© 2002 VNN
|
EDITORIAL   Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link BY BHAKTIN MIRIAM EDITORIAL, Aug 15 (VNN) — Reply to the GBC's Preliminary Response to Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link On March 12, 2002, the GBC wrote a "Preliminary Statement" concerning a newly published book entitled Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link written by Dhira Govinda dasa. I read the GBC's preliminary statement and I feel it is very wrong for the GBC to read this book and come up with their own interpretation of it, which I feel is very erroneous. They expect everybody to accept it without even letting others discern for themselves what is what. Except for a couple of quotes here and there taken out of context, they do not even give examples from the book to prove their point. And what is their point? That they don't agree with the author concerning Srila Prabhupada's position in his movement? So, instead of having an intelligent and open discussion with the author, they opted to write a public statement with carefully chosen quotations from the book taken out of context used only to conjure up strong negative emotions in the readers. Well, you know what? I did something which apparently the GBC would really frown upon. Instead of having the GBC read the book for me and tell me what the book is about and how to interpret it, I bought the book and read it by myself, thereby becoming "unprotected" and having to run the risk of submitting to my very own intelligence to discern things for myself. I am sure for my sinful act I am going to be labeled as "un-humble," or worse. Well, that is the price I am willing to pay to find the truth for myself. By reading the book by myself I found out that the GBC is misleading devotees, whether deliberately or not, concerning what they say Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is really about. The book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, never says that our initiating gurus are not "regular gurus." Neither does it say that Srila Prabhupada's disciples cannot be initiating spiritual masters. It does not say that Srila Prabhupada is the only initiator. It does not say that the disciples of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not Srila Prabhupada's grand disciples. It does not say that every member of ISKCON is not or should not be the servant of the servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada. It does not say that our gurus are not our link to the disciplic succession. It does not say that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not qualified to initiate. It does not say that one should not formally worship the initiating guru. It does not say that our initiating gurus are initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. And it never says that Srila Prabhupada serves as our diksa guru as is taught in ISKCON. In fact, contrary to what the GBC members would like devotees to believe, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is not about the initiation ceremony nor about our initiating gurus. It is presumptuous of the GBC gurus to read the book and come up with the conclusion that the book is about them and their initiating ceremonies and not about Srila Prabhupada! Mind you, not that they are not important, of course they are, but the book is only about Srila Prabhupada and his relationship with the members of his movement, and not about them. I feel that the GBC's preliminary statement on Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is so deceptive and filled with so many false statements, accusations and various innuendoes that it really is nothing but insulting. Something like that does not deserve a reply, but there are devotees out there who try to take the humble position and accept whatever they are told without question. Most of them would not bother to read the book, and even if they were to read the book, they would still accept the interpretation of their authorities and others rather than their own. This is how the opinions of others just get recycled and independent thinking gets lost along the way. We should all have the opportunity to discern things for ourselves, and not have other people's views imposed upon us. Like the Psychologist, Nathaniel Branden likes to say, we should not "value a delusion in someone else's mind above our own knowledge of the truth." Let us not disown what we know to be the truth out of fear of reprisal. To do so would be to go through life as an impostor. The members of the GBC body offered seven reasons why they rejected the book, and they said they are doing this "..to protect the devotees from being mislead." With all due respect now, who is misleading who? I will list the seven specific reasons that the GBC offered to prove to us that the book deviates from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions, followed by what the book really says. You will find it a real eye opener, because as you will see, it is the GBC who is misleading devotees. GBC reason #1: "The paper begins by improperly dismissing the standard terminology of siksa and diksa guru - terminology established by Lord Caitanya Himself and followed by all prominent acharyas. Srila Prabhupada uses siksa and diksa essential words to define functions of specific gurus. The author, by contrast, calls them 'appellations' and 'labels' and discards them." My response #1: The author does not exactly dismiss or discard the siksa and diksa