Precis

A devotee may say that Srila Prabhupada is his prominent guru, and that he receives guidance from him in several ways. This claim needs to be tested, however, by the devotee's willingness to follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions, including instructions about the means and formalities of becoming a disciple and connecting with the Vaisnava parampara. Such following, in a humble spirit, with willingness to be corrected, is the true mark of discipleship. When a devotee has such a humble attitude, then he is a disciple not only of his own diksa- and Siksa-gurus but of the whole disciplic succession.

To be fair, we should acknowledge that we found several useful ideas in the PL booklet. Some of these positive contributions are as follows: (1) The importance of devotees' accepting responsibility for the advancement of other devotees, especially those junior to themselves; (2) The need to have a realistic appreciation of one's guru based on how much the guru helps one progress on the path of bhakti, not just on his institutional position (despite the faults in its arguments, PL points towards a realistic approach: Someone is factually a guru to the degree that he properly functions as a guru); (3) The need for ISKCON leaders to make it known that all devotees can be inspired by Srila Prabhupada and thus attain enlightenment and spiritual strength; and (4) The advisability of having Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-pŸja ceremony the primary Vyasa-pŸja for all ISKCON members.

Nonetheless, the Sastric Advisory Council (SAC) found the PL booklet lacking in scriptural support and divergent from correct siddhanta on several important points. For example, its attempt at redefining the word diksa is clearly unacceptable. Also, the booklet's suggestion that devotees forgo all worship of their diksa-gurus contradicts standard teachings and practice. Such an innovation will not help anyone establish a better spiritual relationship with Srila Prabhupada. To properly connect with Srila Prabhupada or any acarya in our guru-parampara, devotees should follow the directions of Srila RŸpa Gosvami in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhuÑbeginning with the first step of taking shelter of the lotus feet of a bona fide guruÑrather than following instead some artificially manufactured process. The SAC acknowledges the author for his attempt to search out ways to improve guru-disciple relationships in ISKCON, but we cannot endorse the overall premise expressed in the booklet and the means of rectification its author recommends.

Introduction

Since Srila Prabhupada's physical departure the number of devotees accepting disciples has increased. Recently, some of Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples have begun to accept disciples. And as we all know, some gurus have fallen. During these developments, ISKCON devotees have in general become more mature in their understanding of Srila Prabhupada's position. Now the author has presented Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL) to further explore these topics. The primary issue he raises is an important oneÑthe question of Srila Prabhupada's position, influence, and responsibility in relation to each member of his Society. The GBC have given much attention to addressing philosophically and practically what it means that Prabhupada is our founder-acarya. The author's questions and his attempt to suggest solutions are welcome.

Although there is room for improvement and clarification in our present understanding of how Srila Prabhupada is the founder-acarya for ISKCON and the foundational guru individually for all its members, our understanding has to remain within the boundaries of Prabhupada's teaching. How can we claim him to be our prominent guru if we disregard his instructions and re-define his teachings? Srila Prabhupada, the Prominent Link oversteps the bounds of guru, sadhu, and Sastra.

Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter to Jayagovinda, Los Angeles July 4, 1969, "You have inquired why Caitanya Mahaprabhu has not mentioned anything about accepting a Spiritual Master in His Siksastaka. But perhaps you have missed the point that He says amanina manadena kirtaniya sada hari. This means one has to chant the Holy Names of Krsna, becoming humbler than the straw, and more tolerant than the tree. So who can become humbler than the straw unless he accepts a Spiritual Master?ÉBut if anyone becomes humbler than the grass and more tolerant than the tree, it is understood that he has accepted a Spiritual Master."

Certainly we are all linked to Srila Prabhupada, either directly as his diksa disciples or through his representatives in the ISKCON parampara. This is the mystery of Vaisnava parampara: while one goes "through" one's guru, one is also directly connected with the previous gurus and with Krsna Himself. Prabhupada writes in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 18.75, "Vyasa was the spiritual master of Sa•jaya, and Sa•jaya admits that it was by Vyasa's mercy that he could understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This means that one has to understand Krsna not directly but through the medium of the spiritual master. The spiritual master is the transparent medium, although it is true that the experience is still direct. This is the mystery of the disciplic succession. When the spiritual master is bona fide, then one can hear Bhagavad-gita directly, as Arjuna heard itÉ Narada is the direct disciple of Krsna and the spiritual master of Vyasa. Therefore Vyasa is as bona fide as Arjuna because he comes in the disciplic succession, and Sa•jaya is the direct disciple of Vyasa. Therefore by the grace of Vyasa, Sa•jaya's senses were purified, and he could see and hear Krsna directly. One who directly hears Krsna can understand this confidential knowledge. If one does not come to the disciplic succession, he cannot hear Krsna."

Yet one cannot correctly call Srila Prabhupada, or Sri Krsna, the "current" link. We cannot approach Krsna without a mediator as did Arjuna, though the Lord is present in our heart, as the Deity, as His Holy names, and in every atom. The fact that Prabhupada lives in his books and mŸrtis does not mean devotees can avoid the authorized process of linking with him, which includes, if one is not Prabhupada's direct diksa disciple, taking diksa from one of his followers. At the same time, no matter who one's diksa- and Siksa-gurus are, Prabhupada's instructions remain the basis, the standard and foundation for all individual devotees and for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as a whole. The GBC has already acknowledged the genuine desire and need of many devotees to have Prabhupada as their prominent guru, whether or not they are his direct diksa disciples, and we believe the GBC should continue to reconfirm and better clarify this.

But as the author asserts, and not without good reason, there are some devotees, including himself, who are not satisfied with the GBC's stand. They want to think of Srila Prabhupada as their main guru, feeling that in any case their inspiration and advancement is coming directly from their relationship with Prabhupada. They wish this relationship to be acknowledged and formalized. In other words, they don't want to be denied being considered Prabhupada's disciples.

These devotees will run into practical difficulties. For example, devotees generally consider the diksa-guru "the" guru and expect the name of the diksa-guru when they ask, "Who is your guru?" If someone answers "Prabhupada" when he hasn't received diksa from Srila Prabhupada, he may be considered a rtvik advocate, and his social and vocational positions may be jeopardized[AT1].

Furthermore, although the GBC has said that Srila Prabhupada may be considered one's main guru (as Siksa-guru), placing the diksa-guru in a secondary or peripheral role, because the resolutions use words such as "can" and "may," to do so may be viewed as undesirable.

There are also those who want only Prabhupada as their guru and do not want to identify others who gave them diksa and Siksa with the name "guru." This tendency is notable in the PL booklet, where the author consistently refers to a diksa-guru as "the devotee who performs the formal initiation ceremony."

The author of PL objects to what he perceives as a presumption prevalent in ISKCON that one's diksa-guru is automatically one's prominent guru. He attempts to establish that one's diksa-guru may have relatively less influence than does Srila Prabhupada. This much we can agree with. But he then proposes that Srila Prabhupada is every ISKCON devotee's diksa-guru in the "transcendental sense," thus practicing in a different way the very methodology of assumption he sought to discredit.

The author's solution is to redefine diksa so that Prabhupada becomes his diksa-guru. His idea is that since ISKCON devotees tend to identify one's diksa-guru as guru, with the help of The Prominent Link's new definition of diksa, his feelings and relationships will be acceptable according to ISKCON standards. The author and devotees of similar persuasion can then keep only Prabhupada's pictures, worship only Prabhupada, and so forth.

To solidify this position, the author wishes the GBC to declare his understanding as the standard, leaving those who define diksa in the traditional way and think of the guru who gave them formal diksa as primary to be tolerated but abnormal. He couches this presentation in inclusive and broad-minded terms, saying that many understandings of guru are possible, while simultaneously posing his understanding and position as superior to other understandings (see PL pages 9, 17 and 39).

