Where the Rtvik People are Wrong
by
Jayadvaita Swami
(January
1996)
If Srila Prabhupada didn’t clearly and
definitely say it,
and if it
first came up after 1977,
whatever
it is, don’t trust it.
—Rule of Thumb
The purpose of this paper is
to deal with a particular theory of how Srila Prabhupada intended devotees in
ISKCON to receive initiation after his physical departure.
We’ll come to the
controversies shortly, but first let’s look at what we all agree on.
What all of us agree on
Forget for a moment that
Srila Prabhupada has physically disappeared. Put aside questions of what should
happen in modern-day ISKCON. For the moment, let’s just look at the standard
teaching Srila Prabhupada gave us about the disciplic succession.
I apologize for presenting a
piece of my own writing from BACK TO GODHEAD, but I think it gives a reasonably
concise summary that any ISKCON devotee would agree with. Here it is.
From Master to Disciple
The parampara is the chain of spiritual masters and disciples through
which Krsna consciousness is taught and received. In Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna says, “I taught this ancient science of
yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan. Vivasvan taught it to his son Manu. And Manu
taught it to his son Iksvaku. In this way, through the system of parampara, disciplic succession, the
science was understood by the saintly kings.”
In the parampara system, then, the original teacher, the original
spiritual master, is Lord Krsna, God Himself. The Lord gives perfect knowledge,
and that knowledge is handed down from master to disciple. It’s like a ripe
fruit handed down from person to person, from the top of the tree to the
ground.
In the chain of parampara, each spiritual master has the
duty to transmit the knowledge of Krsna consciousness as it is. He is not to add anything,
subtract anything, or change anything. He simply has to deliver the message,
just as a postman delivers a letter, contents fully intact.
According to the Vedic
scriptures, one who is serious about attaining self-realization or God
realization or the ultimate goal in life must approach such a bona fide
spiritual master. It is not optional; accepting a bona fide spiritual master is
essential.
The method of accepting the
spiritual master is explained in Bhagavad-gita:
one must surrender to him, inquire from him, and serve him. Inquiry alone
is not enough. One must humbly submit oneself before the spiritual master,
accepting him as a representative of God.
The spiritual master is not
God, and any so-called master who claims to be God should at once be rejected
as bogus. But the spiritual master is honored as much as God because he
intimately serves God through the disciplic chain. Because each spiritual master
serves his own spiritual master, all the members of the chain are ultimately
servants of God and therefore very dear to God. More precisely, the bona fide
spiritual master is the servant of the servant of the servant of God, or Krsna.
This is one of the secrets
of the parampara system: to be a
genuine master, one must be a genuine servant. The student, therefore,
surrenders to the spiritual master as a disciple and serves him, and the master
responds by answering the disciple’s questions, enlightening him with
transcendental knowledge. For the sincere disciple who has full faith in Krsna
and equal faith in the bona fide spiritual master, all the truths of spiritual
realization are factually revealed.
The genuine disciple feels
everlastingly indebted to the spiritual master and continues to serve him
forever. In this way, even when the spiritual master leaves this world, the
master and disciple are connected. The disciple continues to serve the spiritual
master by following what the master has taught him, and by teaching it to
others. Thus the bona fide disciple becomes a bona fide spiritual master, and
the chain of succession continues.
Leave aside, for the moment,
further questions about the credentials of the bona fide spiritual master.
Leave aside whether he must be an uttama adhikari or whether a madhayama
adhikari is good enough, whether to serve as guru one must receive an explicit
personal order from the spiritual master or whether a standing general order is
in effect. We can talk about these matters later. For now, we are looking only
at the fundamentals, at the broad principles everyone agrees on.
I feel confident that every
reasonable disciple of Srila Prabhupada would be with me on these principles so
far. This is what Srila Prabhupada taught to all of us, from 1966 through 1977.
It’s what all of us learned and accepted and repeated to others. It’s “plain
vanilla.”[1]
On this much, then, we
should all be in agreement.
Now, let’s move on to
something else that everyone agrees on.
Srila Prabhupada himself, in
1977, appointed eleven disciples to serve as rtvik gurus, or “officiating
spiritual masters.” He authorized these rtviks to decide which candidates to
accept, and to chant on the candidates’ beads and give the new disciples
spiritual names. The rtviks were to do this on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and
the new disciples were to be not those of the rtviks but of Srila Prabhupada
himself.
On July 9, 1977, Srila
Prabhupada signed a document that makes these facts unmistakably clear.
I hope we all agree so far.
If not, we’re in deeper trouble than I thought. But if so—if we all do agree—we
can now put these issues aside and move on.
What
is the post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrine?
We now come to the question
to be decided:
Did Srila
Prabhupada intend that, even after his
physical departure, his disciples would continue to serve as rtvik gurus by
initiating devotees who would be not their disciples but his?
On November 14, 1977, Srila
Prabhupada ended his manifest physical pastimes and, as the traditional
language puts it, “entered samadhi.” The assertion that his disciples should
continue to serve as rtviks, then, is what we may call the “post-samadhi
rtvik-guru doctrine.”
I trust you will accept that
my statement of the question has been accurate and fair and my language
neutral.
Now, moving on, I should
next make clear that the post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrine comes in two forms,
which we may call “hard” and “soft.”