terminology that ISKCON uses. Rather he tells the readers that Srila Prabhupada gives other definitions of the word diksa besides the common usage connected to functions of specific gurus. So for the meantime he ask the readers to put aside those definitions as we know them in ISKCON and listen to another important definition that Srila Prabhupada gives. The author then goes on to offer 8 to 10 direct quotations from Srila Prabhupada where Srila Prabhupada describes diksa as the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Here are three such examples in Srila Prabhupada's words sited in the book: "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (Madhya-lila, 4:111, Purport) In a lecture on July 29, 1968, Srila Prabhupada said There are two words, divya-j–ana. Divya-j–ana means transcendental, spiritual knowledge. So divya is di, and j–anam, ksapayati, explaining, that is ksa, di-ksa. This is called diksa,....So diksa means the initiation to begin transcendental activities. That is called initiation. (pg. 5). In a lecture on July 29, 1968, Srila Prabhupada said This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This is called diksa. The Sanskrit term is called diksa. Diksa means... Di divya-j–anam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa. Iksa means darsana, to see or ksapayati, explain. That is called diksa. (pg. 5). >From these three examples one can see that Srila Prabhupada had a broader definition of the word "diksa" than what ISKCON teaches us. The GBC would have us believe that Srila Prabhupada uses siksa and diksa only to define functions of specific gurus. Diksa is not an event, such as the initiation ceremony. Diksa is a process. I repeat, diksa is not an event, it is a process. If this simple statement confuses you, then for sure, you will fail to understand the whole book. As Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link states: "Initiation, as described above, is a process. Components of this process include receiving and implementing the instructions to wear kanti mala and Vaisnava tilak, and receiving a Vaisnava name. The most essential aspect of initiation is receiving transcendental knowledge from a realized spiritual master." (pg. 5) The main ingredient of the diksa process is the transmission of transcendental knowledge or diya-j–ana. There are many devotees who give us transcendental knowledge, thus many are involve in our diksa process. But of all the persons who are involved in our diksa process, however, Srila Prabhupada's influence is much greater than all others. The diksa guru in the essential, transcendental sense of the term is the guru who imparts transcendental knowledge. Imparting transcendental knowledge is the essence of initiation. Initiation is not an event, it is a process. Thus, Srila Prabhupada, the primary giver of transcendental knowledge for everyone who comes into the movement may be considered to be the diksa guru, at least in the transcendental sense, though not necessarily in the formal sense. Srila Prabhupada is our primary siksa guru. But in the transcendental sense, he is also our diksa guru because he is giving us transcendental knowledge. In the formal sense, the guru who performs the initiation ceremony is the diksa guru. Because there is so much misconception in ISKCON concerning the word diksa, the author of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link emphasizes that: "Srila Prabhupada described initiation as a process, with the essence of this process being the delivery of divya-j–ana, or transcendental knowledge, from the spiritual master to the disciple. The author further states:" it is incontestably true that many devotees, including many who were officially initiated after Srila Prabhupada's departure, and many for whom the Vaisnava who performed the initiation ceremony is in good standing in ISKCON, received more direct divya-j–ana, even by the most narrow definition of the term direct, from Srila Prabhupada than from any other Vaisnava, in the form of Srila Prabhupada's books, tapes, and murti form. For these devotees Srila Prabhupada is performing the most essential part of the initiation process, as he is the primary giver of divya-j–ana" (pg. 7). GBC reason #2: "Having discarded the terms, the author attempts to merge the functions of siksa and diksa gurus. Noting that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON's pre-eminent instructing guru, he writes, 'it is questionable whether the devotee performing the initiation ceremony can unambiguously be termed 'the diksa guru.' Srila Prabhupada, by contrast, states unambiguously in the Krishna book, Chapter 80, (and elsewhere): 'Siksa gurus may be many, but diksa guru is always one." My response #2: Again, the GBC falsely accuses the author of discarding the terms "diksa" and "siksa" and now they falsely accuse him of merging these functions. Yes, Srila Prabhupada did say that there are many siksa gurus and only one diksa guru in order to differentiate guru functions. Nevertheless, Srila Prabhupada's definition of "diksa" is also much broader than ISKCON devotees are taught. Consequently, the author gives us more examples of Srila Prabhupada's teachings on this: "In a lecture in Hyderabad on December 10, 1976, Srila Prabhupada said '...from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja. Then officially I was initiated in 1933 because in 1923 I left Calcutta." ' Thus, it seems that the essence of initiation is the acceptance of divya-j–ana, and not the