We suggest that Srila Prabhupada's followers do not have the liberty of redefining diksa and diksa-guru or understanding them too narrowly. To define diksa, as Srila Prabhupada sometimes does, as the transmission of transcendental knowledge does not mean that the formal aspects of diksa can be neglected. We need to consider carefully what transcendental knowledge is and how it is transmitted. Such knowledge is not just information, or skills, or even values, as in ordinary learning, though in the course of diksa and Siksa these are also taught. Rather, spiritual knowledge is realization and wisdom. This knowledge comes primarily through chanting Hare Krsna and the Gayatri mantras, as given by the initiating spiritual master, coupled with following a way of life that supports the chanting. As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati …hakura writes, "The holy name will manifest in your heart as you go on serving the holy name with body, mind, and words. Hearing and reciting Sastras helps to confirm the realizations one attains by chanting the holy name. . . . Initiation by the spiritual master gives one enthusiasm and inspiration to chant the holy name." (excerpts from Bengali letters, appearing in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, pub. Shree Gopinatha Gaudiya Math, trans. B.S. Damodara Maharaja).

There are no two kinds of diksa, one "transcendental" and the other a mere formality. Diksa is always transcendental, except when the rituals are followed simply for show, like a marriage undergone just to acquire a visa.

To solve the real problems the author addresses, we need a complete understanding of the principle of diksa. There are also practical steps that will help us, including changing the wording of the GBC statement to eliminate the words "can" and "may". This step would establish what we understand to be the GBC's position that having Prabhupada as one's prominent guru is equally acceptable to any other situation.

We also need practical guidelines for devotees who feel that Prabhupada is their prominent guru, so they can answer in a bona fide and truthful way the question "Who is your guru?" There should be guidelines for worship of Deities and gurus' pictures, and so on, for devotees who understand their primary guru relationship to be with Srila Prabhupada as Siksa-guru. The GBC has delineated a number of specifics in this regard, but often without explanations. It would be helpful, for example, to explain why a devotee who accepts Prabhupada as his prominent guru should have his diksa-guru's picture present when worshiping the Deity. And since the general guidance for one whose diksa-guru has fallen is to simply "worship Prabhupada," one whose diksa-guru is in good standing but with whom he or she has little relationship may question why he can't also worship Srila Prabhupada exclusively.

Certainly the leaders of ISKCON need to support the GBC's conclusions about relationships to Srila Prabhupada and diksa and Siksa-gurus. In public and in print, leaders should not denigrate existing policies, labeling them as demeaning to ISKCON diksa-gurus or to Srila Prabhupada. Prominent members of the GBC as well as other leaders write and speak in public forums about the deficiencies in the GBC's guru policy. It is not, therefore, surprising, that ISKCON members are publishing calls for drastic reform.

Scripture, tradition, and ISKCON law indicate that guru-disciple relationships are individual and cannot be mandated, as long as they fall within the boundary of guru, sadhu, and Sastra. Whom an individual considers his prominent guru is a matter of the heart. No individual or institution does well to attempt to dictate to a devotee what faith he must have in his diksa-guru simply on the basis of institutional status. There is etiquette to be maintained, but faith is ultimately a private matter.

After extensive discussion with our committee, the author remains unwilling to modify his position in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, despite claiming that his ideas are exploratory, aimed only at sparking discussion, investigation, and understanding. We invited him to write this paper with us, to work with our team step by step in order to arrive at conclusions with which we all could agree. Unfortunately, he declined.

Responses to Excerpts of Srila Prabhupada, The Prominent Link

(excerpts are in bold)

Of central importance in this discussion is that Srila Prabhupada is, or at least is meant to be, the primary spiritual master for all members of his movement. In realizing this it is important not to become distracted by appellations such as "diksa guru", "initiator", and "officiating acarya", although for communicative purposes such designations are sometimes necessary. (p. 2)

We cannot dispense with the distinction of diksa- and Siksa-guru without running into serious difficulty. Many of our acaryas have gone out of their way to explain this distinction, including Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami in the first chapter of Caitanya-caritamrta and Srila Jiva Gosvami in his discussion of guru-tattva in Sri Bhakti-sandarbha. One's "primary" spiritual master may sometimes be a Siksa-guru rather than the diksa-guru, the Vaisnava who gives one initiation. Such is the case for many devotees in ISKCON who didn't receive initiation from its founder-acarya. Still, the role of diksa-guru is unique. The diksa-guru accepts responsibility for his disciples, and therefore his disciples owe him special gratitude, even if he is only a representative of the primary spiritual master.

Just what kind and how much worship the diksa-guru should be given may be debatable, but at least he should be allowed the honor of being considered one's guru. As Krsnadasa Kaviraja has indicated in his ma“galacarana verse vande gurŸnÑ"I offer respect to my gurus"Ña devotee can have more than one Vaisnava guru, and he can and should worship them all. The diksa-guru may be the last and maybe least link in the parampara, but isn't such "indirect" connection to Krsna the very idea of parampara? Krsna is eternally enjoying with His pure devotees and has nothing to do with the suffering of this material world. We are here suffering only because we chose to reject Krsna. We wanted to try to control and enjoy separately from Him, and Krsna respects this desire. He will never interfere with our misuse of free will. He will never force us to surrender to Him. But His representatives take the risk of interfering, and so the only practical way to regain our lost connection with Krsna is through the parampara. One who claims a direct connection with Krsna is most likely ignored by Him. But a humble devotee who follows Caitanya Mahaprabhu's example of considering Himself dasa-dasanudasa has the best chance of attracting Krsna's attention. If our diksa-guru is a servant of Krsna's dearest devotee, we are all the more fortunate to be connected through that additional link.

The diksa-guru is his disciple's immediate link, the one who takes personal responsibility for delivering the disciple to Krsna. He may be able to do this only on the strength of those he represents, those who empower him. Still, the personal responsibility is his. Personal responsibility is what makes diksa something more than just a formal ceremony. As a child's parents are more personally responsible than are grandparents and more distant forefathers, so also the diksa-guru takes special trouble and risk for his disciples. For disciples not to honor him for this is indecent.

Srila Jiva Gosvami writes in Bhakti-sandarbha (207) about the obligation of respect for one's diksa-guru:

mantra-gurus tv eka evety aha,

labdhvanugraha acaryat

tena sandarSitagama�

maha-purusam abhyarcen

mŸrtyabhimatayatmana�

anugraho mantra-diksa-rŸpa�, agamo mantra-vidhi-Sastram, asyaikatvam eka-vacanena bodhyate.

bodha� kalusitas tena

dauratmyaˆ prakaši-krtam

gurur yena parityaktas

tena tyakta� pura hari�

iti brahma-vaivartadau tat-tyaga-nisedhat. tad-aparitosenaivanyo guru� kriyate. tato 'neka-guru-karane pürva-tyaga eva siddhaù.

"The mantra-guru, however, is only one. As it is stated: "Having obtained the mercy of the spiritual master, who reveals to the disciple the injunctions of Vedic scriptures, the devotee should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the particular personal form of the Lord the devotee finds most attractive.' (Bhag. 11.3.48) This mercy is in the form of initiation into the mantra. The agama is the scripture giving the regulations of chanting the mantra. That this guru is one can be understood from the use of the singular number [in the word acaryat]. Indeed, the Brahma-vaivarta and other Puranas forbid rejecting him: "One who rejects his guru must have polluted intelligence. He reveals his own wickedness by this act. Even before this, he has already rejected Lord Hari.' Dissatisfied with his guru, he takes another one; his taking more than one guru proves that he has previously rejected [Krsna]."