The “hard” doctrine says
this:
Srila Prabhupada
is the only initiating spiritual master for all ISKCON devotees, and he shall
continue to be so forever. Acting as rtviks on his behalf, certain disciples
may initiate new devotees, who then become not their disciples but his. ISKCON
shall follow this system, and only this system, forever.
Differing on certain points
is the “soft” doctrine:
Srila Prabhupada
is the only initiating spiritual master for all ISKCON devotees. Acting as
rtviks on his behalf, certain disciples may initiate new devotees, who then
become not their disciples but his. This system shall continue until the
appearance within ISKCON of pure devotees fit to initiate disciples of their
own. The rtvik system will then come to an end.
It should be instantly clear
that these two doctrines are incompatible and mutually exclusive. If the hard
doctrine is right, the soft doctrine is wrong, and vice versa. Just as a man
cannot be both living and dead, or a woman both pregnant and sterile, we cannot
have a rtvik system that is both permanent and temporary. It’s either one or
the other—not both.
(I am leaving aside here
appeals to “inconceivability.” By arguing that something is “inconceivably
true,” one can make a case for literally anything. We accept, of course, that
certain scripturally endorsed contradictions are “inconceivably true.” But if
we were therefore willing to accept “It’s inconceivable” as a valid argument
for everything, nothing could ever be shown false. We would then be obliged to
accept the truth of even the most ridiculous nonsense.)
For the sake of
thoroughness, we may also note that some people have put forward a hybrid “soft/hard”
doctrine, in which pure devotees initiate their own disciples and yet the rtvik
system continues side by side. This doctrine, of course, is incompatible with
the other two. If it is right, both of the others must be wrong, and if either
of the others is right, this one must be wrong.
Now, therefore, we have what
I think is a fair and accurate statement of what for the sake of brevity we may
call the “p.s. rtvik-guru doctrines.” (We’ve seen that there are more than one
of them.) I’ve considered dropping the “p.s.” (“post-samadhi”), but I’ve
retained it to avoid later confusion. To keep our thinking clear, we will need
to remember that what’s at issue is only what system Srila Prabhupada intended
for after his physical departure.
So the doctrines are now
before us, and we’ve seen that only one of them, at the most, could be true.
The question now, therefore, is whether any of these doctrines truly represents
what Srila Prabhupada intended, and if so which one.
What
are the arguments in favor of the doctrines?
So now let us look at the
arguments and evidence put forward in favor of the post-samadhi rtvik
doctrines.
From devotees I’ve spoken
with and papers I’ve read, the arguments seem to take the following forms:
1. Argument from
restatement of what’s accepted.
2. Argument from
personal testimony.
3. Argument from
logical necessity.
4. Argument from
the virtues of the doctrines.
5. Argument from
a lack of counter-evidence.
6. Linguistic
arguments.
Let’s examine these
arguments one by one.
1. Argument from restatement of what’s accepted.
Devotees have sometimes
announced that they have “irrefutable proof” of the rtvik-guru system. They
then offer into evidence various quotes in which Srila Prabhupada speaks of
appointing rtviks. Next comes the document in which Srila Prabhupada actually
appoints them, and then letters in which Srila Prabhupada makes clear to the
rtviks their duties. Then further evidence: testimony from senior devotees that
Srila Prabhupada did indeed appoint rtvik gurus.
On top of this we are
offered a careful tracing of history: Srila Prabhupada gradually handed things
over—first the performance of fire yajnas, then the chanting on beads, and
finally the actual acceptance of candidates and giving of spiritual names. Yet
through all of this, we are reminded, the new initiates were always disciples
of Srila Prabhupada, and no one else.
And then comes the
conclusion: In the face of such an overwhelming body of evidence, how can one
deny that Srila Prabhupada did indeed establish the rtvik-guru system?
The answer, of course, is
simple: What the argument succeeds in proving is what everyone already accepts.
That Srila Prabhupada appointed rtvik gurus and established a “rtvik-guru
system” is not in dispute. Everyone agrees about it.
The argument, therefore,
entirely misses the issue.
What’s at issue is whether
Srila Prabhupada intended some form of rtvik-guru system to continue after his physical departure.
Some people seem to think
that merely offering more and more evidence that Srila Prabhupada set up a
rtvik-guru system somehow makes the case for a post-samadhi rtvik-guru system stronger and stronger. It doesn’t.
If one wanted to prove the existence of two-headed pigeons, no amount of
evidence that there are pigeons would be enough. That pigeons exist is
something we already know. What would need to be shown is that some of them
have two heads.
Arguments proving again and
again what’s already accepted do nothing to settle the issue at hand. When used
knowingly and deliberately, such arguments are a form of cheating. When used
innocently, they are merely irrelevant.
So let’s leave this behind
and go on.
2. Argument from personal testimony.
We now come to an argument
that is relevant: the personal
testimony of devotees who say they heard before Srila Prabhupada’s departure
that Srila Prabhupada had set up a post-samadhi
rtvik-guru system.
Gauri Dasa Pandit, one of
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, tells us that while serving as an assistant to
His Holiness Tamal Krsna Goswami in Vrindaban, on or about May 23, 1977, he
directly heard Srila Prabhupada tell Tamal Krishna Goswami that the appointed
rtviks should continue to serve as rtviks even after Srila Prabhupada’s
departure. This conversation, he tells us, was even recorded on tape.