formal ceremony" (pg. 10). On page 40, the author says: "Srila Prabhupada is directly giving transcendental knowledge to members of his movement, regardless of when they joined or who performed their initiation ceremony. Therefore, it may be asserted that he is giving diksa, in the transcendental sense of the term. Still, the PL framework accommodates definitions of diksa that rely on the formal component of the initiation process. With regards to the formal element of the initiation process, it might be said that Srila Prabhupada is not giving diksa." In pages 40-41 the author states: "Whether the transcendental knowledge that Srila Prabhupada gives is called diksa or not, and whether Srila Prabhupada is referred to as the diksa guru, is immaterial in relations to the gist of the PL understanding. This essential understanding is that Srila Prabhupada is the direct, primary, and current link to the disciplic succession by virtue of being the main Vaisnava through whom Sri Krsna imparts transcendental knowledge to the initiate." Furthermore, the author states: "Some may assert 'If transcendental knowledge is given by someone other than the Vaisnava who performs the initiation ceremony, then that transcendental knowledge can only be called siksa, not diksa. Therefore, it cannot rightly be said that Srila Prabhupada is giving diksa. He is giving siksa" In the framework of The Prominent Link (PL), the essential focus is on the process of initiation, which is founded on the transmission of transcendental knowledge" (pg. 7). "For devotees who are receiving divya-j–ana directly from Srila Prabhupada, more than from any other Vaisnava, it can rightly be said that Srila Prabhupada is their direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara, with direct, current, and prominent link defined as the Vaisnava who directly gives transcendental knowledge more than any other devotee (pg. 7). In other words, "The central idea is that Srila Prabhupada is the prominent link to the parampara by virtue of being the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge (pg. 1). He further states: "Even if 'diksa guru' is defined solely in terms of the performance of the initiation ceremony, one's prominent and current link to the disciplic succession, as delineated by Srila Prabhupada at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, is understood in terms of reception of transcendental knowledge" (pg. 8). Now, what does the author mean when he says "as delineated by Srila Prabhupada at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gita As It is"? He means that if you go to the very end of the introductory section of the Bhagavd-gita As It Is, Srila Prabhupada lists our disciplic succession, which comprises of 32 members, starting with Lord Krsna. Not every member in that disciplic succession list were initiating gurus, several were siksa gurus. So, the criteria for appearing on that disciplic succession list is not that all those Vaisnavas performed formal initiation ceremonies for those who followed them on the list, but rather that those Vaisnavas were the main deliverers of transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava who came after them on the list. As the author explains in the section entitled: Caitanya-caritamrta- Page 1 "It is of course noteworthy that Srila Prabhupada, following Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's song Sri Guru-parampara, lists a disciplic succession wherein several of the spiritual masters did not receive formal initiation from their spiritual masters. Perhaps even more noteworthy is that Srila Prabhupada uses the word initiated to describe parampara relationships where no official initiation occurred, in reference to the relationships between Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and between Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji." Contrary to what the members of the GBC body might have us believe, Srila Prabhupada did give us definitions of "diksa" and "initiation" different and broader than definitions commonly taught in ISKCON. And, Srila Prabhupada listed Vaisnavas that were not initiating gurus as part of our disciplic succession. GBC reason #3: "Srila Prabhupada exhorted his disciples hundreds of times to be the next gurus in disciplic succession by simply repeating what they heard and avoiding concoctions. Why would he do so if he intended to be directly responsible for initiating future generations? Srila Prabhupada explains, 'One's guide must be a spiritual master who is . . . strictly following the instructions of the previous acarya . . .' (CC Madhya 10.17, purport)." My response #3: The GBC is again making false accusations about the content of the book. Nowhere in the book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link does it say that Srila Prabhupada will be "directly responsible for initiating future generations." In fact, in the whole book there are only two instances where the word "initiation" is made in connection with Srila Prabhupada. On page 11, the book states: "Srila Prabhupada is transmitting transcendental knowledge, and we are confident that he will continue to do so for many generations. In this transcendental sense, Srila Prabhupada is initiating sincere followers. In fact, we propose that accepting divya-j–dan, or initiation, from Srila Prabhupada, and thereby directly connecting with him, is the qualification for one to become formally initiated in Srila Prabhupada's movement. Again, the