slip, deviate and get a bloody cheek, all of their admirers are thrown into a hellish condition of life. If only they had agreed to officiate on Prabhupada’s recommendation, so many innocent devotees would have been spared the greatest anguish of their lives.
To continue, we all know Srila Prabhupada was formally initiated by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Maharaja, but personally I do not know of any instance when Srila Prabhupada actually used those particular words “diksa guru” to describe their relationship. And only on one occasion did we hear him refer to his godbrother Sridhar Maharaja as “siksa guru.” In other words, it was very rare that these terms would be used in conversation, in classes or in his letters. It was really only when devotees were helping Prabhupada publish the Adi-lila that the topic of siksa vs. diksa came up. As for myself, I was initiated by Srila Prabhupada in 1970, but I never referred to him as my “diksa guru.” The Bhagavad-gita does not make those distinctions as to which type of guru we are related to. And so Arjuna surrenders fully to Krishna without considering whether it is a siksa or diksa relationship. So when we consider the implementation of the ritvik initiation system, we don’t have to worry about designating who is siksa and who is diksa. Again, it was not mentioned on May 28th, so it was not a consideration. My view on this is that Srila Prabhupada’s perspective was perfect. Only he could conceive of how a worldwide spiritual movement could incorporate the giving of diksa without disrupting an existing system of management and still satisfy the demands of scripture and the standards set by previous acaryas. His instructions were dictated by Krishna, just like his books. And as with his books, the ISKCON leaders were prepared to ignore those divine words of his, not thinking of them as sacrosanct.
Will continue when time permits.
Your servant,
Locanananda dasa
I wanted to add a few more things tonight to explore the topic from other angles of vision.
With our tiny brains and flickering minds we may not be able to comprehend how Srila Prabhupada’s recommendation to have officiating acaryas give diksa filfills all of the requirements and scriptural directives concerning initiation. Srila Prabhupada told us that some of our questions would be answered when we return back to Godhead. So some things we cannot grasp in our conditioned state. A godbrother of mine used to say, “Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do or die.” In other words, we should put our complete faith in the words of the spiritual master and do exactly what he says. Whatever we see as contradictory in his instructions will be reconciled in due course of time by Krishna.
In the Caitanya caritamrita there is the story of Raghunath dasa. When he was living at home, he received initiation from Yadunandana Acarya. He later went to Jagannath Puri and there took shelter of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Yadunandana Acarya is referred to as “the official initiator spiritual master” of Raghunath dasa. This is very similar to “officiating acarya.” In the pastime, Raghunath received diksa at home and then took shelter of Lord Caitanya. Similarly, in our movement, we are supposed to receive diksa from an officiating acarya who is transparent to the founder acarya. Actually, though, we are meant to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada. So although Srila Prabhupada is not officially the giver of diksa, he is the ultimate object of our worship and meditation.
There is so much more to be said.
Dear Bhakta Sean — Each time I want to reply to points in your letter I end up rereading the letter in its entirety, and each time I read it, I get a better idea of the source of confusion many devotees have concerning Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on initiation. There is no use trying to understand something that is inconceivable by applying ordinary logic and reason. No one can understand the activities or intentions of Krishna’s pure devotee in this way. Nor should we impose the conclusions we ourselves draw from scripture or other sources as a means to define Srila Prabhupada’s present position, location and service to Krishna. If Srila Prabhupada was ordered by Krishna, when he departed this world, to go to some other place within the material world to preach Krishna consciousness, how would you or Bhakta Hugh or anyone else know that such an order was given? How can anyone say, “Srila Prabhupada is now doing this or that,” in terms of initiations in ISKCON. “Entering samadhi” means returning to the eternal abode. It doesn’t mean the acarya goes on doing here what he was doing before he entered samadhi.
Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say he would continue to initiate ISKCON devotees when he would no longer be physically present. In fact, as I have been pointing out, he said exactly the opposite.
Let’s take one of the factoids you mentioned concerning the qualifications of property trustees. When the document was read to Srila Prabhupada, the original wording was that a property trustee must be “AN initiated disciple.” Srila Prabhupada did not say this should be changed to “MY initiated disciple.” He approved the original wording. Therefore, the qualifications of property trustees cannot be presented as proof that Srila Prabhupada intended to initiate ISKCON devotees for decades to come. To change the text was a lawyer’s decision. He felt the wording “my disciple” would tighten the protection of ISKCON’s assets and keep outsiders from taking them from us.