In addition, Yasodanandana
Dasa tells us that in May 1977 Tamal Krishna Goswami and Bhavananda Goswami
indicated to him that Srila Prabhupada had endorsed a post-samadhi rtvik-guru
system. Yasodanandana Prabhu offers a diary in which he noted this at the time.
When we come to this sort of
testimony, several questions are naturally relevant: How many witnesses are
testifying? How reliable are their accounts? How well do they agree with one
another?
From the beginning, then,
this argument is in trouble. How many people claim to have heard directly from
Srila Prabhupada that Srila Prabhupada wanted this system? Only one. He was a
junior man, not a leading devotee, Srila Prabhupada was not confiding in him
directly, and though we have nothing bad we wish to say of him he has not
especially distinguished himself by his record of devotional service. Moreover,
for some reason he held back his testimony until many years after Srila
Prabhupada left.
Most important, Gauri Dasa
Pandit, for all his good qualities, may still be subject to the four frailties
common to all conditioned souls: imperfect senses, a tendency to make mistakes,
a tendency to fall into illusion, and a propensity to cheat.
Yasodanandana Dasa, of
course, is presumably subject to the same four shortcomings. And apart from
this, a serious concern is that his testimony is second hand.
If the tape recording Gauri
Dasa speaks of has ever existed, it has never been found. One may obliquely
suggest that someone must have deliberately erased it. But in any case,
evidence that doesn’t exist is no evidence at all.
What we are left with, then,
is mainly Gauri Dasa’s lone report. And according to Tamal Krsna Goswami, the
other person allegedly present, what Gauri Dasa tells us is wrong.
At best, then, the evidence
from personal testimony is equivocal and weak.
Here, perhaps is the place
to bring forward a point made by Tamal Krishna Maharaja and approvingly quoted
in several papers by proponents of post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrines.
At a meeting in Topanga
Canyon in 1980, Tamal Krishna Maharaja stated that Srila Prabhupada had never
appointed the eleven rtviks to be anything more than rtviks. “If it had been
more than that,” he said, “you can bet your bottom dollar that Prabhupada would
have spoken for days and hours and weeks on end about about how to set up this
thing with the gurus, but he didn’t. . .”
The same point about how
Srila Prabhupada let us know what he wanted is relevant here. If he had wanted
a rtvik-guru system to continue after his departure, would we have expected him
to have said so merely once in private to his secretary, or would he have
spoken about it with his leading devotees “for days and hours and weeks on end”?
For those familiar with how
Srila Prabhupada did things, the answer should be easy.
This is a point we shall
return to later. But for now let us move on.
3. Argument from logical necessity.
Another line of reasoning
begins with a critique—much of it valid—of Srila Prabhupada’s leading disciples
and their failings after his departure. None of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples,
it is argued, is now fit to serve as a bona fide spiritual master. And
scriptural arguments are offered to support this point of view.
Therefore, the argument
continues, since no one else is fit, the only person of whom we can safely take
shelter is Srila Prabhupada himself.
Srila Prabhupada knew the
limitations of his disciples, and he must have known what would happen.
Therefore, the argument concludes, he must
have set up the rtvik-guru system.
The response to this
argument is simple: It is speculative and should therefore be rejected. A
speculation may be reasonable or unreasonable, but Srila Prabhupada taught us
to rely on authority, not on speculation.
Moreover, this speculation is logically defective.
To dispose of it, we need not decide whether Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are
fit or unfit, or whether they “received the order” to become guru or not. Nor
do we need to discuss what the credentials of a bona fide spiritual master
should be. (These are important topics, but they are not the topic at hand.)
Suppose for the moment that
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are all indeed unfit. It does not therefore
logically follow that Srila Prabhupada must
have (note the speculative language) set up a post-samadhi rtvik-guru
system.
Instead, if he found his
disciples all unfit he could have blessed one or more to quickly attain
spiritual perfection. Or he could have declared that henceforward Krsna
Himself, or the Bhagavatam itself, or the holy name itself would be the
spiritual master. Or he could have simply left everything up to Krsna.
The point is that it’s not
enough to talk about what Srila Prabhupada could have done or must have done.
We have to see what Srila Prabhupada actually did.
To argue that Srila
Prabhupada must have set up a
rtvik-guru system and that the evidence for this is so scanty only because it must have been suppressed and covered up
is merely to take the speculation one step further.
And speculating is not the
way Srila Prabhupada told us to do things. One who wants to take shelter of
Srila Prabhupada, therefore, should avoid taking shelter of speculations.
Coming back to a point on
which all agree, we should all take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and his
instructions. Srila Prabhupada is the exalted pure devotee who gave us the
Krsna consciousness movement. We can all be completely confident of his
instructions and his example. And we can be sure that by strictly and sincerely
following Srila Prabhupada we will always be safe and secure.
But we must follow Srila
Prabhupada as he himself instructed us to follow. We must follow Srila
Prabhupada and those who follow Srila Prabhupada, not the speculations of
others.
This brings us to the next
argument.
4. Argument from the virtues of the doctrines.
The next argument is really
just an extension of the previous one: Srila Prabhupada must have set up a rtvik-guru system, because the system has so
many advantages.