official initiation ceremony is a formal acknowledgment that the devotee has directly connected with Srila Prabhupada." On the same page, it says: "In the essential sense of the term initiated, Srila Prabhupada is initiating the devotee by directly delivering to him transcendental knowledge." In both instances cited, the word "initiate" is used strictly in the essential, transcendental sense. Therefore, it is very deceptive of the GBC members to claim that the book is saying that Srila Prabhupada "intended to be directly responsible for initiating future generations" by purposely leaving out the fact that the book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link makes it more than clear that the word "initiate" is only used in the essential, transcendental sense of the term. Also, let me make it clear, the author is not saying that Srila Prabhupada is the only link to the parampara but rather that he is the primary link to the parampara. In Spanish, the word link is translated as "connection." In that sense whoever teaches us about Krsna is connecting us to the parampara. But without Srila Prabhupada we would not be linked to the parampara, because he is the one that has brought the science of Krishna Consciousness to the Western World. GBC reason #4: "The Prominent Link" specifically contradicts Srila Prabhupada's own description of his relationship with initiates of those he initiated. On May 28, 1977, in a conversation with the GBC in Vrindavan, he said those devotees would be his "grand disciples" and "the disciples of my disciples." Disciples of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are in fact directly connected to him through initiation as his grand-disciples. Srila Prabhupada commented that the grandfather is more kind to his grandchildren than is their father. There is nothing lacking in the connection between Srila Prabhupada and his grand disciples. Some may choose to emphasize their diksa guru and others their siksa guru. Such affairs of the heart cannot be legislated by anyone." My response #4: Dear members of the GBC body, would you kindly explain to us in what way Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link specifically contradicts Srila Prabhupada's description of his relationship with initiates of those he initiated? Where in the book does it say that disciples of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not Srila Prabhupada's grand disciples? Nowhere in the Prominent Link does it say that. All that Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is saying is that: "For devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement, however, the Vaisnava whose mercy without which we would not receive the benediction of Krsna and would not make advancement is Srila Prabhupada. This is evidenced by the fact that the mercy and grace of other Vaisnavas may be withdrawn, and the former recipient of that mercy continues to make advancement in Krsna consciousness and to receive benedictions from Krsna. This is possible because Srila Prabhupada continues to bestow his mercy and grace." (pg. 16). Srila Prabhupada is our link to the parampara because he is giving us diya-j–ana. Anyone who give us transcendental knowledge is essentially connecting us to the parampara. Therefore Srila Prabhupada is not our only link to the parampara, he is our primary link. I repeat, he is not the solitary link, he is our primary link. I know that the GBC gurus don't want devotees to hear this because they want to be recognized as the only link to the parampara. But the fact is that Srila Prabhupada is also our link and nothing can change that. Not only that, he is our primary link. In order to smash this simple logic, the GBC retorts with false accusations that Srila Prabhupada: The Primary Link is saying that our initiating gurus are not initiating gurus because Srila Prabhupada is our only initiating guru. Yes, the disciples of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are his grand disciples, but the grand disciples are also directly connected to Srila Prabhupada through the process of initiation. As stated previously, initiation is a process, not an event. When a devotee first enters the movement, the newcomer becomes linked to Srila Prabhupada by the reception of transcendental knowledge from him. At the time of the initiation ceremony, this link is not broken nor does it become indirect. In other words, as the book states: "The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn't be participating in the initiation ceremony. The Vaisnava conducting the initiation ceremony does not become the connection between the initiate and Srila Prabhupada. The direct link between the initiate and Srila Prabhupada already exists. The connection does not become indirect at the time of the ceremony." The GBC says that "some may choose to emphasize their diksa guru and others their siksa guru. Such affairs of the heart cannot be legislated by anyone." That is nice to hear, but why are they rejecting the concepts expounded in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link? The book simply says that for many members of his movement, including those he did not formally initiate, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge; therefore it can be rightly said that he is the direct and prominent link to the parampara for those devotees. If those devotees choose to worship Srila Prabhupada in such capacity, why is the GBC rejecting it? After all, the GBC says that "such affairs