Alex J

Hello all, I hope you're all doing well. I wanted to share something with you all. I'm sharing it in this thread, because this is the last thread that I posted in on this forum, and also because I think it ties in to some of the topics in the thread. A while back I read the following excerpt from a post that Jagadananda wrote on the Audarya Fellowship forum, and found it interesting: ----------------------------- After carefully going through Brahmana o Vaishnava (the text of the speech Siddhanta Saraswati gave in Balighai, Medinipur in 1911), I believe that the cornerstone of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's reform consisted in devaluating Pancharatrika initiation in favour of a new concept, that of Bhagavati diksha. He explains Bhagavati diksha in Brahmana o Vaishnava as being equivalent to the instruction Hari Das Thakur to the prostitute, where Hari Das says that he has taken diksha (Prabhupada translates "vow") in the sacrifice of the Holy Name, i.e., of chanting a crore of names in a month). I assume that since there is little to support Saraswati's ever taking Pancharatrika diksha from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, and it also seems that the timing is right (Saraswati took initiation from GKDB in 1901 and started his billion name vow not long thereafter), that this is how Saraswati understood Bhagavati initiation. Saraswati may have meant more than simply Hari Nam initiation, as the expression "bhajana siksha" is also bandied about, but he also argues that mantra-initiation is not particularly important since archana as a devotional process is secondary to chanting the Holy Name, to which end he quotes the relevant Bhagavata- sandarbha section on the necessity of being initiated to engage in archana. Furthermore, the Bhagavata parampara does not seem to need a direct physical connection with the preceding acharya, so it is not altogether out of the question that Saraswati intended (or would have approved) an institution modeled along the lines that you and the Ritviks describe. Even so, since I assume that you would consider puja or archan to be a necessary part of Prabhupada's institution, some kind of Pancharatrika initiation would be necessary for that purpose. Some kind of ritual initiation signifying membership in the institution would also presumably be part of your vision. This has traditionally been one of the functions of the Pancharatrika initiation, so why not connect the two? It seems more logical to identify the connection as being directly with Prabhupada rather than eliminating initiation entirely. --------------------- In addition to the above excerpt, I wanted to share an article that I submitted to the Sun a while back, but which didn't get published. I'm including it at the end of this message. I've shared it with a few friends, and got some nice feedback, so it felt like a waste to not to share it a bit more widely. It's pretty long. At the end of that article, I also ask a question about an excerpt attributed to Srila Prabhupada, which doesn't appear in the Vedabase, as far as I know. I've recently been informed by email that the lecture that the excerpt comes from, or at least a part of that lecture, will appear in the next version of the Vedabase. On the topic of "bhagavati diksa", there's a six-page pdf document, a compilation of forum posts by someone else, that can be downloaded from the following Mediafire link: a post compilation about 'bhagavati diksa'.pdf Some of the quotes in the above-linked pdf document also get quoted in my article, but some of them don't. I came in contact with this pdf only after writing and submitting my article. There's some overlap, but there's some new stuff as well. At least stuff that was new for me, when I first read it. Since writing the article below, I've started slowly reading an English translation of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's "Brahmana o Vaishnava". All the best, Alex ------------ "Bhagavati diksa" BY: ALEX J. Sep XX, OTTAWA, CANADA (SUN) - I want to thank Harakumara and Hasti Gopala for their recent articles. Hasti Gopala's was beautiful in its simplicity. I want to thank Jalakara for "The Sons of the Son: The Breakup of the Gaudiya Matha". I also feel grateful for a number of things that I've read from Mahesh Raja, on the topic of what constitutes actual diksa. I maintain gratitude to Dhira Govinda for his PL writings. And I want to thank George A. Smith, who's recent article inspired me to compile what you're reading now. In George's "Formal Initiation is a Formality" we read: " In response to Rasaprema's conviction that his interpretation of the word 'initiation' as referring to the formal ceremony commonly referred to as dika is the correct one, and that therefore everyone must undergo this formal rite in order to receive spiritual initiation, the Rtviks have responded in agreement, only differing in minor details of how it should be conducted within ISKCON. I have responded differently than the Rtviks, with the counterclaim that what Rasaprema believes to be an 'essential' element of Vaisnava Sadhana that is applicable to all times, places and circumstances is not, and that it is only a mere formality. " Let's say that initiation's a mango. We know from Srila Prabhupada's Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, that... " If we want to purchase a mango from the market, we must at least know what type of food a mango is and what it looks like. " A while back I read a forum thread entitled "Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation". I'll assert that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did receive initiation. But let's also keep in mind that the mango's not the box it comes in. Next is a snippet from that thread. Just reading it makes me curious to learn more about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's book "Brahmana and Vaisnava". " Siddhanta Saraswati himself NEVER claimed to have received initation according the Pancaratra rules from Babaji Maharaj, but a so called Bhagavati diksha, and this is why the so called parampara of the GM have been entitled 'bhagavat parampara'. The matter of fact the corner stone of the 'ritwiks' is Siddhanta Saraswati. " In his 'Brahman o Vaishnava' book, he specifically states that the so called Bhagavata parampara is not dependent on Pancharatrika initiation. Saraswati deliberately separated himself from the Pancharatrika 'mantra businessmen' and started a new 'sampradaya'. " What is interesting, is that subsequent to Saraswati Thakur, in the Gaudiya Math has been introduced the usual type of diksha according Pancaratra. But the Ritvikvadis, for instance, claim that the system of Bhagavati initiation to Srila BV Prabhupada is possible, and that the 'external' act of initiation according Pancaratra would be a mere formality. This was exactly Saraswati Thakur's position. " Pretty juicy, no? The author of the above text, though he may not be a follower of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, does have something of value to offer those