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. (p. 3)

Initiation, as described above, is a process. Components of this process include receiving and implementing the instructions to wear kanšhi mala and Vaisnava tilaka, and receiving a Vaisnava name. The most essential aspect of initiation is receiving transcendental knowledge from a realized spiritual master. (p. 5)

The author here attempts to identify the essence of initiation as the transmission of spiritual knowledge rather than the mere ceremony of officially receiving one's mantra and new name. He cites (without the Sanskrit) a verse that has been given as authoritative by Srila Prabhupada, and indeed was cited by the Gau˜iya Vaisnava acaryas Sanatana Gosvami, Narahari Sarakara, and Jiva Gosvami in their foundational explanations of diksa:

divyaˆ j•anaˆ yato dadyat

kuryat papasya sa“ksayam

tasmad dikseti sa prokta

deSikais tattva kovidai�

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (Srila Prabhupada's translation from Caitanya-caritamrta, 2.15.108). But does this actually mean that the essential definition of "initiation" should be "the transmitting of transcendental knowledge"? If that were so, there would be no difference between Siksa and diksa.

We should, however, look carefully at how our acaryas present the context of the statement of this verse. The above verse is cited by Srila Sanatana Gosvami in Hari-bhakti-vilasa (second vilasa), and Srila Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti-sandarbha (283), and Srila Prabhupada in his purport of Caitanya-caritamrtya, as above. All three presentations of this verse are very similar. Let's examine the passage of Bhakti-sandarbha:

yady api Sri-bhagavata-mate pa•caratradi-vad arcana-margasyavaSyakatvaˆ nasti, tad vinapi Saranapatty-adinam ekatarenapi purusartha-siddher abhihitatvat, tathapi Sri-naradadi-vartmanusaradbhi� Sri-bhagavata saha sambandha-viSesaˆ diksa-vidhanena Sri-guru-carana-sampaditaˆ cikirsadbhi� krtayaˆ diksayam arcanam avaSyaˆ kriyetaiva,

"In the opinion of Srimad-Bhagavatam there is no absolute necessity of following the process of arcana, just as there is no need to follow the methods of the Pa•caratra, since it is specifically stated that one can achieve the full perfection of life even without them, just by practicing even one of the methods of Saranapatti [surrender] and [AT2]so on. Nonetheless, if those who follow the paths of such authorities as Sri Narada want their special relationship with the Personality of Godhead, which is to be achieved at the feet of their divine spiritual master by his giving them diksa, they must necessarily take diksa and then perform the process of arcanam. This is as is stated in the Agama [Pa•caratra]:

divyaˆ j•anaˆ yato dadyat

kuryat papasya sa“ksayam

tasmad dikseti sa prokta

deSikais tattva kovidai�

ato guruˆ pranamyaiva

sarva-svaˆ vinivedya ca

grhniyad vaisnavaˆ mantraˆ

diksa-pŸrvaˆ vidhanata�

ity agamat. divyaˆ j•anaˆ hy atra Srimati mantre bhagavat-svarŸpa-j•anam, tena bhagavata sambandha-viSesa-j•anaˆ ca, yatha padmottara-khan˜adav asšaksaradikam adhikrtya vivrtam asti.

" "Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa.

" "Therefore one should first bow down to his guru, offer everything he possesses to him, and should accept a Vaisnava mantra by properly carrying out the process of diksa.'

" "Transcendental knowledge' here means knowledge of the identity of the Personality of Godhead within one's divine mantra, and also knowledge of one's individual relationship with the Supreme Lord, as has been elaborately described in the Uttara-khan˜a of the Padma Purana, in the discussion of the eight-syllable and other mantras."

diksa yathagame,

dvijanam anupanitanaˆ

sva-karmadhyayanadisu

yathadhikaro nastiha

syac copanayanad anu

tathatradiksitanaˆ tu

mantra-devarcanadisu

nadhikaro 'sty ata� kuryad

atmanaˆ Siva-saˆstutam

"Diksa is as is described in the Agama: "When they have not been initiated, brahmanas have no authorization to engage in their prescribed duties of studying the Vedas and so on, but after taking initiation they are authorized.'

" "Similarly those who have not taken diksa are not authorized to perform such activities as chanting mantras and worshiping the Deity of the Lord. Therefore one should make oneself auspicious and reputable [by accepting initiation].' "

[end of the Bhakti-sandarbha section]

Here diksa is described as, basically, a process of receiving a Vaisnava mantra so that one can begin the formal methods of Pa•caratrika devotional service such as Deity worship and the chanting of mantras. The identification of diksa with the transmission of transcendental knowledge is only mentioned in a secondary way, and as part of a two-verse statement from an anonymous Pa•caratra that goes on to define diksa as the official receiving of a Vaisnava mantra. Citing this verse out of context therefore fails as proof that the transmission of knowledge is the svarŸpa-laksana (essential definition) of diksa, as the PL author postulates. It is rather only a tašastha-laksana (secondary characteristic).

The same conclusion is also shown in Srila Sanatana Gosvami's equivalent presentation in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. He cites the same two verses beginning divyaˆ j•anam, preceding them with the heading: atha diksa-mahatmyam ("Now the glories of diksa.") In other words, Srila Sanatana cites the two verses to highlight the importance of diksa, not to give its essential definition. As Srila Prabhupada also pointed out when he also cited and explained the first words of these verses in several different initiation lectures, the first two lines are giving a poetic analysis of the syllables di-ksa. The syllable di alludes to divyaˆ j•anam, and ksa figuratively indicates ksapayati ("it eliminates [ignorance]"). Such poetic explanations, known in the Vedic tradition as artha-vada, are often given by scriptures and their commentators to evoke appreciation of facts that have been already established by more scientific methods. They are not meant to be taken as the essential definition or literal proof of anything, even according to the strict rules of grammar. The syllable di in diksa is not actually derived from the same root as divyam, nor is it necessarily connected with the noun j•anam Nor does the bare syllable ksa necessarily mean ksapayati, nor is the object of that verb necessarily "ignorance."

Of course, the properly observed vows of initiation do lead to the gain of spiritual knowledge and defeat of ignorance, but these are secondary characteristics. Properly speaking, diksa is a specific Pa•caratrika method of mantra initiation, which Srila RŸpa Gosvami has stipulated as one of the required elements of vaidhi sadhana-bhakti.

Srila Prabhupada is giving transcendental knowledge, and thus he is performing the most important element of the process of initiation. He is the main Vaisnava doing this for members of his movement. (p.6)

Yes, Srila Prabhupada is our prime source of transcendental knowledge. Whatever we may know about Krsna consciousness, Vedic civilization, and anything else worth knowing we know only by his divine grace and in terms of his understanding and attitudes. So yes, he is our most important link to the Gau˜iya Vaisnava sampradaya, and without his blessings we will never be able to receive the full mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Still there is the practical distinction of diksa and Siksa, which we cannot ignore without falling into confusion. Diksa is not exactly the same as Siksa. It is a specific function, which according to all Sastras and practice is always performed by a current representative of one's sampradaya. Srila Prabhupada is the principal Siksa-guru for anyone who wants to accept him as such, but he is not the diksa-guru of all of his followers, any more than he is their biological father. This fact does not diminish his supremacy in ISKCON. Nor is it a reason for his representatives to foolishly imitate him.

An authorized diksa-guru in ISKCON should be considered Srila Prabhupada's empowered representative, and deserves the respect of his disciples. If we think Srila Prabhupada cannot empower his disciples despite their imperfections, how strong is our faith in him?