“Just see all the benefits
of this system,” declare the advocates of this point of view. “How much better
it would be than the alternatives.”
Or the same argument is put
in negative form: We are in trouble and perplexity only because we have failed
to take up this wonderful system.
To make it all clear to us,
the advocates sometimes offer charts showing us the benefits their system would
bring, compared to the bad points of what’s going on now.
But those who have learned
from history will refuse to be lured. The one-appointed-acarya system of the
Gaudiya Math, the zonal-acarya system of ISKCON—both looked so good. They
seemed to offer so many advantages. Or the alternatives seemed so bleak.
For many, only in retrospect
could those fine-looking systems be recognized as deviations and therefore
causes of disaster.
But, again, what Srila
Prabhupada trained us to do was not to evaluate all the possibilities, choose
what seems to us to have the most points going for it, and then conclude that
this must have been what he wanted.
What he trained us to do was to strictly follow what he taught us.
If there’s one lesson we
should have learned from history it should be this: However good a path of
action may seem, if it’s against what Srila Prabhupada taught us, forget it.
5. Argument from a lack of counter-evidence.
We now come to another
argument we can deal with quickly.
Where, it is demanded, has
the sastra or Srila Prabhupada said that one can’t approach an acarya for
initiation merely because he has physically departed? Where do the authorities
tell us that a post-samadhi rtvik system is no good? Can you show me a verse?
Can you point to a purport? How then can you say it’s not valid?
This is simply a classic
argumentative blunder, a textbook fallacy.
“How do we know that you don’t
beat your wife?” demands the rumor-monger. And then you’re stuck there, trying
to come up with evidence to counter a groundless accusation.
How do you know there’s not
a celestial planet controlled by a three-legged grasshopper with seven heads
and superhuman intelligence? Can you show me a verse that refutes it? Can you
point to a purport?
How can you prove it’s not
bona fide to take initiation from the ghost of Aristotle’s mother or a picture
of a self-realized boa constrictor?
One must support one’s views
by evidence, not by assertions that a lack of counter-evidence makes them true.
Enough said.
6. Linguistic arguments.
Last, we come to arguments
based on linguistics.
One may ask, “If Srila
Prabhupada wanted a post-samadhi rtvik system, where does so he say so in black
and white?” The proponents of the p.s. rtvik doctrines have an answer: The
black-and-white evidence is to be found in two places—in the letter in which
Srila Prabhupada appoints the eleven rtviks and in Srila Prabhupada’s last
will.
The appointment letter is
dated July 9th, 1977. It is signed by Tamal Krishna Goswami and countersigned “Approved
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.” Its authority is beyond question.
The letter explains that
Srila Prabhupada has appointed some senior disciples to act as rtviks, and it
lists eleven disciples Srila Prabhupada has so far named to act in that
capacity. The letter then says:
“Now that Srila Prabhupada
has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send
recommendations for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven
representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation,
these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila
Prabhupad by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by
chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupad has done. The newly
initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.
After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving
the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple
as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent
by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupad, to be
included in His Divine Grace’s ‘Initiated Disciples’ book.”
Clearly, this letter
establishes a rtvik-guru system. But one may ask where it says that such a
system should continue even after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. The answer
given is that this is clear from the word “henceforward.”
The next source of evidence,
Srila Prabhupada’s last will, is dated June 4, 1977. In the will, Srila
Prabhupada declares that the Governing Body Commission “will be the ultimate
managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna
Consciousness.” He says, “Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be
managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as
it is now and there is no need of any change.”
The rest of the will deals
almost entirely with provisions for safeguarding ISKCON’s properties. Srila
Prabhupada names the executive directors for them. Then he provides that in the
event that a director dies or fails to act, the remaining directors may appoint
a new one, “provided the new director is my initiated disciple following
strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness as detailed in my books, and provided that there are never less
than three (3) or more than five (5) executive directors acting at one time.”
How is this black-and-white
evidence of a post-samadhi rtvik-guru system? Proponents explain that since
Srila Prabhupada certainly intended his will to be in force for generations
after his departure, and since he stipulated that each successor director would
have to be “my initiated disciple,” it follows that Srila Prabhupada would
continue to initiate, long after his physical departure, through a rtvik-guru
system.
Now, what are we to make of
these two points of evidence?
The first thing we note is
that they’re weak. What would strong evidence look like? Something like this:
“Acting on my behalf, my
disciples serving as rtvik gurus shall continue to initiate even after my
physical departure. The new disciples initiated shall not be disciples of the
rtviks. They shall be my own.”
A statement like that,
either in the appointment letter or in Srila Prabhupada’s will, or anywhere
else, would have settled the matter once and for all. Of course, no such
statement exists.
In the absence of such a
clear, unequivocal statement, proponents of rtvik-guru doctrines have to rely
on inference and build their case on more slippery ground. Let’s look more
closely.
Let us start with the word “henceforward.”
In the appointment letter, Srila Prabhupada’s desire that the rtvik-guru system
last forever is supposedly set forth to the world in this one highly
significant word. The meaning, we are reminded, is clear: “from now on.” And so
Srila Prabhupada desired that the rtvik-guru system continue even after his
physical departure.