of the heart cannot be legislated by anyone." It seems to me as long as one is willing to make someone other than Srila Prabhupada their primary siksa or diksa guru it is OK with the GBC and they will not interfere. But as soon as one says that Srila Prabhupada is his/her primary guru, and his/her primary link to the parampara, then they will step in with legislation. In this case they are rejecting Srila Prabhupada as the main giver of transcendental knowledge and it doesn't matter whether that is called siksa or diksa. They categorize this rejection as "protecting" devotees. Protecting devotees from what? From the fact that devotees will realize that Srila Prabhupada is really everyone's main guru because he is the main deliverer of transcendental knowledge? From the fact that Srila Prabhupada will be the prime deliverer of diya-j–ana for the duration of his movement? From the fact that Srila Prabhupada will naturally be the direct and prominent link to the parampara for the duration of his movement by virtue of being the primary deliverer of transcendental knowledge for the duration of his movement? That is what the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is saying and the GBC does not like that. My advice to devotees is to read the book for yourself. You don't need anybody to protect you from the truth, and you don't need someone else to interpret the book for you. GBC reason #5: "In the same conversation Srila Prabhupada described those who would be taking on the service of initiating disciples as "regular gurus." The "Prominent Link" terms them "Vaishnavas who perform the initiation ceremony." Further, the work fails to offer a single statement by Srila Prabhupada in support of the implication that His Divine Grace would serve-in any respect - as a diksa guru in posthumous initiations." My response #5: Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link does not say or imply that those who would be taking the service of initiating disciples are not "regular gurus." What it does say is that Srila Prabhupada is the main guru for ISKCON. He is the primary link to the parampara because he is the main giver of transcendental knowledge for ISKCON. According to Srila Prabhupada, to give "diksa" means to give transcendental knowledge. So, according to Srila Prabhupada's definition of the word "diksa", he (Srila Prabhupada) is the main "diksa" guru for ISKCON. And there are a dozen quotations from Srila Prabhupada that supports this. And yes, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link does not offer a single statement by Srila Prabhupada in support of the implication that His Divine Grace would serve as the diksa guru (as we know it in ISKCON) in posthumous initiations. And do you know why? Because the book does not say that Srila Prabhupada is our diksa guru as we know it in ISKCON. GBC reason #6: "The Prominent Link" suggests that if every member of ISKCON makes Srila Prabhupada the 'sole object of unconditional surrender,' ISKCON will be more united. Srila Prabhupada's teachings suggest that ISKCON will be more united-and Srila Prabhupada more pleased - if every member of ISKCON serves the servants of the servants of Srila Prabhupada: "This is called parampara system. You have to learn how to become servant of the servant of Krsna. The more you become in the lower position -- servant, servant, servant, servant, servant, hundreds times servant, servant -- the more you are advanced. Here in this material world everyone is trying to be master of the master. Just opposite. And the spiritual world, the endeavor is to become servant's servant. This is the secret. yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau/tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah. This is Vedic instruction" (London, 8/3/73). My response #6: I don't remember anywhere in the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link reading that the author discourages anyone from serving the servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada. In fact, this is what the author says: "All who instruct others in the tenets of bhakti-yoga are spiritual teachers. In this sense each devotee has many gurus who are inspiring him to progress in Krsna consciousness. These gurus are directly guiding devotees and establishing important, direct relationships with them that are invaluable in helping the devotees on their path back to Godhead." (pg. 3). "Through submissive service to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada's followers the devotee receives transcendental knowledge" (pg. 11). "This is not a position of negativity. There may be Vaisnavas in Srila Prabhupada's movement who are pure devotees, mahabhagavatas, and worthy of worship." (pg. 21). "A caveat in presenting this is that all devotees should be honored, glorified and respected in accord with their position." (pg. 25). Additionally, each devotee is responsible to feel and demonstrate proper gratitude towards all the Vaisnavas who have assisted him in developing Krsna consciousness, the eternal gift of the soul." (pg. 32) "Devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement who conduct initiation ceremonies have made tremendous sacrifices to guide and direct others in Krsna consciousness. These devotees deserve great commendation for their efforts to take responsibility for the spiritual advancement of others." (pg. 32). "The Pl [Prominent Link] model encourages devotees to serve and accept guidance and shelter from Vaisnavas