Someone 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 be rightly 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. Terminology and labeling is not a chief concern. Whomever is labeled "Siksa guru", "initiator", or "diksa guru", the heart of the PL understanding is that Srila Prabhupada is the primary Vaisnava directly giving transcendental knowledge. 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." (p. 7)

We can agree without hesitation that Srila Prabhupada is the most prominent link to the sampradaya for all of his followers, and that he is directly their Siksa-guru, at least to the extent that they are interested to hear from him. But he is not the last link in the chain for his grand-disciples. He is alive in his instructions, in his mŸrti, and in the living institution ISKCON. Why be disappointed that his legacy "can only be called Siksa," since history will show how his Siksa transformed the world? Unfortunately for all of us, he is not physically present and so is no longer giving diksa to anyone. Instead he has taken the usual measure of authorizing his disciples to initiate in the parampara. There is no definite evidence available that Srila Prabhupada ever gave instructions to contravene the age-old tradition of parampara. In accordance with the ancient tradition, the devotees currently serving as the representatives of the founder-acarya in giving diksa are personally responsible for their disciples and have a special spiritual relationship with them.

When someone first contacts ISKCON, at least in most parts of the organization, for a few months he is encouraged to directly accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru. We suggest that once someone has done this, as evidenced by accepting Srila Prabhupada in his heart as his spiritual master and following Srila Prabhupada's instructions, the newcomer does not need to search for another Vaisnava to connect him with Srila Prabhupada. (p. 9)

This amounts to saying that newcomers to ISKCON do not need to take diksa, or else that Srila Prabhupada is their diksa-guru. One who is wary about accepting any current ISKCON guru is still preliminarily connected to Srila Prabhupada by whatever faith he has developed and by how well he can follow Prabhupada's instructions. If he wants, however, to become a full member of the sampradaya he needs to take diksa. Some may elect to avoid diksa; still, we should encourage newcomers to do what Srila RŸpa Gosvami asked them to do. It is certainly appropriate for new bhaktas to worship Srila Prabhupada as their guru, since he is certainly their guru, and they should continue to worship him. But why should that mean they are never going to take diksa from one of his representatives?

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. (p. 10)

Is "the Vaisnava conducting the initiation ceremony" the initiate's guru or not? If so, then why not let him be called guru? If not, then the intended idea is that Srila Prabhupada must be the new disciple's one and only guru, because anyone else standing between the Prabhupada and the disciple would degrade the connection. The actual principle of paramapara works in just the opposite way: The more a devotee becomes servant of the servant of the servant, the more likely it is that the parampara and Krsna will recognize him. In the Adi Purana there is the following statement by Lord Krsna Himself, addressed to Arjuna: "My dear Partha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee."

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•ana, 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 acknowledgement that the devotee has directly connected with Srila Prabhupada. (p. 10)

Granted, without accepting Srila Prabhupada as one's guru, there is no meaning to thinking oneself a devotee in ISKCON. Diksa, however, is not only a formality of acknowledging one's already established connection with Srila Prabhupada. It is an act of obeying Srila Prabhupada and his predecessors by reposing one's faith in one of his representatives. We show the extent of our trust in Srila Prabhupada and his ability to empower others by entrusting ourselves to his disciples.

Srila Prabhupada's followers who assist him in helping to connect a devotee directly to him, are not the point of unconditional surrender. (p. 17)

When a devotee surrenders himself to any guru, that surrender is not "unconditional." There are conditions, namely that the guru should be bona fide (literally, "in good faith"), a faithful representative of the sampradaya. It is not because of a guru's own absolute status, because of his mystic powers, erudition, good looks or sweet voice, that one should surrender and become his disciple. The main qualification of a guru is his surrender to his guru and to the parampara. In that sense, surrender does have its conditions. The main strength of ISKCON is Srila Prabhupada's power to attract faith. That power, however, comes from Krsna through the parampara [AT3], and is still active even in Srila Prabhupada's physical absence. Those who could not take initiation directly from Prabhupada can still become fortunate if they meet someone empowered by Prabhupada to carry on the parampara. If there are no such qualified gurus in ISKCON, then ISKCON is finished or will have to be dormant for some time, and declaring Srila Prabhupada to be everyone's initiator will not change the situation. On the other hand, if there are qualified gurus, the same mercy is available as much as it was in Prabhupada's presence, without having to imagine that Prabhupada is still giving diksa.

Devotional service is not linear in the sense that when we surrender to a guru we are giving ourselves up only to a single "point." Initiation means joining the company of the sampradaya, which includes the founder-acarya, his predecessors and his representatives. The diksa-guru is not the only point of surrender, but he is the closest point with whom his disciple makes immediate contact, at least as far as the diksa process goes. Even if connection with that point is disrupted, however, a devotee's connection with his Siksa-gurus can still easily save him. In some cases a disciple may receive little instruction from his diksa-guru and have more faith in a Siksa-guru, but as long as the diksa-guru is a faithful Vaisnava his disciple should always show him respect.

Éfor all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement the worship of Srila Prabhupada is sufficient. No one else needs to be worshiped as the link to the parampara, because Srila Prabhupada completely fills this role, though of course he accepts assistance from his followers. (p. 19)

Is it actually sufficient, or more to the point, is the Supreme Lord satisfied, by ISKCON devotees who worship Srila Prabhupada but do not want to worship their diksa-gurus? To answer this we first have to decide what we mean by worship. Does worship mean acknowledging that one's guru is some sort of guru, not just an ordinary person, or the extreme fanaticism of being ready to reject Prabhupada and Krsna in the name of following the so-called guru, or something in between? Starting at one end of the scale, it is clear from Krsna's instructions to Uddhava that He is not pleased by neglect of one's guru:

acaryaˆ maˆ vijaniyan

navamanyeta karhicit

na martya-budhyasŸyeta

sarva-deva-mayo guru�

"One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods." (Bhagavatam 11.17.27)

Krsna here tells Uddhava unequivocally that considering one's acarya an ordinary person, imperfect like everyone else, means to envy him (asŸyeta), and He registers His disapproval of such an attitude. But who is an acarya? Many are of the opinion that Srila Prabhupada is our only acarya in ISKCON. Isn't it disrespectful to Prabhupada, they ask, to equate with him his disciples who are merely "performing the initiation ceremony"? Indeed, in the current atmosphere of ISKCON it is taboo to give the title acarya to anyone else but Srila Prabhupada, even though he specified that he be designated the founder-acarya., a particular kind of acarya, implying that there may also be other acaryas in his institution. In any case, here is the opinion on this question of one of our previous acaryas, Srila Jiva Gosvami:

ata� Sri-mantra-guror avaSyakatvaˆ sutaram eva. tad etat paramartha-gurv-aSrayo vyavaharika-gurv-adi-parityagenapi kartavya ity aSayenaha,

gurur na sa syat sva-jano na sa syat

pita na sa syaj janani na sa syat

daivaˆ na tat syan na patiS ca sa syan

na mocayed ya� samupeta-mrtyum

samupeta� samprapto mrtyuù saàsaro yena tam, ata uktaà Sri-naradena, "jugupsitaà dharma-krte 'nuSasataù/ svabhava-raktasya mahan vyatikramaù' ity-adi. tasmat tavad eva tesaà gurv-adi-vyavaharo yavan mrtyu-mocakaà Sri-guru-caranaà naSrayata ity arthaù. Sri-rsabha-devaù sva-putran.

"Thus the mantra-guru is all the more so required. One must take shelter of a transcendental guru even if it means rejecting a worldly guru or other authorities; with that idea in mind it is said: "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod.' (Bhag. 5.5.18) By whose help imminent death (material existence) [is avoided]. Thus Sri Narada makes such statements as "The people in general are naturally inclined to enjoy, and you have encouraged them in that way in the name of religion. This is verily condemned and is quite unreasonable. Because they are guided under your instructions, they will accept such activities in the name of religion and will hardly care for prohibitions.' (Bhag. 1.5.15) In other words, therefore one should treat such persons as gurus and so on only until one can take shelter at the feet of a divine spiritual master who can deliver one from death. The verse under discussion was spoken by Sri Rsabhadeva to his sons.

anyada sva-gurau karmibhir api bhagavad-drsši� kartavyety aha,

acaryaˆ maˆ vijaniyan

navamanyeta karhicit

na martya-buddhyasŸyeta

sarva-deva-mayo guru�

brahmacari-dharmanta�-pašhitam idam. Sri-bhagavan.