Now, the first thing to note
about this argument is that it works only for the “hard” version of the
post-samadhi rtvik doctrine, in which only rtviks initiate forever—or perhaps
for the hybrid “hard/soft” version. The “soft” version, in which the rtvik
system runs till some qualified gurus come along, is ruled out.
Taking “henceforward” to
mean literally forever, never will the rtvik-guru system come to an end. By
this “hard” version of the doctrine, even should an uttama-adhikari someday
appear, he will never initiate disciples of his own. At most, he will serve
merely as a rtvik. For according to this hard version of the doctrine, Srila
Prabhupada is the final member of the disciplic succession. The succession has
come to an end. Srila Prabhupada is the only guru forever after. Henceforward, all new devotees will be
his disciples, through his appointed rtviks.
And since we’re insisting
that “henceforward” must mean literally forever, we must apply it not merely to
a selected portion of what Srila Prabhupada’s appointment letter says but to
the letter in its entirety.
“Temple presidents may henceforward send recommendation for
first and second initiation to whichever of these
eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the
recommendation, these representatives
may accept the devotee. . . The newly initiated devotees are disciples of
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as his representative.”
If we’re being literal, as
the argument says we must, then let’s be literal. Though the letter says that
Srila Prabhupada has “so far” given a list of eleven rtviks, he never added to
the list. So this is it. The only
authorized rtviks are these eleven.
There is no mention that any of them may ever be removed or replaced, nor is
there any mention of any successor. Nor does Srila Prabhupada provide that the
list may be altered by the GBC. Henceforward, these eleven.
Of these, one—Jayatirtha
Dasa—fell into intoxication and illicit sex and is now dead. How he will
continue to serve as rtvik henceforward is unclear. But presumably he must,
provided we can find out where he is so we can send him requests for initiation
from the temples nearest.
And then we have
Kirtanananda Swami, Bhavananda Goswami, Ramesvara Swami, and Bhagavan Dasa
Adhikari, all fallen from their spiritual vows but serving eternally as rtviks
nonetheless.
Or Hamsadutta Swami. His
falldowns have become the stuff of literature, yet now that he has become
humble, perhaps he is available to serve as a rtvik guru from now till the end
of time. For some, perhaps, once again, Hamsadutta is the only way.
If these choices somehow don’t
suit you, you’re left with Harikesa Swami, Jayapataka Swami, Hrdayananda
Goswami, Tamal Krishna Goswami, or Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami. The problem here,
of course (aside from the possibility that you may not like them), is that all
of them are sure they were supposed to serve as rtviks only until Srila
Prabhupada’s departure. As far as they’re concerned, the post-samadhi rtvik
doctrines are bunk. Now these devotees wouldn’t serve as rtviks for love or
money. So if you’re looking for an authorized rtvik, go back to the other names
on the list.
And remember, henceforward—from now till the end of
time—these are the only authorized rtviks.
My apologies for the
sarcasm, but a person who puts forward an argument is obliged to live with its
consequences. And if the consequences are absurd, so is the argument.
So let’s suppose you go for
the “hard/soft” version of the doctrine, in which self-effulgent acaryas come
along to initiate yet still the rtviks continue side by side. When those
self-effulgent acaryas show up, what’s the need of them? You can still become
Srila Prabhupada’s disciple through the rtviks, and that’s a safer bet, just in
case the effulgence might wear off. And when it comes to rtviks, you’re still
stuck with these eleven—and only these eleven. Good luck.
Of course, one could take “henceforward”
in a more elastic and informal sense. For example, I might say, “Henceforward I
shall take my walk on Juhu Beach every day.” Must that mean literally from now
till the end of my life? Or, still more literally, from now through eternity,
even after I’m physically gone? Or could it simply mean from now till I leave
Bombay?
Take the word
super-literally if you like—but then be prepared to embrace all the
consequences.
Unfortunately, proponents of
rtvik doctrines rarely do this. Instead, most often they’ll start out with
insisting on a literal meaning of “henceforward”—an insistence that fits only
with “hard” or “hard/soft” versions of the doctrine. Then, having put forward
their proof, they switch over to embracing the “soft” version, with which the
literal meaning entirely clashes. This, in a word, is cheating. Not a good
sign.
So now we come to the second
piece of evidence, that phrase from Srila Prabhupada’s will in which he
stipulates that each new executive director for the ISKCON properties must be “my
initiated disciple.”
The logic, again, is that
since Srila Prabhupada must have wanted to protect these properties forever, he
must forever have direct disciples, initiated through a rtvik system.
Again, please note that this
logic works only for the “hard” form of rttvk doctrine (or for the “hard/soft”
version), in which the rtvik system lasts forever. The “soft” version, in which
the rtvik system lasts only until the appearance of qualified gurus, is ruled
out: for the will to be followed, Srila Prabhupada must have direct disciples
forever, through the agency of his rtviks (again, “these eleven”).
Even if one wants to go with
a “hard/soft” rtvik doctrine, in which rtviks and pure devotees in Srila
Prabhupada’s line initiate side by side, one might wonder why the disciples of
those pure devotees are to be excluded from serving as executive directors. Is
their initiation somehow less effective? Are they not equally connected with
Srila Prabhupada? But this is a small point. Let us go on.