who are physically present. These Vaisnavas to whom the devotee subordinates himself, and with whom the devotee develops close relationships, are spiritual teachers, though none of them replace Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent direct link to the disciplic succession." (pg. 45). "Without contradiction, devotee A is a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada, and a disciple of the disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Being directly linked with Srila Prabhupada does not negate, and in fact supports, the principle of being a servant of the servant of the Vaisnava." (pg. 48). That phrase, "sole object of unconditional surrender" does not exist anywhere in the book: Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Thus, the GBC should have never used it as a direct quotation from the book. What the book does say is the following: "Thus far it has been established that for many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement, regardless of when or whether they have taken formal initiation, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of divya-j–ana, both directly and indirectly. He is the Vaisnava whose mercy is essential to advance in Krsna consciousness, and he is the guru center in the two-center model described in the verse yasya deve para bhaktir... These attributes also establish Srila Prabhupada as the Vaisnava to whom the initiate must absolutely, unconditionally, and directly surrender. In this sense Srila Prabhupada serves as the direct and current link to the parampara. With this understanding we can appreciate that Srila Prabhupada can be the object of worship as the prominent link to the disciplic succession." (pg. 18). The book further states,"Of all the gurus in Srila Prabhupada's movement, Srila Prabhupada is the one in whom implicit faith must exist in order for the imports of Vedic knowledge to be automatically revealed. As the direct link, Srila Prabhupada is the person to whom the devotee surrenders absolutely. Many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement, including many who were formally initiated after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, experience him in this capacity, as the primary guru who inspires full surrender." (pg. 16). "From the model that is commonly practiced in the movement we can understand that not all gurus are expected to be the Vaisnava to whom the newcomer fully surrenders. For example, the book distributor is serving as a type of guru for the newcomer, as is the senior devotee giving Srimad-Bhagavatam class and the bhakta leader. We don't expect, however, that the newcomer will fully surrender his life to all of these Vaisnavas, though of course they should always have a place in his heart. Srila Prabhupada, as the Vaisnava who is the devotee to whom all members of his movement are expected to unconditionally surrender, is the guru center as described in the verse yasya deve..." (pg. 17). We have many gurus in ISKCON, but of all our gurus, the one that should assume the absolute position in our lives is Srila Prabhupada. He is the driving force of the movement, and he will always be the driving force. Srila Prabhupada is the primary guru guiding us back to Godhead, he is and will always be the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge for the duration of his movement. Therefore he is the most important link (prominent link) to the parampara for devotees who have been initiated by him or not. After all, Srila Prabhupada lives in his vani not only for those he initiated but also for those that came after he passed away. In essence, this is what the book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is about. It seems that the GBC does not want ISKCON devotees to have this understanding; therefore, they rejected the book not based on what the book really says, instead they made up false accusations. And you, the GBC are making it sound that the author is dictating his understanding on others. But here is what he says: "While we maintain that this model should be accepted in Srila Prabhupada's movement, it is not necessarily the only model that is sastrically and philosophically valid. Many of the contentions herein, in regards to Srila Prabhupada's relationship with members of his movement, may not apply to everyone in Srila Prabhupada's society. They do, however, apply to many and are, we will demonstrate, legitimate in terms of sastra, philosophy and precedent. Thus, we ask that the principles presented be honored and respected in Srila Prabhupada's movement. Though we suggest that these conceptualizations are the preferred model for his movement, our firm recommendation is simply that the ideas and practices be validated and accepted, perhaps alongside other systems and understandings." (second paragraph of pg. 1). "In establishing Srila prabhupada's position we do not wish to imply that no one other than Srila Prabhupada is serving as spiritual teacher." (pg. 3) "While we claim that this is the preferred model for the movement, we do not maintain that other understandings, such as the understanding that the devotee who performs the formal initiation ceremony is automatically the primary direct link to the parampara, must be rejected. If necessary, a plurality of models may coexist. However, we find no basis for the denial of the PL model, and we believe that it is important for the PL model to be accepted and honored." (pg. 39) GBC reason #7: "ISKCON Law establishes Srila Prabhupada as the 'pre-eminent and compulsory siksa guru for all members of ISKCON.' Further, it says that any grand disciple may find more inspiration from Srila Prabhupada than from their diksa guru. 