"In other circumstances even karmis should see their spiritual master as God, as is stated: "One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.' (Bhag. 11.17.27) This statement is included in the description of a brahmacari's duties. It was spoken by the Personality of Godhead." (Bhakti-sandarbha 210-11)

In other words, Srila Jiva Gosvami here asserts that to enter the pure devotional service of Krsna one first needs to accept initiation from a bona fide guru in the line of pure devotion. If one was previously initiated by a "worldly guru" into something other than pure krsna-bhakti, one should find a proper Vaisnava guru instead. But note that in the second section cited here, Srila Jiva says that karmis who have not found a pure Vaisnava guru should continue to honor their worldly gurus, and cites the same verse acaryaˆ maˆ vijaniyat. Even a materialistic initiator into an impure method of worship is to be considered and respected as acarya and never neglected and disrespected. What then of an initiator who is a proper Vaisnava in the line of pure devotion? Can a devotee expect to satisfy Krsna by considering his guru an ordinary person and refusing to even let him be called guru?

Moving toward the other end of the spectrum of worship, we reach a point where it becomes debatable how much and what kind of worship is suitable. This is not an easy controversy to settle, and cannot be safely solved by legislating a simplistic norm. But to begin the solution, we have to distinguish between public and private pŸja, and between pŸja and bhajana, and measure in each separately the appropriateness of various kinds of guru worship. The worship done in an ISKCON temple is in public view and should reflect the authorized position of the institution. A devotee's Deity worship in his own home is another matter, and how a mature devotee worships in his heart is yet another.

Some devotees may choose to worship a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, such as the Vaisnava who performed the initiation ceremony, as the link to Srila Prabhupada, or in some other philosophical capacity. The PL framework does not directly address this, though it does contend that any member of Srila Prabhupada's movement who accepts Srila Prabhupada as the guru to be worshiped as the current link to the parampara must be permitted to do so. (p. 19)

Given what we have discussed above, it is not advisable to recommend to devotees that they ignore their diksa-gurus, unless the gurus were never proper Vaisnavas or else have seriously deviated from Vaisnava principles. Some ISKCON devotees may repose most of their faith only in Srila Prabhupada and little faith in their initiating gurus; still, to satisfy the parampara and Krsna, the prescribed etiquette should be maintained. The Pa•caratrika methods of Deity worship prescribe that worship be offered with authorized mantras, and every item offered should first be offered to the guru who gave the worshiper his mantras. The etiquette in formal worship is that the disciple offers an item to his guru, the guru then gives the offering to his guru, and so on until the offering reaches the Lord Himself. Because the guru is a dear devotee of the Lord, the Lord does not refuse the offerings of imperfect disciples. Since this is the formal pa•caratrika method, the guru who is given the offering first is normally the pa•caratrika diksa-guru. There may be exceptions; the guru-parampara given to us by Srila Prabhupada for worship in ISKCON, for example, includes Bhaktivinoda …hakura's Siksa-guru, Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, rather than his diksa-guru. Nonetheless, offering pŸja first to one's diksa-guru is the norm practiced in all Vaisnava sampradayas. Whatever may have been the actual relationship between Srila Bhaktivinoda and his diksa-guru (and we hear different stories about this from different sources), it is known that Srila Bhaktivinoda never behaved disrespectfully toward him.

Many great Vaisnavas are not formally worshipped. Consider the case of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, the speaker of the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Undoubtedly he is our guru. Clearly he is situated at the topmost platform of devotional service. We honor, glorify and revere him, though we don't formally worship him. For example, we don't recite his pranam mantras when we enter the temple room and his picture is not on the ISKCON altars. Are we minimizing the great saint Srila Sukadeva Gosvami? No, because Srila Prabhupada instructed how to properly honor Srila Sukadeva Gosvami according to our particular circumstance, and this does not include formal worship as described above. Similarly, to not formally worship the devotee who performs the initiating ceremony is not an inherent minimization of that devotee. The Prominent Link (PL) model contends that worship of Srila Prabhupada as the direct connection to the disciplic succession, without worship of anyone else as the link to Srila Prabhupada, should be accepted as a valid practice in Srila Prabhupada's movement, though the PL model does not maintain that worship of others as the connection to Srila Prabhupada should be prohibited in the movement. (p. 22)

Sukadeva Gosvami is honored as guruˆ muninam, the spiritual master of the great sages. When he spoke to Pariksit, Sukadeva's own guru Vyasadeva and parama-guru Narada were happy to sit in the audience and listen. It is commendable that ISKCON devotees sometimes worship Sukadeva Gosvami in their personal chanting and meditation. But we do not make formal offerings to Sukadeva in our regular pŸja because he is not in the line of initiators of the Brahma-Madhva-Gau˜iya sampradaya. The diksa-guru of a properly initiated devotee in ISKCON, however, is the immediate link in the diksa-parampara for his disciple. If the disciple wants to participate in the devotional method of arcanam, which in our line is practiced according to pa•caratrika principles, he should offer at least a minimum of worship to his diksa-guru. In his heart he may spend day and night worshiping Srila Prabhupada, and he may spend hours every day reading Prabhupada's books and speaking his glories, but still there are standards he should follow in showing appropriate respect, including worship to his diksa-guru.

Even if one conceives of the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony to be in the absolute position and the current link to the parampara, that devotee could legitimately instruct the initiate to worship Srila Prabhupada rather than himself. For the sake of unity of the movement it would seem that such directives from devotees who perform initiations would be warranted. Many observers have commented that overemphasis by the initiate on the Vaisnava performing the initiation ceremony, in terms of worship, celebration of Vyasa-pŸja, and other practices, at the expense of an appreciation of Srila Prabhupada's proper place in the life of the initiate, has caused the movement to degrade to a matha mentality. (p. 23)

Fanatical guru worship does degrade ISKCON. It did in the past, when the Mayapura temple room was encumbered by eleven extra vyasasanas during the Gaura-pŸrnima festivals. It continues to do so in defiance of ISKCON law in some places, including established ISKCON temples. But is it an act of fanaticism to have a picture of the püjari's diksa-guru temporarily on the altar, or to observe the diksa-gurus' Vyasa-pŸja once a year? Does it have to be a question of worshiping either Prabhupada or the diksa-guru, or can both be accommodated fairly? In a healthy guru-disciple relationship in ISKCON, the representative of Prabhupada (diksa- or Siksa-guru) would constantly direct the disciple in serving Prabhupada's instructions and his mission. In exchange for this, the disciple would naturally feel gratitude and want to express it. So the useful questions to ask are: How much is this healthy norm established in ISKCON? Where it isn'tÑwhy? And how to rectify the situation? On careful examination of what is actually going on in ISKCON we find the situation neither all black nor all white. However, we do not believe that the cause of all our problems is that disciples worship their diksa-gurus.

However, even if someone doesn't view Srila Prabhupada as the current link, whomever is regarded as the link can instruct the initiates to worship the same altar that Srila Prabhupada gave us, to recite only Srila Prabhupada's pranam mantras, and to celebrate Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-pŸja ceremony as the primary Vyasa-pŸja ceremony.