Before we accept this phrase
from Srila Prabhupada’s will as a clear sign of Srila Prabhupada’s intention
for an eternally existing system of rtvik gurus, let us pause for a moment to
see how that phrase got in there. Doing so won’t tip the scales one way or the
other, but the history is interesting.
It appears that the theme
for the will arises in Vrindaban on May 27, 1977. That day, Giriraja Swami says
to Srila Prabhupada: “This morning you gave the hint that there might be
envious persons coming to take away our properties, so in the GBC meeting we
discussed this point.” He then relates how a committee of devotees has come up
with a “model trust deed” to protect the properties.
Introducing the text,
Ramesvara Swami says, “This is based on the BBT Trust document that you wrote
many years ago.” He then begins reading the new document.
In the course of reading, he
comes to the list of trustees for various temples, and gradually to those for
Vrindavana. “The proposed trustees are Aksayananda Swami, Gopala Krsna and
Visvambhara.” Visvambhara Dayal (known as “Bhagatji”) was a devoted friend of
ISKCON who rendered much service to Srila Prabhupada in Vrindaban.
The following conversation
ensues:
Prabhupada:
Visvambhara is not our regular disciple.
Jayapataka:
Shouldn’t be included.
Prabhupada: Then
he has to accept sannyasa from me.
Jayatirtha:
Jaya.
Prabhupada: He
should know...
Tamal Krsna:
Become initiated.
Jayapataka:
Trustee must be initiated disciple.
Prabhupada: Oh,
yes.
Ramesvara: If he is seen... He could be on the advisory board.
Prabhupada: No, you can say that “If you take sannyasa, you become on
this.”
Tamal Krsna: So we’ll talk to him, and if he says no, then we’ll select
another person and come back and tell you who our choice is.
A few days later, on June 2,
devotees present Srila Prabhupada a revised draft.
Giriraja: So we drafted a will, including the trust for the properties
of India and some of the other. .
Prabhupada: Will? Will, there will be direction that “Management should
be done like this.” That’s all.
Giriraja: Yes.
Prabhupada: Nobody can say in court case that “This temple will be in
charge of this person, this temple. . .”
Ramesvara: Yes,
just like you said.
Giriraja: So we’ve included those points. . .
In the original draft, the
successor trustees are simply “never less than three or more than five.” But in
the second draft the devotees working on the document have added that the
trustees, in this draft called “executive directors,” are to be “initiated
disciples” following the regulative principles.
Srila Prabhupada signs the
will two days later.
If after Srila Prabhupada
disappeared he would cease to initiate, why did the devotees working on the
document use the phrase “my initiated disciple”? Why not language that took
into account that both Srila Prabhupada and his disciples would soon disappear?
“We weren’t used to thinking
like that,” says Giriraja Swami. “In retrospect it’s very naive.”[2]
But however the language
came to be there, the will is signed by Srila Prabhupada, and it clearly says
that each successor director should be Srila Prabhupada’s initiated disciple.
So the argument still
stands: How could a director generations from now be Srila Prabhupada’s
disciple unless
initiated by Srila
Prabhupada’s rtvik?
Here opponents of p.s. rtvik
doctrines might argue that we cannot accept the dictionary meaning of “disciple”
but instead must offer an interpretation. When the dictionary meaning is clear,
no interpretation is needed. But when the meaning is equivocal, an
interpretation may be warranted.
Srila Prabhupada gives this
example: One may say, “There is a residential quarter on the Ganges.” But then
a question arises: “The Ganges is water, so how could there be houses on the
water?” The answer offered is that “on the Ganges” doesn’t mean literally on
the water of the Ganges but rather “on the bank of the Ganges.”
Srila Prabhupada gives this
as an example of a legitimate interpretation, offered when there is a
legitimate need.
One might argue, then, that
since accepting the dictionary meaning of “disciple” would have the unexpected
result of requiring the entire system of guru-parampara to be put aside, here
an interpretation is legitimately called for.
In fact, however, no such
interpretation is required. The dictionary does fine.
Going to the Oxford English Dictionary, we find that
a disciple is “one who follows or attends upon another for the purpose of
learning from him; a pupil or scholar.” More explicitly: “A personal pupil or
follower of any religious or (in more recent use) other teacher or master.”
This is the definition we’re most used to, and it’s the one the rtvik people
have in mind.
But there’s more. Here’s the
next definition, equally valid: “One who follows or is influenced by the
doctrine or example of another; one who belongs to the ‘school’ of any leader
of thought.”[3]
This is the sense in which
anyone who wants to can, beyond a doubt, become Srila Prabhupada’s disciple.
Any sincere person can follow Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and example. Anyone
can join his school of thought, or, still further, his International Society
for Krishna Consciousness. And ultimately one can become not only his disciple
in spirit but his “initiated disciple” through the guru-parampara system.
In this sense, by the grace
of Srila Prabhupada, one can become not only his disciple but at the same time
the disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinoda
Thakura, the six Gosvamis, and all the other acaryas in Srila Prabhupada’s
line. [4]
“This,” as Srila Prabhupada
writes (Bg. 18.75), “is the mystery of the disciplic succession.” One is linked
through the transparent medium of the bona fide spiritual master, but at the
same time “the experience is still direct.”