of us who are. For our purpose, in the above quoted text ignore the two instances of the words "so called", and take the shutter quotes off the word "sampradaya". Can we move on? Let's move on. Here's an excerpt from a blog post by Jan Brzesinski (Jagadananda, formerly Hiranyagarbha): " There were many reasons that Saraswati Thakur felt incapable of reforming Gaudiya Vaishnavism from within the system, so he broke away. But break away he did, let us make no mistake. I repeat this again for all those in the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon who still try to establish some kind of diksha relationship between the various members of their Parampara system. Saraswati Thakur created a new, Bhagavati parampara, whose basis is not Pancharatrika initiation ." Before we jump to the next quote, let's get some things straight. For our purpose, let's understand the words "diksha relationship" in the text above as referring to a ceremony, or as he writes later on: "Pancharatrika initiation". Remember, the mango's not the box. There may well be a real diksa relationship between the various members of our parampara, and if we're not blinded by the conception of diksa as a ceremony, then we can see that relationship. Getting back to the previously-mentioned forum thread ("Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation"), we look at another excerpt: It might be said that diksha has been reduced to one of these definitions: 1. The transmission of the desire to serve (i.e., the conversion experience is the real initiation; or the "planting of the bhakti-lata bija"), t 2. The giving of the order to engage in Harinam. (Saraswati quotes the use of the word diksha in Haridas Thakur's speech to the prostitute from Chaitanya Charitamrita as support.) 3. A wholehearted commitment to the teachings of the guru. Stay with me, we still have a way to go. The following I transcribed from Jan Brzezinski's article that appears in the book "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant". "Bhagavati diksa" is a good term to keep in mind as we travel through this stuff, so as to help us stay focused on the essence of initiation. " There are different ideas about the type of initiation Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati received: according to some biographers he was given mantra, according to others it was bhagavati diskha. Not surprisingly, bhagavati diksa is a concept unfamiliar to most people, even those within the Gaudiya Math, as the only kind of initiation current in Vaishnava circles has always been the pancharatrika type, which consists of standard initiatory rituals. The result is that many have wasted much time and effort unnecessarily trying to establish that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati received pancharatrika-type mantra initiation from Gaura Kishor Das. " We get an idea of what Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati meant by bhagavati diksha from his Brahmana o Vaishnava essays, where he cites the example of Hari Das Thakur, a Muslim convert, who likely never received pancharatrika initiation ." (...) " Thus Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati says, 'This Tattva-vada, or Pancharatrika system, is not acceptable in the opinion of Sri Chatitanya Mahaprabhu. Rather he taught the path of bhagavata-marga' " (1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received initiation. (2) The mango is not the box. Keeping those two guiding principles in front of us, we move forward. Again we find ourselves at the previously-mentioned forum thread, where we read: " However, the majority of people in Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math have either not understood or not been able to communicate this fundamental premise about initiation, even though Sridhar Maharaj clearly stated that the Gaudiya Math was a 'siksha' sampradaya, not a 'diksha' sampradaya. But Pancharatrika initiation is necessary for an institution, to establish legitimacy. And this is why Pancharatrika norms have been introduced in the period subsequent to Saraswati Thakur. " We have to be clear on what diksa actually is. Mistaking the mango for the box can cause heartache, and can cause us to side-step the nourishment that is the mango. People who've been in contact with the Hare Krsnas for some time eventually become aware of the controversy about how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta supposedly never received initiation. It struck me a while ago that this controversy frames "initiation" in a certain way. And only via that particular frame is there any cause for controversy. If we understand diksa as based on the transmission of sound vibration and transcendental knowledge, from the realized teacher to the heart of the qualified student, at a certain stage of the student's development, then there's really no cause for controversy. Things only get messy and controversial if we understand diska primarily as a ceremony. The ISKCON organization's Bhakti Vikasa wrote a 3-volume book about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I haven't read it. But in the forum thread that I keep quoting from, we find the following excerpt from the book, transcribed by a forum poster. The emphasis is added by the poster: " In 1932 Visvambharananda dasa Babaji, on behalf of many babajis and caste Goswamis in Vrndavana, published a book opposing Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his Mission, citing extensively from sastra to support his arguments. He challenged that the line of parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized. Visvambharananda claimed that although Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to be the disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was disqualified in several ways. First, Sarasvati Thakura did not accept as bona fide the recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara. Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji had never used a japa-mala, and had not given one to Sarasvati Thakura at the time of initiation but had simply placed some Navadvipa dust into his hand, Visvambharananda argued that such an initiation was not bona fide. The implication was that Sarasvati Thakura had not actually received pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, so how could he confer it upon others? Nor had Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a brahmana thread, so on what authority did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one? " Moreover, Visvambharananda argued, Sarasvati Thakura claimed to be a follower of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who was initiated by the caste Goswami Bipina Bihari. Why then did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati not accept guru-parampara by seminal descent? Bhaktivinoda Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for this purpose. Wherefrom did he derive this mantra, and on whose authority did he distribute it? Visvambharananda further objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a sannyasi without a sannyasa guru, how could he give sannyasa to others? " Sarasvati Thakura responded by explaining the concept of bhagavata-parampara, or siksa-parampara. He maintained that the essence of parampara lies in the transmission of transcendental knowledge, not merely in a list of contiguous names. The life of the parampara is maintained by the maha-bhagavatas, who embody the essence of scriptural knowledge. Therefore, to trace the parampara through such maha-bhagavatas truly represents parampara. " He said, 'Bhaktivinoda Thakura is Kamala Manjari, a personal associate of Radharani. He ordered me to establish daiva-varnasrama. I must obey his order. The acarya is not under the sastra. The acarya can make sastra. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the acarya, has inspired me in various ways. By his mercy and that of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja and the previous acaryas we are going on, not caring for the precise technicalities of smartas. " 'Although this concept of bhagavata-parampara appears to be new, it is based on the essential understanding of the scriptures. Something new given by an acarya but based on sastra is called vaisistya (a special characteristic). Acaryas Ramanuja and Madhva both apparently introduced something new, but because their teachings were based on sastra they came to be accepted. Phalena pariciyate: "An action should be understood by its result." My commitment to devotional service and my preaching activities speak for themselves. Owl-like persons cannot see this, but those who are honest will accept it.' " One thing that I am curious is if Srila Bhaktisiddhanta actually used the term "siksa parampara", as stated above. During my time orbiting the ISKCON organization I heard the expression "siksa sampradaya" tossed around, and at the time I bought into it. Now I'm not so sure. It may be that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and/or Srila Prabhupada actually used the expression "siksa parampara". Or, it may be that our bhagavata parampara really is a diksa parampara, and we simply have to correctly understand what diksa is. Hint: the mango is not the box. In any case, I'd like to learn more. That leads us nicely into the idea of "tradition". When people in and around the ISKCON organization talk about "the tradition", who's tradition are they really talking about? Is it Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's tradition, or is it the tradition of Visvambharananda dasa Babaji? "Weird Al" Yancovik's "Weasel Stomping Day" has the great lines "Why we do it, who can say?" and "It's tradition, that makes it okay". "It's against the tradition! It's against sastra!", people sometimes exhort. Everybody's a Vaisnava scholar these day, it seems. Here's another excerpt from the blog post by Jan Brzesinski. It's the same post that I quoted from before: " In fact, there are other, objective criteria by which one can measure a person's spiritual acumen, and the reliance on external signs like initiation for legitimacy is only superficially helpful. In this case, however, initiation means more than the possibility of perfection, it means the adoption of external rites and rituals, external modes of dress and other kinds of cultural distinction. The traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas have a 500-year-old culture that has to a great extent been jettisoned by the Gaudiya Math. " For our purpose, let's replace the word "culture", in the text above, with the word "tradition". Jettisoned. That means "discarded", "abandoned", "thrown overboard". I wonder if the conception of initiation that is current in the ISKCON organization, ultimately comes from groups that Srila Prabhupada might refer to as babajis and caste goswamis, that is to say those who would refer to themselves as the traditional parivars. I wonder if a misunderstanding of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's conception of initiation was carried over into the various splinters of what was once the Gaudiya Matha. This misunderstanding might well have been influenced by ideas held by the surrounding culture. By "surrounding culture" I'm referring to the babajis, caste goswamis, and other groups that might fall under the umbrella term "traditional parivar". I wonder if the conception of initiation that is prevalent in the IKSCON organization, the conception that equates diksa with a ceremony and seems to emphasize "physical presence" over most other considerations, traveled thusly: traditional parivars ----> splinters of what was once the Gaudiya Matha ----> ISKCON organization I remember getting a CD-ROM that had on it a bunch of quotes from Srila Prabhupada about his godborthers. The general theme seemed to be to keep a distance. We have, for example, the line from a 1974 letter to Rupanuga: "They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress." If Srila Prabhupada were to see his godbrothers as purely passing on what they all received from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then there would be no cause for concern. But instead, in his letter to Rupanuga, Srila Prabhupada states: "So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them." Based on one version of the story, it's told that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta made various enemies. He spoke strongly, and some people didn't like it. His disciples would be hearing "Your guru's off". It may be that ideas from the surrounding culture, ideas opposed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, made their way into what used to be the Gaudiya Matha. Some of those ideas might then have subsequently made their way in to the ISKCON organization, via contact with some of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, perhaps helping to form the current conception of what "the tradition" is. Neal Delmonico (Nitai) left the ISKCON organization in the 1970s, and has written about it in his Nitai Zine. Neal Delmonico, Jan Brzezinski, and the forum thread poster that I've been quoting, are all associated with the traditional parivars, traditional, non-Saraswata, lines. At the same time, if one reads them a certain way, they really do shine a certain light on the genius of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, perhaps sometimes unintentionally. This same genius we see shining forth in Srila Prabhupada. As we march on, let's recall to mind our two guiding principles. (1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received initiation. (2) The mango is not the box. The following is from an article in an issue of Nitai Zine: " In the last issue, I said I would describe my departure from ISKCON and some of my experiences both before and after leaving. The beginning of the end occurred when Dr. Kapoor dropped his bombshell on me, informing me that Bhaktisiddhanta was not properly initiated. When, after several days, the shock finally subsided somewhat, I began to consider my options. I had by then left Prabhupad's traveling entourage where I had for almost three years been the Sanskrit editor, and had settled