Let’s take another look at the July 9th letter. I think we can all agree that there is no specific mention whatsoever of initiations that were to be performed when Srila Prabhupada would no longer be present — only the word “henceforward.” This word could have many meanings, depending on what the composer of the letter had in mind. When asked about his use and meaning of the word henceforward, the author of the letter said it meant “until there was a change in circumstance,” or, “until further notice.” This makes perfect sense if we consider that the May 28th meeting with Srila Prabhupada and the question of future initiations dealt specifically with that time when he would no longer be with us. I will again present the exchange between Srila Prabhupada and his secretary from the transcript of the May 28, 1977 discussion. It is crystal clear that Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik order was to have ritvik acaryas give diksa when he would no longer be present, and that those initiated would be his grand disciples.
TKG: He is asking that these ritvik acaryas — they are officiating, giving diksa. The people who they give diksa to — whose disciples are they?
SP: They are his disciples.
TKG: They are his disciples?
SP: Who is initiating. He’s grand disciple.
Srila Prabhupada did not say, “They are MY disciples.” He said “they are HIS disciples,” referring to the ritvik acarya. This completely defeats the idea that Srila Prabhupada would continue to initiate after entering samadhi. And he uses the term grand disciple to refer to those people receiving diksa from the ritvik acarya, further defeating the misconception of ritvik initiation. It doesn’t get more clear than this.
Let me give you one more instance of Srila Prabhupada defeating the misconception that he would continue to give diksa. On the appearance day of his spiritual master in February, 1977, Srila Prabhupada spoke in Mayapur about the nitya-lila of the pure devoteee vaisnava acarya. He likened the pastime to changes in time from one time zone to the next. When it is five o’clock in one place, it is six o’clock in another place. An hour later, it is six o’clock in one location and seven o’clock in the second location. So, figuratively speaking, when it is time for the pure devotee to begin his pastime in another place (at 6 o’clock), they end in the first place (at 7 o’clock). This very obvious comparison helps us understand that in nitya-lila, when the pastime begins in a new place, it does not continue in the previous place. By definition, if Srila Prabhupada continued to initiate here after entering samadhi and while physically residing somewhere else, if that was the nature of his nitya-lila, it means he would have been initiating somewhere else while he was physically present here. Would anyone like to make such an absurd statement and be seen as the greatest fool? Maybe Bhakta Hugh would like to confirm that while Srila Prabhupada was initiating disciples in ISKCON, he was simultaneously initiating disciples on another planet or in another galaxy as part of nitya-lila, his eternal pastime.
Thanks Locananda prabhu! Ok there seem some different opinions about whose disciples are newly initiated devotees. So you say ritviks give initiation on Prabhupada’s behalf but those newly initiated disciples are the disciples of this ritvik priest?
Just like I’m opening on behalf of Bank of America (BOA) a branch, company label on that building says, Bank of America, and I’m supposed to do everything on behalf of BOA. When making new clients they are my clients, I can tell them, you are not clients of BOA, you are directly my clients? Hmm, of course you can say like that, these are my clients.
But they get papers and contracts where it says, they are clients of Bank of America. So, yes, they are your clients in that sense that you manage these clients. But de facto you are not an independent enterprise, you still are an employee of BOA and you act on behalf of BOA.
As soon you tell BOA, no, no, I’m now my own company, all profit belongs to me, then what, you’re no more in accordance with BOA.
Same here, ritvik means to perform initiations on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Agreed, new devotees become devotees because of your endeavour. You can say, I made these people to chant Hare Krishna and they became devotees because of my work.
And those new devotees surely will recognize you as such, we are very thankful towards Locananda prabhu, he made us become devotees, performed our initiation fire ceremony on behalf of Prabhupada.
But to say these are now my own disciples, I’m their guru? You always have to tell them that Prabhupada is the current link. You are acting on behalf of Prabhupada. Not that you become like Prabhupada. Prabhupada always remains the guru of ISKCON.
Locanandanda prabhu,
Hare Krishna.