By retaining the worship practices Srila Prabhupada established, no one in Srila Prabhupada's movement will ever experience that the Vaisnava perceived and worshipped as the current link to the parampara will experience difficulties in spiritual life. (p. 24)

Although elsewhere the author claims his model is not meant to be adopted as the only allowable viewpoint in ISKCON, here he definitely implies that if a guru does not forbid his disciples to worship himself, he is deviant. It is proposed that no pictures of any guru after Prabhupada should be on ISKCON altars, and that disciples should not recite pranama-mantras for their diksa-gurus. These proposals, as already discussed, are against the principles of pa•caratrika worship and the practice of Vaisnavas and others in all sampradayas. There is merit in the suggestion that the most important observance of Vyasa-pŸja should be for the founder-acarya, Srila Prabhupada, yet this does not mean that disciples should refrain from celebrating their diksa-gurus' appearance days.

It is impractical to propose that retaining the external appearance of worship as it was in Srila Prabhupada's presence will prevent the tragedy of guru falldown in ISKCON. Naturally and unavoidably, new devotees will tend to place their trust in those who personally guide them and if the guides deviate, their followers will suffer. Artificially elevating Srila Prabhupada to the imaginary status of perpetual diksa-guru is no substitute for fulfilling the actual need of his representatives to become pure in Krsna consciousness.

Using qualifying terms, such as "preeminent Siksa guru", to describe Srila Prabhupada's standing in his movement and the role he plays in the life of the members of his movement, distracts from Srila Prabhupada's status as "the spiritual master", the guru who is referred to when we refer to the singular spiritual master. (p. 26)

If there can only be one guru in ISKCON, and he cannot be categorized as guru in any specific sense, then yes, we should choose Srila Prabhupada. And, accepting this premise, we should furthermore correct his title to just acarya, instead of founder-acarya since this would clarify that no others could ever be called an acarya. However, the premise that ISKCON can only have one guru is incorrect. Rather, Prabhupada is the first among many gurus, which is one meaning of the epithet prabhu-pada. He is pre-eminent, and he is Siksa-guru for everyone who wants to hear from and follow him. The fact that he can empower his disciples to also be gurus only adds to his glories.

In 1999, just after the GBC passed a resolution designating Srila Prabhupada with terms such as "the preeminent Siksa guru for every member of the institution" and "the preeminent and compulsory Siksa-guru", the GBC body was discussing aspects of worship. The idea that Srila Prabhupada would be the sole object of worship in ISKCON was mentioned and discussed. A prominent GBC who conducts initiation ceremonies emphatically declared "But disciples must be able to worship their guru! They have to be allowed to worship their guru!" Clear from his statement was that, despite the resolutions from moments before that all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement must place their faith, trust and allegiance first and foremost in Srila Prabhupada, who is the preeminent Siksa guru for every member of the institution, the conception that continued to be maintained by this GBC, and most of the leaders present, was that the real guru, notwithstanding whatever official glorification may be afforded to Srila Prabhupada in resolutions, is the Vaisnava who performs the formal initiation ceremony. 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. (p. 27)

Srila Prabhupada, his disciples who give initiation, and his many followers who give valuable instruction are all real gurus. Srila Prabhupada is the founding acarya of ISKCON, the original light from which all other lights in ISKCON are lit, and of course he is the representative of the Gau˜iya sampradaya going back to Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Advising disciples to worship their diksa-gurus does not diminish Srila Prabhupada's position but only glorifies it more, as long as the diksa-gurus represent Prabhupada faithfully and direct their disciples to his teachings.

Srila Prabhupada continues to accept disciples who sincerely dedicate their lives to following his instructions and who willingly receive the transcendental knowledge that he imparts. Accepting these disciples means that Srila Prabhupada takes responsibility to guide these souls back to Godhead. (p. 30)

The only way to make this statement compatible to actual Gau˜iya Vaisnava siddhanta is to say that Srila Prabhupada is accepting as grand-disciples or Siksa disciples the devotees who take initiation from ISKCON gurus following in his line. Thus this statement is a thinly veiled declaration of the rtvik doctrine, which declares Srila Prabhupada to be the current diksa-guru of ISKCON.

Suppose a book distributer gives a book to someone. When that person visits the temple the book distributor, if he is in proper consciousness, will naturally be eager to serve the advancement of the newcomer in any way he can. Years later, when the former newcomer is now initiated and situated in service within Srila Prabhupada's movement, and has accepted guidance from any devotee mentors, the book distributor continues to be actively concerned about the progress of the devotee to whom he distributed a book. A similar mentality should exist in the temple president, the senior congregation member preached to the newcomer at the Sunday Feast, and the Vaisnava selected by the new initiate to conduct the initiation ceremony. (p. 31)

This explanation equates the role of the diksa-guru with that of any preacher. In other words, it denies that diksa is anything at all separate from Siksa. Yet according to Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas, diksa is a separate, special function.. It involves the acceptance of vows, the giving of mantras and the taking of special, personal responsibility that deserves special reciprocation from its recipients.

For followers of Srila Prabhupada, for the duration of his movement, there is profound security in knowing that the mahabhagavata A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, a spiritual master at the topmost stage of Krsna conscious realization, is taking responsibility for their spiritual life, though this does not nullify the individual responsibility for one's advancement in Krsna consciousness. With this understanding of Srila Prabhupada's absolute position and the relative position of other members of his movement, there will be less disturbance caused, on an individual and institutional level, when devotees who serve as guides and mentors have difficulty. (p. 33)

Here it is proposed that in ISKCON Srila Prabhupada's position is absolute and everyone else's position is relative. But this is not exactly what our acaryas teach us. Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja says, ekale iSvara krsna, ara saba bhrtya: "Lord Krsna alone is the supreme controller, and all others are His servants." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi 5.142) Only the Supreme Lord is absolute. Srila Prabhupada's position as the founder-acarya of ISKCON is based on his empowerment by his predecessor acaryas. The position of an empowered representative of Srila Prabhupada is understood in the same way, even if the empowered disciple is nowhere near equal to Prabhupada. The diksa-guru takes responsibility, and Prabhupada and his predecessors kindly share that responsibility.

In another scenario, devotee A mentors devotee B, and devotee B receives formal initiation from devotee A. Devotee B is truly dependent on devotee A for his spiritual life. Devotee B does not have much direct understanding of Srila Prabhupada's instructions. His knowledge about Krsna consciousness and Srila Prabhupada is almost entirely through devotee A.

Devotee A in the above scenario has brought devotee B to Krsna consciousness and is serving as his main spiritual master. From the viewpoint of the PL model, devotee B is not yet initiated in the essential, transcendental sense. He has not properly connected with the current link to the parampara, because he is not receiving most of his direct divya-j•ana from Srila Prabhupada. (p. 35)

Look at the situation of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. They are grand disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, but received their basic understanding of Krsna consciousness from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada wanted it to be this way, and he wanted himself to be the Siksa-guru directly teaching future generations of ISKCON. Thus Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has not been a directly accessible Siksa-guru for most of us.

But in the special case The Prominent Link presents above, devotee B apparently cannot understand Srila Prabhupada directly, and gets his teachings indirectly through devotee A. When despite Srila Prabhupada's efforts to make his teachings universally understandable such a case arises, the potency of the parampara can nonetheless convey itself fully intact. Srila Prabhupada should be able to empower devotee A to pass on his teachings in devotee A's own words. So why can't devotee B be properly connected with the parampara and its links, current and past? He can receive the knowledge he needs, if not directly from Prabhupada, then indirectly from Prabhupada's representative.

Sri Krsna and Srila Prabhupada could arrange for another Vaisnava to assume the role of the current and direct link at some time. What is clear is that Srila Prabhupada is doing this at present, and there is no need for others to aspire for this role. (p. 38)

This makes sense if we understand "current and direct link" to mean the universal, permanent Siksa-guru of ISKCON. Just as our Srila Prabhupada is what his Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada was for the Gau˜iya Mašha, and Srila Jiva Gosvami Prabhupada was for his generation, so theoretically someone else might become the Prabhupada of a distant future. There is certainly no need, however, for anyone to aspire for that role yet within ISKCON.