in Vrindaban. " Next comes something from issue 1 of Nitai Zine: " The main reason for my departure from ISKCON was that I came to believe (and I still believe) that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvat never received proper initiation into the Caitanya Vaisava sampradaya (community). This revelation absolutely shook my world to pieces. I remember sitting on the roof of ISKCON's Vrindaban guest house the following day sadly watching the sun come up. It seemed like a different sun and the world I saw was not the one I had been familiar with. It was now a strange and frightening one. For weeks I had no idea what I was going to do. The man who broke the news to me was Dr. OBL Kapoor, elder savant of the Caitanya Vaisava tradition and member of the Gaudiya Math (his initiation name in the GM was Adikesava Das). " (...) " Why did I come to believe that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvat was never initiated? This was almost universally the reason ex-members of the Gaudiya Math gave for their own departures from that organization. I had always been told that after the death of Bhaktisiddhanta in 1937, the Gaudiya Math gradually disintegrated as a result of the struggle for power and greed. The actual impetus I learned was more principled than that. It was the result of the discovery of the inauthenticity of Bhaktisiddhanta's initiation. The man who began the fracture of the GM was Bhaktiprasada Puri Das Goswami, known before his renunciation as Anantavasudeva Das, the leader of the GM who was handpicked by Bhaktisiddhanta himself. His reason was precisely his own discovery of the fundamental flaw in the parampara of the GM. After a four-month long series of lectures on the Bhakti-sandarbha of Sri Jiva Gosvamin, begun in Bengal and completed in Vrindaban, he called all the members of the Math together, especially the sannyasis, and announced his own departure from the institution. He also informed them that their own efforts were in vain. Without the proper initiation of their teacher, Bhaktisiddhanta, the mantras he gave them in initiation were useless. The institution of sannyasa, too, the renounced order of life according to the system of asramas or stages in a exemplary Hindu life, which was instituted by Bhaktisiddhanta in Caitanya Vaisavism, was also groundless (since Bhaktisiddhanta had given it to himself). He advised all the sannyasis to go home and get married. Their pursuit of sannyasa was a sham and a waist of time. Most importantly of all he advised them that for their own spiritual good they get properly initiated from an authentic lineage within the Caitanya tradition. This I heard from several aged Vaisnavas in Vrindaban and Nabadwip who knew Puri Das personally and who left along with him or some time shortly afterwards. " Again I'll assert that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received initiation, in case my meaning isn't getting through. If we understand diksa and parampara as a flow of transcendental knowledge, then there's no cause for worry. As Dhira Govinda writes in a Sun article: " The disciplic succession in the line of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is based on sound vibration, not on the formal initiation ceremony. Through sound vibration transcendental knowledge is conveyed. This is the essential aspect of the process of initiation. And this essential aspect is not dependent on formal initiation, though the processes of formal initiation are meant to serve and support the essential component of the initiation process, receiving transcendental knowledge. " Below is an excerpt from the book Back to Godhead 1944-1960, The Pioneer Years. The article is titled "Identity of Lord Chaitanya", and is from March 20th, 1960. Srila Prabhupada writes: " Srila Rupa Goswami and Srila Sanatan Goswami both are principal followers of Sri Swarup Damodar Goswami who acted as the most confidential servitor and constant companion of Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu whose name was known as Viswambhar in His early life. " And from Srila Rupa Goswami, Srila Raghunath Das Goswami comes as the direct disciple and the author of Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita i. e., Sri Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami stands to be his direct follower. " From Goswami Krishna Das Kaviraj the direct disciple is Srila Narottam Das Thakur who accepted Viswanath Chakrabarty as his servitor. Viswanath Chakrabarty accepted Jagannath Das Babajee from whom Srila Bhaktivinode Thakore was initiated and Srila Gour Kishore Das Babajee the spiritual master of Om Vishnupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupad-the Divine spiritual Master of our humbleself. " This parampara is similar to the one we find at the beginning of the Sri Caitanya Caritamrta. Look at it carefully, before we move on. This next bit is again from the forum thread that I keep making reference to. See how a person affiliated with a traditional parivar might respond to the disciplic succession given above. Regarding Bhaktisiddhanta's version of the rest of the guru-parampara: Sanatana Gosvami was actually the disciple of Vidyavacaspati. Rupa Gosvami was a disciple of Sanatana Gosvami. Jiva Gosvami was a disciple of Rupa Gosvami. Raghunatha das Gosvami was a disciple of Yadunandana Acarya. Narottama Das Thakura was a disciple of Lokanatha Gosvami, not of Krsna das Kaviraja. Visvanatha Cakravarti was a disciple of Radha Ramana Cakravarti and never met his would-be guru Narottama, for they lived a century apart. Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Radha Damodara Gosvami, not of Visvanatha Cakravarti. Jagannatha das Babaji lived 150 years after his would-be guru Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Bhaktivinoda was a disciple of Vipin Bihari Gosvami, not of Jagannath das Babaji. These two different versions of the story seem to come from different understandings of what initiation is. Srila Prabhupada has some wonderful statements about diksa, and it's relation to divya-jnanam. I encourage us to seek them out. That stuff will change your life, if you let it. In a way, those statements from Srila Prabhupada should really be enough for us. The thing is, gentle reader, you'll find that a surprising number of persons who present themselves as followers of Srila Prabhupada, of various stripes, really don't care what Srila Prabhupada said. Convinced as they are that they know the sastra and "the tradition". There's more history, which helps to shine the light on the genius of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's, and Srila Prabhupada's, conception of initiation. As far as I can see, it all confirms and deepens what we learn from Srila Prabhupada. And it deepens and confirms Srila Prabhupada's presence and potency in our lives. The Srila Bhaktisiddhanta documentary "The Universal Teacher" I also found worth watching. You get a taste of some of what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was facing. There's one segment in the video that sticks in my mind, where