'The Prominent Link' asserts that such understandings of Srila Prabhupada are offensive to His Divine Grace (p. 26). The GBC Body finds such remarks and their public circulation wanting in scholarship, philosophy, and Vaishnava etiquette." My response #7: The 1999 GBC resolution states that Srila Prabhupada is the preeminent and compulsory siksa-guru for all Vaisnavas (gurus and disciples) in the Society But, the 2000 GBC resolutions changed Srila Prabhupada's 1999 status in ISKCON (and it seems that every year they do change it) as follows: A duly initiated disciple in ISKCON can accept Srila Prabhupada, the founder acarya of ISKCON, as his principal siksa-guru. During his devotional life, he may experience that he derives more spiritual inspiration from Srila Prabhupada's books and vani than from his own diksa-guru. According to Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, "The wording of the 2000 GBC resolution implies that the default position for a duly initiated disciple is to derive more spiritual inspiration from 'his own diksa-guru' than from Srila Prabhupada's books and vani, though it is acknowledged that the disciple 'can' accept Srila Prabhupada as his principle siksa-guru, and 'may' experience more spiritual inspiration from Srila Prabhupada's books and vani than from his diksa-guru. This resolution appears to be a regression from the 1999 GBC descriptions of Srila Prabhupada as 'the preeminent and compulsory siksa-guru for all Vaisnavas (gurus and disciples) in the Society', 'the preeminent siksa guru for every member of the institution', and the first and foremost object of faith, trust and allegiance for every member of ISKCON." (pg. 29). "Thus, we can see that describing Srila Prabhupada with qualifying terms such as 'preeminent siksa guru' obfuscates his position as the primary guru and the most essential, active spiritual force for all members of his movement. This relegation of Srila Prabhupada is conspicuous in the contradictory connotations of the 1999 and 2000 resolutions. As a result, Srila Prabhupada's rightful and natural place in the society of Vaisnavas is arrogated by others, as evidenced in the practices and conceptualizations of devotees in many sectors of the organization." (pg. 30). The book Srila Prabhupada: The Primary Link further states: "In support of this minimization of Srila Prabhupada's role in his movement, one of the themes of a keynote speech at the 1999 GBC meetings was specifically that Srila Prabhupada is not the direct and current link to the disciplic succession for devotees who did not receive formal initiation from him." (pg. 27). It is offensive and insulting for the GBC to say that the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link has fundamental inconsistencies with Srila Prabhupada's teachings; that it's presenting Srila Prabhupada's preeminence in a concocted way; that it deviates from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions; that devotees are being misled by the book; that the work is taking a little from here and a little from there to create something new. Anyone who has read the book without preconceived notions can see for themselves that the book is very well documented and filled with numerous direct quotations from Srila Prabhupada. In fact, the book presents Srila Prabhupada's words without changing, or adding to them. Srila Prabhupada's words are very clear and to the point. It is the GBC who is concocting a false impression of the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. They are deceiving devotees by making deceptive and misleading statements of what the book is really about, they are using quotes out of context for the sole purpose of evoking emotions of anger and fear in the readers, they are quoting a phrase that doesn't even exist in the book, they are discouraging devotees from reading the book for themselves with the pretext that they only want to "protect" them, and they are refusing to have any meaningful philosophical discussions with the author on the topics described in the book, instead they issued a statement rejecting the book. The GBC Body says that they acknowledge "with appreciation the clarification offered by Dhira Govinda Prabhu in a letter (March 2002) in which he states that he did not intend to teach ritvikism nor support the ritvik agenda through 'The Prominent Link.' and that "he also expressed his eagerness to enter into further discussion with he GBC and its Sastric Advisory Council." Well, that sounds very nice, but are those words really sincere? After all, that letter of clarification from Dhira Govinda Prabhu was given to the GBC before they wrote the "preliminary statement" They, the GBC are making it sound as though Dhira Govinda Prabhu offered a letter of clarification to the GBC after reading the preliminary statement, when in fact Dhira Govinda Prabhu's letter was dated March 10, 2002, two days before the date of the GBC's preliminary statement. Even though the GBC read Dhira Govinda prabhu's letter of clarification, they still wrote the 'preliminary statement' falsely accusing him of the following: encouraging disrespect for our initiating gurus, discarding and merging diksa and siksa terminology, discouraging devotees from being the servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada, and falsely claiming that the book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is saying that Srila Prabhupada will be "directly responsible for initiating (as we know it in ISKCON) future generations" Indirectly, the GBC is also accusing him of teaching ritvik philosophy. Here is an excerpt from Dhira Govinda prabhu's letter that he sent two days before the GBC's 'Preliminary Statement." March 10, 2002 Dear Members of the ISKCON GBC, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I would like to clarify a few points regarding the booklet Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. I am not in any ritvik camp and the essay was not written to support any ritvik agenda. One hope I had in presenting the essay was that the ideas therein would serve as a platform for resolving the ongoing conflict between advocates of the GBC position and advocates of ritvik ideas. In presenting the ideas of The Prominent Link I have no intention of disrespecting or encouraging others to disrespect the Vaisnavas who serve as initiating gurus in ISKCON. I understand and fully support the prime importance of properly respecting all members of our Vaisnava family. Also, by describing Srila Prabhupada as the prominent link to the parampara for members of his movement, I am in no way minimizing the fundamental principle of being a servant of the servant of the servant of the devotees. Concerning terminology, in the essay I decided not to employ some of the usual terms that are commonly used in discussions on these topics, because these terms, from my perception, have tended to cloud issues more than clarify them in the current environment of the movement. Instead, I used terms that describe observable behaviors, such as the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony, for purposes of precision and to assist in extracting and identifying essential concepts, such as the transmission of transcendental knowledge from guru to disciple. The approach is that after clarifying essential concepts, we can then apply appropriate terminology. All of Srila Prabhupada's followers have a mandate to give Krsna consciousness to others, and in this way to expand the sankirtana movement and continue the disciplic succession. We are all meant to be instruments in carrying on the parampara, and I am not advocating that the parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. There is a section in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link entitled Terms of Relegation. In that section I point out what appears to me to be apparently contradictory connotations in GBC resolutions from 1999 and 2000. I did this because I believe that it is important for GBC statements to be clear and consistent. I humbly ask that the GBC takes the opportunity to elucidate their meaning in a way that explains the relationship between those resolutions. Yes, Dhira Govinda prabhu did expressed his eagerness to enter into further discussion with the GBC and its Sastric Advisory Council. But the GBC has not entered into substantive philosophical discussions with him on the important topics described in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Instead they issued the preliminary statement rejecting the book. Does anybody from the GBC body have any desire in having a solid philosophical discussion concerning the content of this very important book? If so, please speak up. Do not let fear of reprisal be the reason to disown what you know to be the truth. Don't let others speak for you views that are contradictory to yours, to do so would be to go through life as an impostor. Whatever the GBC will come up with in the future, it will not be about what the book discusses, it will be about another topic, and that topic as we all know will be about the gurus in ISKCON. Of course the gurus should be respected and they are indeed very important. So they should be discussed, wrote about, and talked about. Nevertheless, that is not the topic of the book: Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. In fact, I was very deeply struck by the fact that the GBC's preliminary statement concerning the Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, was mostly about our gurus and what Srila Prabhupada said about our gurus. But again, I repeat, the book, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is about Srila Prabhupada and his relationship with the members of his movement. And that is what the GBC should have talked about in their preliminary statement. It is time for the members of the GBC to wake up and realize that it is up to the community of devotees, as is their natural right, to decide for themselves what kind of role Srila Prabhupada plays in their lives. As Balavanta prabhu says in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link: "The question may be asked: Why another paper on the process of initiation when the GBC has already spoken definitively on the matter? Isn't this now a non-issue in ISKCON? The answer is that the GBC has spoken definitively on the process of initiation on so many occasions that we cannot rationally conclude that its voice on such matters is absolute. The GBC is a managerial body. Spiritual matters of the Society must be resolved by conscious consensus of conscience by reference to open and frank discussions amongst mature devotees whose voices are not suppressed." (preface) Related VNN Stories Contact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