This paper describes devotees who genuinely experience Srila Prabhupada as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara, by dint of Srila Prabhupada being the primary Vaisnava who gives direct transcendental knowledge. Of course this can be misused by someone claiming "I'm directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, so I don't listen to anything anyone else says," and as an excuse for arrogance. If someone is actually connected with Srila Prabhupada then he won't exhibit such behavior. (p. 45)

Fanaticism tends to be endemic among neophytes in any religious tradition and can be focused on any authority, not just Srila Prabhupada. There are plenty of young devotees who take pride in their relationship with their guru and will not listen to what other Vaisnavas say. Perhaps the problem is not only neglect of Prabhupada, but also neglect of Vaisnavas in general in the name of guru worship. How does declaring Srila Prabhupada the prominent link solve this problem? By reducing the possible objects of fanaticism to just one? The proposition "If someone is actually connected with Srila Prabhupada then he won't exhibit such behavior" is logically troublesome. It implies that someone who exhibits fanaticism has no real connection with Srila Prabhupada, which isn't true. A devotee may be sincerely trying to dedicate his life to Prabhupada's service, which must mean that he has some real spiritual connection with Prabhupada, but at the same time he may still be immature. It's possible to be connected to Prabhupada but fanatic, or not properly connected to Prabhupada and fanatic. Thus there is no causal relationship between being connected and avoiding fanaticism.

We present this model as a valid way to conceive of Srila Prabhupada's position. Though we don't contend that it is the only legitimate view of Srila Prabhupada, we request that the ideas and proposals described herein be accepted and implemented. This does not necessarily mean supplanting other systems and conceptualizations, though it does mean that this model be allowed to at least coexist with other methods and systems for conceiving of and implementing the continuation of the parampara. (p. 51)

As members of the Gau˜iya sampradaya, we have to represent the sampradaya's siddhanta, and so cannot endorse the erroneous opinion that Srila Prabhupada is the one current initiating guru of ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada himself did not favor the kind of philosophical pluralism The Prominent Link promotes. The Vaisnava sampradaya is not meant to be a forum for alternative systems of belief, but rather the institution for preserving the unchanging philosophy of the sampradaya's founder, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There is, however, much room for individual variety in relationships. Historically, there has been a great deal of such individual expression in our sampradaya, going back to the original associates of Lord Caitanya. A devotee's choice of spiritual guides is a matter of the heart, and should never be forced by legislation or intimidation. If such force and intimidation does exist somewhere in today's ISKCON, it needs to be identified and corrected. The author of PL has made a sincere attempt to address such problems, but unfortunately he has proposed a philosophically unsound solution.

Conclusion

In 2001 Dhira Govinda Prabhu asked the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON to consider the proposals that he made in his booklet Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. At its Mayapur 2002 meeting, the Governing Body Commission issued a preliminary statement and then delegated the Sastric Advisory Council (SAC) to carefully evaluate the booklet and proposals in light of guru, sadhu and Sastra. Although we SAC members were aware of the negative preliminary statement by the GBC, we were not bound by it. Our mandate was to search not only for any possible defects in the PL presentation but also for any good points. Over the past year, the SAC members devoted hundreds of hours to fulfilling their obligation to consider Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, with due Vaisnava respect for both the work and its author. To this end, the author was made a party to SAC's deliberations for several weeks, and had a chance to extensively discuss his views with the SAC members.

All of the SAC members have a history of friendly relations with the author and all share a deep appreciation for his many contributions to our Society. We share many of his concerns about the guru question in ISKCON. In the introduction to this paper, we have mentioned some of the valid points in PL. But after much careful study, we concluded that the author's presentation of Srila Prabhupada's relationship to ISKCON members who took initiation after his physical departure significantly contradicts the understandings given to us by Srila Prabhupada and his predecessor acaryas.

A surface reading of PL suggests that the author is just saying "let's put Srila Prabhupada in the center," which is, of course, something everyone in ISKCON will support. He talks about Srila Prabhupada being the prominent link to the parampara. And that again is something few will disagree with. Perhaps this is why some ISKCON members have wondered, "Why the commotion? Why are they harassing Dhira Govinda? All he is saying is that Prabhupada is everyone's topmost guru, and the other gurus should adopt a lower profile." If that were all he was saying, then, of course, few would object. After all, that is the meaning of the title PrabhupadaÑamong all prabhus or masters (including spiritual masters), he is supreme, and these other masters, especially in his Society, exhibit their subordination to him by remaining at his feet.

Unfortunately, that is not all that the author is saying. This fact may not be apparent, however, to those who do not read PL carefully. In our deliberations, we found that because the author consciously avoided using the standard Siksa- and diksa-guru terminology, a terminology given to us by Srila Prabhupada and the previous acaryas, it was difficult to understand the full implications of his statements in PL. For example, by identifying Srila Prabhupada as a "link" and today's diksa-gurus as "the Vaisnava who performs the formal initiation ceremony," it was not easy to see exactly what he was saying in terms of the traditional Vaisnava understanding of actual guru-disciple relationships.

Many questions arose. But here is the main one. According to PL, are the devotees who are now conducting initiation ceremonies the diksa-gurus of their disciples or not? Is Srila Prabhupada the one diksa-guru of those receiving their initiation ceremonies today or not? It took much questioning of the author to get a clear understanding of his intended meaning.

Dhira Govinda Prabhu himself is in the position of having received his initiations after Srila Prabhupada's departure. When asked by a SAC member to identify his one diksa-guru, Dhira Govinda Prabhu said that if he were to answer according to the PL understanding, he would have to say that Srila Prabhupada was his one diksa-guru. We assume the same would be true for all ISKCON members who received initiation after Prabhupada's departure and who agree with the PL position.

Nowhere, however, is this conclusion prominently and clearly stated in PL. Occasionally, this implicit conclusion does come close to being stated explicitly. It is there in statements such as, "Srila Prabhupada continues to accept disciples who sincerely dedicate their lives to following his instructions and who willingly receive the transcendental knowledge that he imparts." (PL, p. 30)

This conclusion can also be found in the practical proposal that Dhira Govinda Prabhu sent to the GBC in advance of its 2002 Mayapur meeting, wherein he suggests the GBC should endorse the statement that "it is legitimate to consider that Srila Prabhupada is initiating devotees who genuinely, directly connect with him by serving his vani and accepting that vani as the guiding force of their life. This understanding is applicable regardless of who conducted the formal initiation ceremony for the devotee."

So members of ISKCON should ask themselves, "Do I agree with the PL understanding that Srila Prabhupada is the one diksa-guru for all members of ISKCON, including those who took initiation after his departure?" If any ISKCON devotees do agree with that statement, then they have to seriously consider why Srila Prabhupada himself did not promote this understanding. They have to seriously consider why Srila Prabhupada established another system, whereby his disciples would give harinama- and gayatri mantra-diksa.

For the reasons given in the body of this paper, SAC does not agree with the PL understanding that Srila Prabhupada is the one diksa-guru for all members of ISKCON, including those who took initiation after his departure.

If the conclusion of PL is indeed wrong, it is possible that the method of arriving at the conclusion was also wrong. In his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam (1.4.1), Srila Prabhupada gives some guidelines for one presenting conclusions to the society of devotees according to one's realization: "The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it." In attempting to explain diksa, PL fails this test. In his presentation, the PL author fails to maintain Srila Prabhupada's original intention, stated in the texts of his books, lectures, conversations and letters, that his disciples would one day become diksa-gurus, initiating spiritual masters. Instead, he manufactures another system from his interpretations of some statements Srila Prabhupada made about divya-j•ana and diksa.