Tripurari is saying: " They would cite the philosophy, and question his initiation. And this and so many things. And doctrines came up in opposition to him. So many fine detailed points. Ignoring his emphasis on...uh...being the enemy of hypocrisy and emphasis on serving disposition. " It seems like the battle over the meaning of initiation is something with deeper roots than we might think at first, as it is with many things. Another thing I found instructive was reading something that B.G. Narasimha wrote about the Jiva Institute. It also gives a taste of the philosophical conflicts that may have existed in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's time, and how some of the same themes seem to haunt us still today. B.G. Narasimha writes: " This time the attack against our parampara was coming from a young Indian scholar (once a member of ISKCON) who was representing the arguments and objections of the anti-party guru - an elderly Hindu scholar. As it turned out, in their opinion, not even Bhaktivinode Thakur is bona-fide, what then to speak of Saraswati Thakur and his followers " By "anti-party" he means the Jiva Institute, and the followers of Haridas Sastri. B.G. Narasimha continues: " A three hour special interview was first conducted by a third party and the discussions were tape-recorded. In a separate meeting the Brahmacharis sat in Satya Narayana's library at the Jiva Institute and listened to the three hour taped interview and carefully took notes. " B.G. Narasimha mentions there being 25 points of criticism by the Jiva Institute. Among them are criticisms like: 2) " Bhagavat-diksa does not exist, there is no logical meaning of bhagavata-diksa. 3) " We can understand Krishna and sastra only through proper diksa-parampara. (...) 5) " Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada is a rebel against the parampara. He disregarded all the proper diksa lines and attempted to establish his own concocted line by picking famous names from the Gaudiya history. (...) 9) "We must have an unbroken diksa line, because, through that channel not only are we doing service in this plane but also in the eternal plane . One must have a practical guide along the whole way. Point 9 feels similar to an attitude one might encounter within the ISKCON organization, at least at the time when I was in contact with it. Point 2 reminds me of a COM post from 1999, by Bhaktarupa, available online, where he states: " And your friend knows as well as everyone else that there is no 'bhagavati diksa', so this is some obfuscation. But there is a bhagavat parampara which consists of a general flow of teachings from one prominent personality to another. Just because we are following a bhagavat parampara does not mean that we are not also following a diksa parampara. " Let's transition into some more transcribed text from Jagadananda's article in "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant": " Most Bengali Gaudiya Math authors seem to favor the term bhagavati diksa. " (...) " ...where it is translated as 'esoteric initiation into Bhagavata Dharma'. " (...) " It may be that Saraswati was in fact reverting to a more primordial concept of initiation as a genuine rebirth, or conversion, rather than a ritual formality of any kind. " Some other excerpts, from different sections of the same article: " The bhagavata parampara idea had never stopped Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati from initiating disciples according to a Pancaratrika model. On the other hand, his ideas about unconventional leadership may have prevented him from designating a successor, in the expectation that a true spiritual leader would emerge from the ranks of his disciples. " (...) " According to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, though Madhva strictly speaking followed the bhagavata marga and Madhavendra Puri had accepted initiation in his line, neither Madhavendra nor Chaitanya accepted his doctrines, which had in time been infiltrated by Pancaratrika ideas. " Jagadananda's article also quotes from a text by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, where Srila Bhaktisiddhanta states: " Descendents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas became more or less attached to the path of archan, like the followers of the Pancaratras, and spread subordination to Sriman Mahaprabhu [Chaitanya], sometimes in its pure form, but more often in a perverted form. " (...) " While preaching the pure path of bhava [spontaneous love of God] explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Sriman Mahaprabhu distinguished it from mundane formalities, but in due course of time His teachings have become distorted into a branch of the Pancaratrika system. This, however, is not the purpose of Sriman Mahaprabhu's pure preaching. " We're almost at the end. One more thing comes to mind. On February 5th, 2010, Puranjana posted a letter on his Myspace blog from someone identified only as: ******** Dasi. Here's what she wrote: " I might get pelted for this. Srila Narayana Maharaj is my Guru who gave me Harinam initiation, about 3 years after I wandered about in Iskcon. But in my heart and soul, where great intense devotion and love exists, which is inexplicably far deeper than for my own Guru, lives Srila Prabhupad. And I never met him, nor heard him. But I do know through experience he is alive. Very much alive. " For those who've traveled with me this far, I'd like to look at something from Srila Prabhupada. At least I hope it's from Srila Prabhupada, Maybe you can help me with this. Years ago I read a short article entitled "Guru and Initiation: an answer for our time". It impacted me and inspired further research, chanting, and introspection. The article quotes from a lecture labeled as being from May 25th, 1968. Apparently it's not in the Vedabase. One author even implied that the lecture excerpt is itself fabricated. Either way, I'd be interesting to get to the bottom of this. Here's the most complete version of the excerpt that I have at the moment: " Initiation does not mean that it is a ceremony and it is finished, no. It is progressive. It is progressive just like education is progressive. So in the first beginning, ceto darpana marjanam, just to cleanse oneself from the understanding of material identification, Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna. So at least for one year chanting regularly, observing the rules and regulation, one comes to the platform of spiritual platform. And then, another initiation, this is called diksa. That is also diksa, that is first process. This diska, second process is not very essential. The essential is to chant. In this age there is no need of this second initiation, but those who are going to be recognized as properly initiated, so this second installment was introduced by Sanatana Gosvami. " Is this quote for real? Did Srila Prabhupada speak this? It's a great quote, and compelling. Is the date perhaps mislabeled? I think I remember it being posted on a forum, where it was labeled as being from a lecture in Boston.