Thanks for your response. You are saying that we should not be making this distinction, between who is the diksa guru and who is a siksa guru, that it is not important and not to label them, and that Prabhupada did not speak much about siksa and diksa. Why then is it important to label the new initiates as “grand disciples” ? What is the necessity of making this official distinction ? If these persons are simply conducting the initiation ceremonies “on behalf of Srila Prabhupada” as you say, and are not to receive worship, then what is the necessity of labeling the new initiates as their disciples and Prabhupadas grand disciples ? Is this not supporting a root cause of many of the problems of ISKCON which you speak of, by perpetuating this sense of distinction, that encourages these people to think that they have some ownership and lordship over the those devotees who are initiated ? And which encourages these people to expect special honor or worship and all the entitlements of having their own disciples ? Does it not encourage this elitist type of thinking that “I am a Prabhupada disciple”, I am special ?
Actually, Prabhupada uses the terms siksa and diksa many times throughout his books and teachings, wheres, the term grand disciple he used how many times, once ?
You agree that only Srila Prabhupada is to be worshiped, but yet you say that new initiates are not his disciples. As quoted before, Lord Krishna states ” “Our next spiritual master is he who initiates us into transcendental knowledge, and he is to be worshiped as much as I am.” So by insisting that these people are the one’s giving initiation, and by saying that the initiated disciples are their own, you are supporting the idea that these people should receive special honor and worship, position, recognition, etc. You are distinguishing between who is a “Prabhupada disciple” and who is not, and this seems to perpetuate the core issue of ISKCON’s problems.
As shown, initiation is not simply a ceremony, but more importantly, the transmission of transcendental knowledge. And that is being primarily received from Srila Prabhupada through his vani. How are these people actually “giving diksa” if their purpose is for the most part to simply conduct the ceremony ? If I undergo a ceremony with one of these persons, and then maybe correspond with that person a few times, or maybe not at all, while all the time the main source of knowledge and instruction is coming from Srila Prabhupada, and my worship is directed to Prabhupada, then what makes me that other person’s disciple ? Simply because they have conducted the ceremony ? Prabhupada says the ceremony is not very important, not even completely necessary. Yet you are placing so much emphasis on the ceremony.
The argument that devotees who support the ritvik system only accept Prabhupada, and give no importance to anyone else, is not true. Someone may think like that, but that is not how it is meant to work. Other instructing gurus still have their importance and necessity, but it is Prabhupada who is the primary spiritual master, the only one who is worshiped by everyone, and whose vani is the main source of instruction. The person who conducts the ceremony may be giving instructions, and therefore a devotee may be his disciple in the sense of a siksa relationship, but the devotees primary spiritual master would be Prabhupada. As pointed out, Prabhupada says “Actually, you have only one Spiritual Master, who initiates you, just as you have only one father” (Nov 20, 1971 Letter to Sri Galim). So this one person whom Prabhupada refers to here, would be himself. How could you say he is not the one ? If you say he is not the initiator, then you are saying it is not him, but someone else who is a devotees primary guru and object of worship. This is misdirecting the focus of devotees to people other than Prabhupada and is lessening the importance of Prabhupada in their spiritual lives. Is that not a disservice ?
You have stated: “Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say he would continue to initiate ISKCON devotees when he would no longer be physically present. In fact, as I have been pointing out, he said exactly the opposite.” Please quote where exactly did Prabhupada say such a thing. From what I understand, Prabhupada indicated that his books would remain for many generations to come. In this way the generations could continue to be initated by him through the transmission of transcendental knowledge.
Also you have stated “Maybe Bhakta Hugh would like to confirm that while Srila Prabhupada was initiating disciples in ISKCON, he was simultaneously initiating disciples on another planet or in another galaxy as part of nitya-lila, his eternal pastime.” Such a thing no one could know for certain except by revelation, but you are saying that the idea is absurd, how is that ? A mahabhagavata is not limited like that, he can expand his presence and exist simultaneously in different places. As Lord Krishna can expand, so can a pure devotee to the extent that he is empowered by the Lord. It is not beyond the realm of possibilty. The idea that he cannot is putting limitation on the pure devotee and degree to which Lord Krishna can empower him. Why put limitations on the pure devotee who is supposed to be empowered by the Lord to do anything that is necessary to deliver the conditioned souls ?