We might envision the day
when those who believe they have become directly “initiated disciples” of Srila
Prabhupada through a rtvik—or from a picture, or in a dream—might challenge in
court that they alone have the right to serve as executive directors for ISKCON
properties. Only the direct disciples are bona fide, they might claim, not
those who profess to be merely disciples of his disciples in succession. We
leave it for you to decide how well this would conform—legally and spiritually—to
the intention of Srila Prabhupada’s will.
Questions that matter—or do they?
We’ve now pretty well
exhausted, as far as I can tell, the arguments put forward in favor of
post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrines. Whatever we haven’t dealt with are merely
variations on the same themes.
If we’re now nearly
convinced that none of these doctrines is valid, we’re nearly ready to get on
with the questions we should have been dealing with all along: What are the
credentials of a bona fide spiritual master? Do any of Srila Prabhupada’s
disciples fit the bill? Before I surrender, how can I be assured that the
person I’m approaching is legitimate?
But for those who subscribe
to the “hard” version of the rtvik doctrine, such questions no longer matter.
For it’s Srila Prabhupada forever. The disciplic succession is finished.
For the advocates of the “hard/soft”
version, too, the questions hardly ought to matter. For Srila Prabhupada will
initiate eternally through his rtviks. And even if new gurus come along, they
will merely be needless appendages. After all, who could be a greater guru than
Srila Prabhupada? And why be initiated by anyone else? For the “hard/soft”
people, too, “the eternal system of disciplic succession” is essentially over.
Those who stick to the “soft”
version, in which the rtvik system runs until the appearance of pure devotees,
have their special problems. Either they have to “wait for the messiah.” Or
else they will have to persuade the world that the messiah is already with us.
For when the pure devotee
arrives, the rtvik system will cease. And who is to decide when he arrives?
Will he need the unanimous approval of all ISKCON devotees? Or will a 2/3
majority be enough? Will he need to be recognized by a vote of the Governing Body
Commission? Or should a panel of experts be appointed to certify we’ve got the
genuine merchandise? If we need a panel, who should be on it?
Till he comes, of course,
the credentials of a bona fide spiritual master don’t matter. For again the
only guru is Srila Prabhupada, and by his order the system of disciplic
succession has been indefinitely suspended.
And then there are those who
might believe that the next pure devotee, the self-effulgent acarya, is already
with us. Some devotees may hold this belief even now. The problem is, the
effulgence is apparent only to them. The rest of the world doesn’t see it. And
after he has come and gone, if he leaves no pure devotees behind him, what
happens then? Will his rtviks be the
only bona fide gurus? Or will it then be his rtviks and Srila Prabhupada’s?
All right, enough. The time
has come to leave the rtvik doctrines behind us.
Sealing the Case:
What’s Wrong with the P.S. Rtvik Doctrines?
Before we finally do turn
our backs to the post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrines, let us look briefly at the
additional reasons for rejecting them.
We could place those reasons
into six categories:
1. Argument from
a need for evidence.
2. Argument from
a need to show precedent.
3. Argument from
a need for good logic
4. Argument from
the consistency of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
5. Argument from
Srila Prabhupada’s final instruction.
6. Argument from
how Srila Prabhupada expressed his desires.
7. Argument from
the need to reject new doctrines.
Now let us look at these
briefly.
1. Argument from a need for evidence.
This argument is simple. As
Srila Prabhupada taught us, the process of speaking in spiritual circles is to
say something upheld by authorities.
Our authorities are guru,
sadhu, and sastra. For us to accept that post-samadhi rtvik-guru theories are
right, we should see statements in which guru, sadhu, and sastra directly
endorse them. We don’t. Therefore the theories should be rejected.
A first-class appeal to
authority does not consist of authoritative statements linked with a line of
logic: “Therefore he could have. . . Therefore he must have. . . “ It consists
of a clear, unequivocal statement that directly supports what you’re trying to
show.
What statements of this kind
are available to support the p.s. rtvik-guru doctrines? None. Therefore the
doctrines should be discarded.
Please note that the
argument here is different from the “argument from a lack of counter-evidence”
rejected before. We are not saying, “X is true. Prove that it isn’t.” It’s not “You
beat your wife. Prove that you don’t.” Rather, it’s “If you believe that X is
true, please show that it is.” “Oh, do I beat my wife? All right, what’s the
evidence?”
Neither from guru nor sadhu
nor sastra do the post-samadhi rittvik-guru doctrines have any evidence going
for them. Therefore we should reject them.
2. Argument from a need to show precedent.
Again, a simple argument.
Srila Prabhupada usually did
what was done by the predecessor acaryas. And never in the history of Gaudiya
Vaisnavism, nor any other form of Vaisnavism, have we found any instance of a
post-samadhi rtvik-guru system.
Yes, Srila Prabhupada could have put in place an unprecedented
system. He could have done anything.
But
the lack of precedent gives
a good reason to doubt that
he did.
3. Argument from a need for good logic
The reasons given for
accepting the p.s. rtvik-guru doctrines are poor. And why should we accept
doctrines backed by poor reasons? We shouldn’t.
4. Argument from a need for consistency with Srila Prabhupada’s
teachings.
The p.s. rtvik doctrines
require us to accept that Srila Prabhupada, in his last few months, reversed
what he’d taught for the previous ten years.
One who is now
the disciple is the next spiritual master.