Dear mud Prabhu, Thank you for your response. I agree with what you wrote about the value of having an open heart, being willing to hear others, being willing to be moved and influenced by them. I find openness towards the experience of others to be present in PL. That being said, I can honestly say that I have preferences, and my own preference is part of what attracts me to PL. I acknowledge and accept that not everyone shares my preferences, nor do I expect or demand that everyone share those preferences. Beggar Prabhu asked an honest question, and I replied. Below is an excerpt from PL that touches on the topic of legislating faith: "We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate." Sincerely, Alex

Dear Bhaktajan Prabhu, I'm not sure if what I wrote below is what you're looking for, but it may give an idea about how I got to where I am today. I came in contact with the devotees through bands like Shelter and 108 in 1995. It was my first year of university and I happened to read an interview with Ray Cappo/Raghunath. I was surprised how a guy in his twenties could know so much about philosophy. He seemed to be saying stuff that was much more profound than what I'd read from people who were much older. I became curious. I sent away for "Krishnacore" CDs when ever I had money available. I also read numerous fanzines that had articles on Krsna Consciousness. I eventually started corresponding, a little bit, with Rasaraja Prabhu of 108, this was when he was at 26 2nd avenue with his wife. I eventually started chanting Hare Krsna, reading Srila Prabhupada's books, listening to lectures, watching videos. I visited the Ottawa temple regularly. I was both attracted to Krsna Consciousness and creeped out by certain aspects of it. Certain "heavy" statements by Srila Prabhupada both attracted me and creeped me out. I was attracted because the statements resonated with me and felt true. "Wow! Someone actually telling it like it is", I thought. I was creeped out in part because the statements could be misused. I found the devotees a mixture of being inspiring, amazing, attractive and creepy, culty, unthinking, confused, with blinders on, etc. One of the first books I read about KC was "Monkey on a Stick" (MOAS). I think I read it right after I had read one Srila Prabhupada's "small books". I didn't want to ignore the ugly realities of what has happened. In 1995, I was disturbed when I asked devotees questions about things like guru falldowns, child sexual abuse, ritvik, etc. The devotees I asked seemed to be as confused as I was. Here I was, a newcomer, looking for some insights from more experienced people, I thought "Oh my God, they're just as lost as I am..." And this included devotees who I looked up to and didn't find creepy. One of the things that attracted me to Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, at the time, was that what I perceived as his willingness to talk about some of the ugly things in ISKCON. I liked that he had been in MOAS and that he had been involved in guru reform. I admired his intelligence and the way he could form a bridge between Srila Prabhupada's writings and the world view that I had at the time. Though I was attracted to Srila Prabhupada, I also had doubts about him. One of my early doubts was due to my having read and internalized Mayavadi books, in my time leading up to coming in contact with Srila Prabhupada. I had read about religion in high school, and Mayavada philosophy seemed to me, at the time, like the only thing that made sense out of the plurality of religious experiences. When I read Srila Prabhupada's Sri Isopanisad, the idea that God could be a person began to be present in my heart. I wanted to believe it, but I wasn't convinced. I still saw saw personalism as a lower form of spirituality, something primitive and sectarian. I wanted to believe that God was a person, but I thought that this desire was ultimately maya, a primative form of self-delusion on my part. But I thought, "Well, if I'm in maya, maybe this is what I need to do anyway, even though I don't believe it". I had had a desire to worship something for some time, I just assumed that I was too covered to do impersonal meditation and that while I was still in ignorance I would worship a personal God. Even though I believed that this was an illusion that I would eventually have to give up. As I began to experience the effects on chanting Hare Krsna on my psychology I was amazed. I began to entertain the possibility that God was in fact a person, but I was still not convinced. I became more convinced after listening to a 20-tape lecture series by Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu called "Defeating Mayavada Philosophy". It didn't address all of my doubts in this area, but many of them. It dealt with enough of them that I felt that personalism was true, was rational and could be defended by more than just appeals to authority. I also liked many other lecture series of RSP's. Amoung them were "Intelligence and Supersoul" (about how the non-liberated person can experience the workings of Paramatma, SB second canto) "The Three Modes of Material Nature", "Political Science for the Age of Kali" (covering topics like Pariksit Maharaja and a political philosopher named Eric Voegelin), "Cure of Souls: A Look at ISKCON Pathologies" (about pastoral counsceling and the work of Anton T. Boisen). The "guru issue" continued to trouble me. I asked people and never got an answer that made sense. When I asked RSP he seemed to me to just side-step the question. I corresponded with him for a while, at time writing about two letters a week, and receiving responses. I sent him small monthly donations. I eventually wrote to him asking for "initiation", though still feeling divided and unsure. I told him also about my feeling unsure and divided. In the days leading up to the initiation I was praying to Krsna, asking what I should do. I eventually took initiation into the ISKCON organization, and in the end it meant very little to me. After living with Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu for six months, and seeing how he interacted with me and others, I feel that I don't like him, and don't want to be like him. I received my name Abhayasraya dasa in 2000. I've only written RSP maybe four times since then, whereas I used to do it every two weeks or so. I feel very grateful to him. I honestly feel that he gave me things that I did not get from Prabhupada's books and lectures, or at least that I did not notice them if they were there. I feel that I have a deeper appreciation of what Srila Prabhupada is giving. Before having listened to many of RSP's lecture tapes I feel that I had really underestimated Srila Prabhupada. It makes me think of a quote by some writer who said "When an ass looks into a book, don't expect and angel to look out". But eventually, with some help, I saw the angel. But in addition to the good things I got, I think I chose to internalize certain ideas and attitudes that I don't share, and which I don't believe to be rooted in reality. I was so impressed with Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, that I was willing to take his word for it on certain issues, and assume that he simply understood the situation better than I did. I am no longer sure that this is true in all cases. I had doubts about RSP in the year leading up to formal ISKCON "initiation". I had come out of an emergency life-saving heart and lung surgery in 1999, and also my sadhana was starting to suffer. I wrote about it to RSP and was a bit surprised by his response. He was encouraging, and I appreciated that, but my sadhana struggles and difficulties seemed not to be as big of a deal to him. After formal initiation, my sadhana declined rapidly, faster than before. I felt angry and divided about my experience in Philadelphia. I rarely went to the Ottawa temple anymore. Mostly I went to the restaurant, and I bowed in front of the Deities, which were behind a curtain when the restaurant was open. In a way it wasn't a big deal, my temple attendance had already declined in the time leading up to my formal "initiation" ceremony. The whole thing, "initiation", was demoralizing for me. I knew it was part of the program, but it just didn't make any sense at all. I haven't gone to the temple in about a year or so. Truth be told, the longer I'm away from the temple, the better and saner I feel, and the more enthused I feel about Krsna Consciousness. In a way I'm happy that I went through with it all, because now I know what it's like from experiencing it. I can't be accused of licking the honey jar and trying to taste the honey inside. I followed the program, it felt suffocating, and I eventually wanted out. Today, I find myself slowly excavating the person I was in 1995, the one with all the un-answered questions about guru-tattva, and about other issues as well. I feel more joyful because I seem to be getting back to the original innocent enthusiasm that I felt them back in 1995. I feel less jaded, and less bitter. What's even better, is that in 1995 I didn't have any deeply-satisfying answers to my questions about guru-tattva, but now I've come across some people that seemed to think about guru-tattva sort of like I did. I can discuss with them, and endeavor to clarify for myself this important question. And this clarification, I believe, is leading me to a return to the healthy and satisfying sadhana that I had in 1995. I feel the gradual change in me, taking place over the past few years. Chanting feels better than it has in a long time, it reminds me of how I chanted in 1995. The name Abhayasraya, that I got from RSP, means something like: one who is fearless by having taken shelter of God. "Abhaya" means fearless, and "ashraya" means shelter. So it's a compound term...Abhayasraya. I think I like Alex better, at least for now.