Again as pointed out, Prabhupada mentioned “grand disciples” and “his disciple”, but later said “when I order”. After that, where was that order ever actually given ? And how will Prabhupada’s final written will be obeyed where he says that only “my iniitated disciple” can manage ISKCON properties ? Please answer these questions.
It would be wonderful if all the senior devotees could rather encourage the world to develop faith in being Prabhupada’s disciple and in this way all can develop the faith that they are connected directly to a spirital master who is for certain, without question, a first class pure devotee who will never fall down, and who can for certain take us back home to Godhead. By encouraging that everyone cannot be his disciple, but rather must be a disciple of persons who are voted in, and who are regularly prone to fall downs, this is undermining the success of this movement and encouraging a sense of false worship, position, recognition, and all the problems that come along. Please help us to develop our faith that Prabhupada is our saviour, that he is our worshipable spiritual master and that we are all his family of disciples connected to him directly. Please do not support that which encourages cheating and the breakdown of faith in the process of Krishna Consciousness.
Please, let’s not let being a Prabhupada disciple be a form of elitism which encourages the false egos of a limited group of people, but let us encourage that Prabhupada’s shelter is open to the whole world now and for future generations.
Thank you kindly,
Bhakta Sean
Dear everyone,
All Glories to Srila Prabhupad! Hare Krsna!!!
FACT: No one is qualified to take the place of Srila Prabhupad. ( I know that might be hard for you to hear if you have the disease of wanting to be guru yourself. )
People like Locanananda want to nitpick words, for the obstinate will make every attempt to usurp Prabhupads position and themselves take the place of Prabhupad. Havent we seen enough problems the bogus gurus create such as child molesting and homicide, broken marriages and suicide? We even have the recent example of David Bruce Hughes to top it all off. Its been very colorful to say the least.
TRANSLATION: Sri Uddhava said: You may take lessons from the great learned sage Maitreya, who is nearby and who is worshipable for reception of transcendental knowledge. He was directly instructed by the Personality of Godhead while He was about to quit this mortal world.
PURPORT: Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science. Uddhava, being well aware of all these technicalities of transcendental science, advised Vidura to approach Maitreya Rsi to receive transcendental knowledge. Vidura wanted to accept Uddhava as his spiritual master, but Uddhava did not accept the post because Vidura was as old as Uddhava’s father and therefore Uddhava could not accept him as his disciple, especially when Maitreya was present nearby. The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed. So Uddhava decided to send an elderly person like Vidura to Maitreya, another elderly person, but he was well versed also because he was directly instructed by the Lord while He was about to quit this mortal world. Since both Uddhava and Maitreya were directly instructed by the Lord, both had the authority to become the spiritual master of Vidura or anyone else, but Maitreya, being elderly, had the first claim to becoming the spiritual master, especially for Vidura, who was much older than Uddhava. One should not be eager to become a spiritual master cheaply for the sake of profit and fame, but should become a spiritual master only for the service of the Lord. The Lord never tolerates the impertinence of maryada-vyatikrama. One should never pass over the honor due to an elderly spiritual master in the interests of one’s own personal gain and fame. Impertinence on the part of the pseudo spiritual master is very risky to progressive spiritual realization.
(S.B. 3.4.26)
Prabhupad states VERY clearly that he will live forever in his books. Arent there enough audios and recordings of Prabhupad to take instruction from? FACT: Vani is more important than Vapuh, because a sincere disciple only needs the Vani to carry out the orders of the spiritual master.
Note how it says above “The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed.” Prabhupad is present in his books and his audio recordings. SO HE IS STILL WITH US! HE IS ABLE TO INITIATE! PRABHUPAD WILL NEVER DIE BUT THE BOGUS GURUS WILL!!!!! PERIOD!!!
much love,
Bhakta peter
Dear All,
All glories to Srila Prabhupad, who can give initiation because a nitya-siddha Vaisnava devotee never dies!
Just to put the final nail in the coffin…
[…]
“One should take initiation from a bonafide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana
[…]
(-Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.8.54, purport)
Srila Prabhupad never ‘authorized his predecessor’, that is a FACT! So…no one except Prabhupad can give true diksa.