The author of PL concludes that the essence of initiation (diksa) is the transmission of transcendental knowledge (divya-j•ana). Although the transmission of transcendental knowledge is connected with diksa, it is not its defining characteristic, as this would eliminate the distinction between Siksa and diksa. Srila Prabhupada had another idea. This is readily apparent when we look at how Srila Prabhupada himself discusses divya-j•ana and initiation, in the context of an actual initiation ceremony (Auckland, February 22, 1973):

Prabhupada: Formal initiation means to accept, officially, to abide by the orders of Krsna and His representative. That is formal initiation. Officially accept, "Yes, sir, I shall accept. I shall do whatever you say." This is initiation, official acceptance of the job. That's all. Now, you formally accept, and if you do not do the duties, then where is the question of other function? There is no question. Initiation means this is the beginning of accepting the orders of Krsna and His representative to carry out. This is the beginning. That is initiation. Just like if you enter in an office establishment, so you accept the terms of service. That is initiation. Then you go on serving, you become promoted, you get salary increase. You become recognized. You become officer. You become big officer, like that. That very word initiation suggests, "This is the beginning." Diksa, diksa. Di... divya. 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, diksa, the combination. So diksa means the initiation to begin transcendental activities. That is called initiation. Therefore we take promise from the disciple that "You chant so many times," "Yes, sir." "You observe these rules and regulations," "Yes, sir." That is initiation. He has to observe; he has to chant. Then everything comes automatically. In the beginning he is faulty; then how he can make progress?"

In terms of practical understandings spoken in connection with the practices he established, Srila Prabhupada indicated that the formal agreement between guru and disciple ratified by the initiation ceremony is the substance of diksa. By this formal acceptance one is linked to the disciplic succession, one becomes qualified to get the full benefit of chanting the holy name, one becomes qualified to receive the full benefit of divya-j•ana, one gets a second birth, one is freed from previous sinful reactions, and one is accepted as a bona fide servant of Krsna. In short, connecting the disciple properly with the disciplic succession is the distinguishing characteristic of diksa and the diksa-guru.

In his purport to Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 1.47):Srila Prabhupada gives the correct understanding of the diksa function as distinct from the Siksa function: "Srila Sanatana Gosvami is the ideal spiritual master [diksa-guru], for he delivers one the shelter of the lotus feet of Madana-mohana. . . Sri Govindaji acts exactly like the Siksa-guru [instructing spiritual master] by teaching Arjuna the Bhagavad-gita. He is the original preceptor, for He gives us instructions and an opportunity to serve Him. The initiating spiritual master is a personal manifestation of Srila Madana-mohana vigraha, whereas the instructing spiritual master is a personal representative of Srila Govindadeva vigraha. Both of these Deities are worshiped at Vrndavana. Srila Gopinatha is the ultimate attraction in spiritual realization."

Thus after one has through some initial faith attained the association of devotees, the next important step in devotional life is to formally accept the shelter of Krsna. This happens in our Society at the time of harinama-diksa. And the guru who gives us that formal shelter is the diksa-guru. The diksa-guru is here defined not as the one who over time gives us a certain quantity or quality of transcendental knowledge relative to others, but as the one who on behalf of Krsna grants us His shelter, thus establishing our actual connection with Krsna, with His service, and with the disciplic succession. Once this connection has been established the disciple can properly receive and benefit from the transmission of instructions, i.e. transcendental knowledge (Siksa), about how to function as a servant of Krsna.

If we subtract the incorrect doctrine that Srila Prabhupada is still giving diksa today, what is left in PL? The other principal point is the recommendation that no one except Srila Prabhupada should receive any formal worship or respect as guru.

Of course, this recommendation contradicts the many statements in Srila Prabhupada's books that a disciple should offer worship to his gurus. Some will say that those statements do not necessarily apply to Prabhupada's disciples who are functioning as gurus. But Srila Prabhupada never said that his disciples should not accept any worship when the time would come for them to become gurus. In fact, he gave indications that he did expect that they would receive formal worship. The topic comes up in the following exchange between Mr. Malhotra and Srila Prabhupada (Room Conversation, December 22, 1976):

Prabhupada: These, my disciples they are part and parcel of me. Whole mission is going on with their cooperation. But if he says that I am equal to my Guru Maharaja, then that is offense. . . . They will never say that they have become equal to me. "I have advanced to be my guru." Never say. Just like this boy, he is offering obeisances. He may be expert in preaching more than me, but he knows that "I am subordinate." Otherwise how he shall offer obeisances? He can think, "Oh, now I am so learned. I am so advanced. Why shall I accept him as superior?" No. That continues. Even after my death, after my disappearance, he will offer obeisances to my picture.

Mr. Malhotra: But amongst his disciples he will be worshiped...

Prabhupada: That's all right, but he remains a disciple of his guru. He will never say that "Now I have become guru, so I don't care for my guru." He will never say. Just like I am doing, but I am worshiping my guru still. So I remain subordinate to my guru, always. Even though I have become guru, still I am subordinate to my guru.

This is just one instance indicating that Srila Prabhupada expected that his disciples would someday become gurus and receive worship from their disciples. But he also expected that all of these gurus would continue to remain subordinate to him. It is up to the GBC to decide what levels of worship will maintain the two things that Prabhupada expected: (1) that gurus would accept worship from their disciples and (2) that simultaneously they would continue to worship him in such a way that their subordination to him would be clear to both them and their disciples. If there is some further adjustment required in today's ISKCON practices, the GBC should give attention to that. But the adjustment cannot be that today's gurus should accept no worship from their disciples, as doing this would violate Srila Prabhupada's expectation.

Once we have subtracted from PL not only the incorrect idea that Srila Prabhupada should be the one diksa-guru for all members of ISKCON but also the idea that no one except Prabhupada should receive any worship or public recognition as guru, are there any further points remaining?

What remains is an appeal to the desires of devotees who wish to feel that somehow or other Srila Prabhupada is their guru, and that they have some connection with him. Is it acceptable for a devotee not initiated by Prabhupada to feel that Prabhupada is his or her guru? The answer is yes; by disciplic connection such disciples do have a real connection with Srila Prabhupada. The GBC has already recognized this fact. Srila Prabhupada himself characterized his relationship with such devotees by saying they are his grand-disciples. To be a grand-disciple of Srila Prabhupada is no less a position than being a direct disciple. It is said that a grandfather is always more merciful to his grandson than a father is to his son. Grand-disciples have just as much opportunity to receive the instructions, mercy, and love of Srila Prabhupada as any of his directly initiated disciples. But they also have an obligation to assist Srila Prabhupada in propagating the disciplic succession by accepting diksa-gurus in the line coming from Srila Prabhupada and giving proper respect to those gurus in harmony with the principles established in the Society he created.

In short, we conclude that:

(1) The proposal in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link that Srila Prabhupada is the one diksa-guru for all members of ISKCON, including those who underwent initiation ceremonies after his departure, is incorrect because (a) it is based on an incomplete definition of diksa, (b) it confuses the distinct functions of diksa- and Siksa-gurus, and (c) it contradicts the expressed intention of Srila Prabhupada who, following Vedic tradition, generally expected that his disciples would in turn become initiating (diksa) gurus.

(2) The proposal in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link that no one except Srila Prabhupada receive worship as guru is incorrect because it (a) goes against directions given by Lord Caitanya's prominent followers such as Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Bhakti-sandarbha and (b) contradicts Srila Prabhupada's expectation that his disciples would accept appropriate worship when it became time for them to become gurus.

(3) It is legitimate for a disciple of a current ISKCON guru to also feel that he or she is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, but only if this feeling is expressed in such a way that does not confuse the function of diksa- and Siksa-gurus.

Finally, we hope that that Dhira Govinda Prabhu will consider the points we have made herein.

SAC Members: Drutakarma Dasa, Gopiparanadhana Dasa, Krsna Ksetra Dasa, Mukunda Datta Dasa, Pürnacandra Dasa and Urmila Devi Dasi.