Dear Bhaktajan Prabhu, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. What you wrote above reminds me of the expression "atmavan manyate jagat". At various times in my life, I've heard various versions of the saying "a thief thinks that everyone else is a thief". In other words, when we look at the world, we may tend to filter it. We may tend to see the world as some combination of "how it really is" and "how we really are". Years ago, I was impressed with Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu's "Cure of Souls" seminar. He says something similar to what I hear you saying. Below is a quote from a transcript of a portion of his seminar: " When people say things about ISKCON it's almost always pure autobiography. I've just seen this. It's very hard to say something about ISKCON that doesn't reflect our own spiritual state. If we're falling apart and disorganized and not together then we see ISKCON as the same way. And if we're in relatively good spiritual shape then we think ISKCON's okay. You know, could be better in many ways...It's almost always autobiography. It's the most uncanny thing. Be very careful when you make statements about ISKCON because you're really giving away a lot about yourself. " I experience the above quote somewhat differently today, then when I first heard it, and am less impressed by it. I would tend to paraphrase the quoted statement above, from Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, as something like: " If you don't play along, then you're a bad guy. If you point out something bad in the organization, you're the bad guy for pointing it out. The person or persons engaging in the activity aren't themselves bad. You 're bad for perceiving, acknowledging and pointing out what you see and experience. " It's true that we can project negative qualities, which are within us, onto others in whom those same negative qualities do not dwell. The flipside is also true. People have good qualities. We can also project some of those good qualities onto others, in whom those same good qualities do not dwell. When people are generally honest, straightforward and open, the flipside is that they may also have a tendency to be naive. We don't want to lose those positive qualities of being open, honest and trusting, but it's good to be aware that we may tend to project our own good qualities onto the organization in a way that distorts our perception of reality. Atmavan manyate jagat. My understanding is that in sattva guna we perceive reality more clearly, closer to how it really is. We perceive it in a way that is freer of the influence of projections and distorting filters. Becoming aware of our projections and filters can be the first step in helping us to diminish their influence on our perception. Ananda Svarupa Prabhu's article "Vaisnava Aparadha" might also potentially be interesting in the context of the things that you've shared. What if reality is an authority? I'm writing about and asserting my experience of the ISKCON organization. I'm also taking into consideration the experience of people that I've read about, those I've corresponded with, and those I've talked to. People are free to consider what they read on this forum, investigate it, look into it, experience it. Dear Babhru Prabhu, Thank you for your posts and your patience. When I read the following excerpt in PL: " Srila Prabhupada would use the words 'direct link', 'primary link', 'prominent link', and 'current link'. " ... I did not do subsequent research to check if Srila Prabhupada actually used those particular terms. My understanding of what Dhira Govinda Prabhu wrote was that Srila Prabhupada WOULD use such terms to describe the members of the parampara listen in the Bhagavad Gita intro, not that Srila Prabhupada DID use such terms to describe them. So I didn't do searches to see if Srila Prabhupada used the terms in that way. The closest excerpt from Srila Prabhupada's writings that I can think of, which seems to connect to your question is the following, from a letter to Dayananda, April 12^th, 1968: " In a similar way, we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this parampara system--namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from him ." My understanding of is that Srila Prabhupada MIGHT well use terms such as "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the gurus listed in succession in the Gita intro. It makes sense if one considers initiation in terms of a transfer of divya-jnana. Someone might say something like: " Well, how do you know what Srila Prabhupada would say? How do you know what terms he would use? " Part of it might be common sense. If divya-jnana is what binds us to the parampara, then some sources of divya-jnana might be more prominent and central than others, thus terms such as "primary link" and "prominent link" would make sense to me. Since Srila Prabhupada is present, and his teachings are present, then we can say that he is available to be the current and direct link, and to bind his followers to the parampara via divya-jnana. So I experience Dhira Govinda Prabhu as saying something to the extent that it is "reasonable to assume that Srila Prabhupada could well use those terms in that way". The paragraph in which is found the excerpt that you refer to, begins with the words: "Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that ..." Dear Beggar Prabhu, In considering your words above, tend to go back to basic principles. If I see someone as receiving divya-jnana from both Gour Govinda Swami and Srila Prabhupada, then I could say that the person is being linked to the parampara by both people, perhaps in different ways and to different degrees. This puts aside, for now, the issue of whether the transfer of teachings that is taking place between the student and the two teachers is truly a transfer of divya-jnana at the level of diksa, or whether the transfer of teachings is better described by the word siksa. The question about those who self-identify as followers of Gour Govinda Swami may relate to the things discussed in the Scenarios section of PL. Depending on the relationship, these people may see Gour Govinda Swami as either their primary or secondary link to the parampara. In the PL model, it would be seen as most healthy if they were to see, experience, and relate to Srila Prabhupada as their primary link to the parampara, and their main point of surrender. Since the PL model is open to the experiences of Vaisnavas, one espousing that model wouldn't say that those who self-identify as followers of Gour Govinda Swami are in maya. Still, it would be seen as preferable, by those who espouse the PL model, for those who see themselves as primarily followers of Gour Govinda Swami to come to a PL understanding. Murali Mohan Prabhu, I acknowledge that I have not yet responded to your question. I take your question seriously, and I plan to respond. I thank you for your continued patience with me. Sincerely, Alex