PRABHUPAD WILL LIVE FOREVER IN HIS BOOKS!
[…]
Reporter (2): What will happen to the movement in the United States when you die?
Prabhupāda: I will never die.
Devotees: Jaya! Hari bol! (laughter)
Prabhupāda: I shall live for my books, and you will utilize.
[…]
[750716pc.sf]
NOTE: Prabhupad says, “AND YOU WILL UTILIZE” (his books and instructions)
He never says you utilize his Predecessor, because he never appointed a predecessor. He says we will utilize his Vani. Vani is better than Vapuh, that is a fact. A mosquito needs Vapuh because he wants to suck the blood from your arm, but a devotee only needs the Vani to follow the orders of the spiritual master thus pleasing him.
AND NOW FOR THE GRANDE FINALE. HERE PRABHUAD TALKS ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS GURU BHAKTISIDDHANTA SARASWATI THAKURA EVEN THOUGH HE ONLY MET HIM A FEW TIMES.
This is indeed the final nail in the coffin. After reading this simple quote of Prabhupad, it can be clear even to a mudha like me that anyone trying to take the place of Prabhupad is a resident of naraka-loka (hell).
[…]
Prabhupada:
So he wanted this, and he is not… It is not that he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding. Even ordinary living being, he does not die.
Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre [Bg. 2.20].
And what to speak of such exalted, authorized personality like Bhaktisiddhānta. He is seeing. I never feel that I am alone. Of course, when I came to your country without any friend, without any means… Practically, just like a vagabond I came. But I had full faith that “My Guru Mahārāja is with me.” I never lost this faith, and that is fact. There are two words, vāṇī and vapuḥ. Vānī means words, and vapuḥ means this physical body. So vāṇī is more important than the vapuḥ. Vapuḥ will be finished. This is material body. It will be finished. That is the nature. But if we keep to the vāṇī, to the words of spiritual master, then we remain very fixed up. It doesn’t matter.
Just like Bhagavad-gītā. It was spoken five thousand years ago. But if you keep to the words of Kṛṣṇa, then it is always fresh and guiding. Not that because Arjuna personally listened to Kṛṣṇa about the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, therefore he knew it. That is not the fact. If you accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you should know that Kṛṣṇa is present before you in His words in the Bhagavad-gītā. This is called spiritual realization.
[…]
[750302BA.ATL]
OK thats it. MMM-kay?
Anyone that says things like ‘Prahupad is dead and gone’ so we ‘cant take initiation from him’ is himself spiritually dead, as confirmed by Prabhupad above. Only a fool desiring to drink the donkey urine of name, fame and other similar dog-stool material benefits will say otherwise. Go to the light, go to Prabhupad! Reject the Putana gurus!
love,
peter
Locananda Dasa – The a + b points that i have mentioned in my above comment, is your opinion which you based on the May 28th discussion and July 9th letter, not mine. The fact remains that whatever was discussed from May 28th 1977 till July 8th 1977, the conclusion of those discussions was the release of an official circular, the July 9th letter which does not mention anything about future initiation neither does it mention about the 11 appointed senior disciples becoming officiating acharias and the initiated devotees becoming his, theirs or his grand disciples.
The July 9th letter begins with appointing 11 senior disciples as his representatives to issue spiritual names, chanting on gayatri threads (nothing said about chanting on beads) on his behalf and the fire ceremony being preformed by the temple presidents or maybe in some cases the temple priest. And it ends with the appointed representatives being told to sent the initiated names to Srila Prabhupada to be included in his initiated disciples book.
If Srila Prabhupada wanted the initiation to continue (after his departure) by an officiating acharya and the initiated devotees was to become his disciples as propagated by IRM, Iskcon Banglore, the Hare Krishna Movement and all other ritvik groups or your version as you pointed out – grand disciples or whatever else that anybody else want to say that Srila Prabhupada said regarding future initiation, if that was what Srila Prabhupada wanted he would have mentioned it in the July 9th 1977 letter. But he did not do that. To say that Srila Prabhupada said this or that when he actually did not say it in the July 9th letter is called lying and cheating. Worse is trying to propagate such lies to the general public.