—Srimad
Bhagavatam 2.9.43, purport
Every student is expected to
become acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and
follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples. . . Keep
trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide guru, and you can accept
disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom
that during the lifetime of the spiritual master you bring the prospective
disciples to him and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples
without any limitation. This is the law
of disciplic succession.
—letter to Tusta Krsna Swami, December 2, 1975
(emphasis supplied)
So we have got this message
from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on
Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also
to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. . . My Guru Maharaja
is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So
distribute this knowledge.
—Los Angeles
arrival lecture, May 18, 1972
Commenting on the letter to
Tusta Krsna Maharaja, a treatise advocating a p.s. rtvik doctrine says, “All
the letter states is the normal process of disciplic succession: Guru departs
and a qualified disciple continues
initiating.” (emphasis in original) The treatise then argues that because no
one was qualified, Srila Prabhupada set up a p.s. rtvik system.
The faulty argument that
since no one was qualified Srila Prabhupada “must have” set up a new system has
been previously disposed of. What I want to focus on here is a simple point:
That a spiritual master initiates until his departure and then his disciples
initiate next is the normal system.
On this we are all in agreement. This is what Srila Prabhupada taught the
entire time he was with us.[5]
The p.s. rtvik doctrines
require us to accept that Srila Prabhupada—in contradiction to more than ten
years of his own consistent teaching—suddenly put aside the normal system and
replaced it with a new innovation.
Asking us to accept this is
simply asking too much.
5. Argument from Srila Prabhupada’s final instruction.
On May 28, 1977, when a
deputation of GBC members asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would go on
after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, his last words on the subject were
these:
When I order you become
guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.
Just see.
“Disciple of my disciple.”
The meaning is clear, and it’s consistent with Srila Prabhupada always taught
us.
For those who refuse to see
it, no amount of argument will help. For the rest of us, there it is.
6. Argument from how Srila Prabhupada expressed his desires.
Here is the place to recall,
one last time, that when Srila Prabhupada wanted to do something different and
new, he spared no pains to make himself clear. As his disciples will remember,
when His Divine Grace had an important point to make, he would drive it into
our thick heads again and again and again.
If Srila Prabhupada had
wanted to initiate even after his physical departure, he wouldn’t have merely
disclosed this privately to only one conspiratorially minded disciple. Or
packed it all into one pregnant word. Or left it for us to infer from a phrase
about property directors.
Had Srila Prabhupada wanted
to revolutionize the entire parampara system, you can bet your bottom dollar he
would have spoken about it for days and hours and weeks on end. But he didn’t,
because he simply expected us to follow the normal system he had taught us for
the past ten years.
Asking us to believe
anything to the contrary is, again, simply asking too much.
7. Argument from the need to reject new doctrines.
Srila Prabhupada entered
samadhi in 1977. Post-samadhi rtvik-guru doctrines began appearing only in the
mid-1980’s.
After all the troubles we’ve
been through since Srila Prabhupada’s departure, after all the concoctions,
after all the disasters, now we are supposed to put our faith in a truth that
came to light only years after Srila Prabhupada physically left us.
The teaching about parampara
we all understood and repeated and agreed about till 1977, and for years after—out
the window it goes.
Now, with no precedent from
sastra, no example from previous acaryas, no clear and public instruction from
Srila Prabhupada himself, we are supposed to set aside the normal system Srila
Prabhupada taught us the whole time he was physically here. And we’re supposed
to buy into something entirely opposite, a new doctrine that has sprung up,
amidst a swirl of controversy, half a decade or more after His Divine Grace has
physically left.
As Srila Prabhupada used to
say, “And I have to believe it?”
Please—that’s asking far too
much.
We remind you of the rule of
thumb put forth at the head of this essay:
If
Srila Prabhupada didn’t clearly and definitely say it,
and
if it first came up after 1977,
whatever
it is, don’t trust it.
So
where does that leave us?
It’s now time to put the
post-samadhi rtvik theories themselves into samadhi. And let us get on with
genuine spiritual life.
What are the signs of a bona
fide spiritual master? What qualifications must he have? How is such a guru to
be found?
Such are the questions that
should now concern us. Let us put wrong theories aside and move forward.
[end]
Note for non-Americans: Ice
cream is sold in dozens of elaborate flavors, but the most simple and
commonplace is vanilla. So “plain vanilla” is an idiomatic term for anything
that is simple, basic, unadorned, and standard.
(Adi 10.17 purport) In the
following passage, Srila Prabhupada uses the word “disciple” in precisely the
sense I have mentioned. “. . . because
modern civilization is misled, householders want to remain in family life until
death, and therefore they are suffering. In such cases, the disciples of Narada
Muni advise all the members of the younger generation to join the Krsna
consciousness movement immediately.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam
6.5.36, purport) —JS, November 1997
As further evidence: In Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 10.17 purport) Srila
Prabhupada mentions both Dhyanacandra Goswami and that Goswami’s spiritual
master as “disciples of Vakresvara Pandit.” “There are many disciples of
Vakresvara Pandita in Orissa. . . Among these disciples are Sri Gopalaguru and
his disciple Sri Dhyanacandra Goswami.” I am grateful to my godbrother His
Grace Sriman Locanananda Dasa Adhikari for pointing out to me this quotation.
–JS, 27 August 2003
No comments:
Post a Comment