Also Srila Prabhupada never issued any official letter appointing any of his initiated disciples as gurus nor as a leader or Acharya of the iskcon society but then neither did he issue any official letter saying that his initiated disciples cannot become gurus, (qualified). So, think about it. Don’t mix it all up and confuse yourself.
Dear Sean — Regarding your comment of October 26, I mentioned your incessant use of the term “diksa guru.” I pointed out that Srila Prabhupada very rarely used this term in his classes and in discussions with his disciples, including the May 28, 1977 conversation and the July 9th letter where the term “diksa guru” is not mentioned even once. Due to the influence of the Gaudiya Math in particular, devotees nowadays are entirely focused on naming their diksa guru. The distinction between siksa and diksa guru is discussed briefly in the Caitanya caritamrita and, based on what was written there by Srila Prabhupada, devotees like yourself have attempted to undermined his proposal to have initiations performed by officiating acaryas when he would no longer be present. This has gone on for thirty five years and, as far as I can ascertain, there is no end in sight.
To make this even more clear to you, in all of his many thousands of letters to his disciples, Srila Prabhupada used the term “diksa guru” a total of three times. In all of his thousands of lectures, he
used the term “diksa guru” a total of eight times, and in all of his room conversations, a total of six times.
Counted together, in all of his classes, letters and room conversations, he used the term “diksa guru” a total of seventeen times. In your October 26 comment alone, the term “diksa guru” appears sixteen times.
So in your one comment you have used the term nearly as often as Srila Prabhupada did over a period of eleven years in all of his classes, letters and room conversations.
And then there are his books. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, the term “diksa guru” appears seven times, all in relation to Dhruva’s mother Suniti and his initiation by Narada. And in the Sri Catianya caritamrita, it appears four times, mainly to define what is meant by “diksa guru.” Throughout Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, on the other hand, the term “guru” has 6,668 references on the VedaBase and “spiritual master” appears 5,316 times. So you can easily see that in comparison to Srila Prabhupada’s use of language, devotees have gone way overboard with their constant use of the term “diksa guru.”
Srila Prabhupada had his reasons for introducing the title “officiating acarya” instead of “diksa guru” or “initiating spiritual master,” to designate the giver of diksa when he would no longer be present. Why devotees cannot accept Srila Prabhupada’s terminology is beyond my comprehension. As far as Srila Prabhupada’s present position, we can learn from a letter written to Brahmananda on Nov. 15, 1969 where he said,
“So far as I am concerned, in relationship with my disciples who are so kindly cooperating with me in the matter of my rendering service to my spiritual master, for them I am always ready to come back from Goloka Vrindaban, if they are not delivered along with me.”
The point made here is that one should think that upon his disappearance from our visual perception, the spiritual master has returned to Goloka Vrindaban. What he has left behind is the legacy of the temples he established, the Deities he installed and the body of instructions he imparted. By his inconceivable mercy, Srila Prabhupada, while residing in the abode of Krishna, continues to bestow his blessings upon us. As disciples, we should make every attempt to end the cycle of birth and death by preparing ourselves through the purificatory process of devotional service to go back to Godhead so as not to oblige the spiritual master to come back to this world to deliver us.
[…]
Prabhupada:
So he wanted this, and he is not… It is not that he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding. Even ordinary living being, he does not die.
Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre [Bg. 2.20].
And what to speak of such exalted, authorized personality like Bhaktisiddhānta. He is seeing. I never feel that I am alone. Of course, when I came to your country without any friend, without any means… Practically, just like a vagabond I came. But I had full faith that “My Guru Mahārāja is with me.” I never lost this faith, and that is fact. There are two words, vāṇī and vapuḥ. Vānī means words, and vapuḥ means this physical body. So vāṇī is more important than the vapuḥ. Vapuḥ will be finished. This is material body. It will be finished. That is the nature. But if we keep to the vāṇī, to the words of spiritual master, then we remain very fixed up. It doesn’t matter.
Just like Bhagavad-gītā. It was spoken five thousand years ago. But if you keep to the words of Kṛṣṇa, then it is always fresh and guiding. Not that because Arjuna personally listened to Kṛṣṇa about the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, therefore he knew it. That is not the fact. If you accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you should know that Kṛṣṇa is present before you in His words in the Bhagavad-gītā. This is called spiritual realization.
[…]
[750302BA.ATL]
Hare Krishna.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Please excuse my bad grammar. I trust in the mercy of the Vaisnavas.
My dear Locanananda Prabhu: I dont know about any acharya appointed as ritvik, only ritvik-disciples. Srila Prtabhupada was very revolutionary in this sense. Further, you say also: “The ritvik system is the end of the sampradaya” It is not so, is just the prescription of Srila Prabhupada for His institution Iskcon. Apart of Iskcon the sampradaya can follow running freely. For example in Fiskcon ( False Iskcon, or Iskcon only of name or Sickon) the ritvik system was not the only one change; the system of deity worship was changed too and the system of Ekadasi date, the books, etc. Four principles and 16 rounds are some thing of the past. The Acharya was changed by “the collective acharya” an impersonal bunch of sahajiyas, hypocrites, cheaters, clowns and all its synonyms. A body without head of living deads.
The books of Hare Krishna are for the highest class of men. But in the beginning Iskcon was a rehabilitation center for drug addicts and so, the movement was kidnapped by the lowest of the mlechas. In Fiskcon, a sannyasi or a temple president is an employed and his job is to commit offenses. To be a gooroo in Fiskcon is strictly for a not brahmachary. For some one who loves to walk on a carpet of sikas and whose main activity is looking for money to pay the needs of his “gopis.” For drops of nectar by seconds of time. Under the handcuffs of the three moods.
“His holiness” “Srila” Hridayananda …… usually said on a vyasasana: “In this world if you want to grow up, you have to step on others.” He was talking about himself. This is the atheistic philosophy of Madonna: “I am a material girl and I am in a material world.” this was his “message” to be understood by his “pupils” his kali chela sons. This was his particular way to destroy Iskcon, his “contribution” and
he is accepting funds from Fiskcon even today. A FAQ is: “Why the spiritual leaders are generally cheaters? R/ Because they are sons of bad families.
In Fiskcon you can be a leaf of grass without any problem, but if you are a leaf of grass tallest than the others; then you are the target to be pruned and sended to hellish conditions as a demonstraton of power or “spiritual advance” from part of the “authorities.” The July 9 letter is a tabu in Fiskcon. If one talk about the ritvik system in Fiskcon then is considered a demon and an offender.
Pranams.
Dasanudas writes that ; ” The July 9 letter is a tabu in Fiskcon. If one talk about the ritvik system in Fiskcon then is considered a demon and an offender.”. Why don’t you see that exactly the same applies to the ritviks in general. Kindly enough as I stated and thanked for some days ago that we may talk abpout it here on Prabhupadanugas.eu, but the general attitude amongst the ritviks is against any questioning in regard to the spoken letter. However it is just another sectarian ritual more, since there is not really one and universal explanation of the July 9 letter amongst the ritviks themselves! Why is that?! How the alleged Holly Graal of the home grown apostels may be treaten in so frivolous way by anyone and everyone breeding one ritvik leader (acarya?) after another?! If the “Final order” is so clear to You, if it has the power and was created to save the apparent contradictions of the whole movement, the Guru-siksha- diksha issue than let it work! You can’t? Why? Since none except the acarya i.e. Krishna can solve our problems, and no matter how much you try the only result of this lunatic-specuative practice will be more destruction and of course no sankirtan! No world wide sankirtan movement this is the result of all of this! This means maya wins and we go to hell for advocating another, or in fact many sectarian religious scams; HKS, IRM, The Bhaktivedantas, NY Long Island, Melbourn ritviks, PSS with Kapindra Swami, Gaurahari ritvik , Locanandana ritvik, Bangalore ISKCON, how many more of you are there prabhus? Who plays the game of a total destruction to the mission of H.D.G. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada?
y.s. bj
ALL GLORIES TO HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C.BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI SRILA PRABHUPADA!– DASANUDAS Prabhu–Above you quote Hridayananda Swami saying “In this world if you want to grow up,you have to step on others.” What a thing to say! Devotees are supposed to become lower than a blade of grass–stepping on others is exactly what “The Donald Trumps” of this world do every day.How could any devotee ever say anything like this from a Vyasasana–a seat where you simply repeat what you have received via the parampara?Thanks for informing us about this deviation from SRILA PRABHUPADA’s teachings. JAI RADHE!