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for your response. I am currently visiting relatives, and did not plan to be posting for the next few days. I apreciate stonehearted Prabhu's post and his question. I did not want to simply fire off a quick response. I'm in the process of carefully considering what he's written. I would like to respond when I've digested it some more. Thank you for bringing attention to this. Please give me a few days. Thank you for helping me to see how you experience some of what I shared. Yes, I made a reference to a scene from the movie Idiocracy. If you would prefer that I put the ideas in my own words, and link them more closely to the context of the questions asked, then I can endeavour to do that. The responses might take a little longer, but perhaps that's ok. I think I understood clearly what you meant, when you wrote "Rather, the more you write, the more dangerous and tenuous you reveal your position to be." When I wrote: "I accept that [you] may experience what I'm writing here as being tenuous and dangerous", I was refering to the content of what I was presenting, the ideas, the stand, the position. Sincerely, Alex

Dear Beggar Prabhu, I thank you for your post. I appreciated reading it. When I share excerpts from the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL), I acknowledge that there is discussion in some of the excerpts about Srila Prabhupada with respect to the ISCKON institution. In some ways, that part of the book is less relevant to my current day to day experience. I no longer self-identify as a member of the ISKCON organization, nor have I visited an ISKCON temple for quite some time. When I did participate in the organization, I experienced patterns similar to those described in some sections of the book. From that perspective as well, reading PL was validating for me. I don't live in an ISKCON community. I have some friends who still participate in the organization, to various degrees, and others who no longer do. When I write about my experiences with the ISKCON organization, for me it's more about processing my past exprience, and learning from it, than it is about wanting to effect change within the organization. Certainly I would be happy to see positive change within the organization, and the healing of what I see as destructive patterns, but I don't think that I exert much energy in that direction. I self-identify as a follower of Srila Prabhupada. If we conceive of a Hare Krsna movement that trasncends the bounderies of the ISKCON organizarion, then I guess I would say that I see myself as part of such a movement. Though I strive to follow Srila Prabhupada, it's not my goal to force my perception onto others. I feel good to assert that the choice that I make is valid. And I feel good to take a stand for my exprience. Other people's experience may well be different. I can listen to it, and I am open to carefully consider it. I am open to learn from it. I appreciate very much your use of of the words "view" and "see". For perhaps similar reasons, I tend towards the use of the word "seems" and the the expression "it seems to me that". I thank you for sharing this. I appreciate the way in which the sense of Srila Prabhuapda's personal care for his students comes through in your words. It may well be that the assuaging of personal pain due to separation, can coexist within the same letter, and perhaps even within the same sentences, with a statement of general truths and principles about spiritual life, and about the relationship between teacher and student. Here I would like to share a four-paragraph excerpt that I appreciate from PL. I feel that it connects in some ways to the question that you bring attention to, above. " Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words 'direct link', 'primary link', 'prominent link', and 'current link' to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who is the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. If someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent, direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro. <o:p> </o:p> " I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask 'What is the criteria for appearing on this list?' We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the preceding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determinant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members of his movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above. <o:p> </o:p> " You asked 'Does one necessarily lead to the other?' It does, if the terminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as 'direct', 'prominent', and 'current', if not the Vaisnavas listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list- namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation. <o:p> </o:p> " The Prominent Link asserts that the criteria for being on the list is to be the Vaisnava who primarily delivers direct transcendental knowledge to the initiate. A further assertion is that the members of the list, who meet this criteria, can naturally be termed the direct and current links to the parampara. For many members of his movement, including those for whom he did not perform a formal initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, and therefore it is right and natural to refer to him as the prominent and direct link to the parampara for those devotees. If there is an argument that being the prime deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge does not lead to being the direct link to the parampara, then I'm interested to hear that argument. What is the rationale of that argument? Even if some rationale can be conceived, what is the basis on which the argument that 'the giver of direct transcendental knowledge is the direct link to the parampara' can be refuted, such that the idea is not even given legitimacy (perhaps alongside other conceptualizations) in Srila Prabhupada's organization? " A take-home message for me is that Srila Prabhupada is available and qualified, to link his followers to the parampara, through divya-jnana, wether or not they are participating within the structure of the organization that bears the name "ISKCON". It may well be because there is vani and vapu, and one could reasonably assume that both have value. In the quotes that I shared earlier on that topic, Srila Prabhupada seemed to me to be presenting vani as being more significant, essential, and important, but I don't think that he said that vapu was not a valid form of association. There might be all kinds of other reasons as well, for Srila Prabhupada's constant traveling. Srila Prabhupada might even have been visiting the various centers for the purpose of providing his followers with at least some "adult supervision". That aspect of Srila Prabhupada's travelling might potentially might tie back to my original post in this thread. Thank you very much for reading my post. Sincerely, Alex

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for expressing your thoughts. I'd like to share with you an excerpt from a letter that Srila Prabhupada wrote to Chaturbhus. The letter is from January 21^st, 1972. I'm including the excerpt at the end of this post. In the letter Srila Prabhupada presents a distinction, which I find interesting, between "mental speculation" and "philosophical speculation". Sincerely, Alex <hr> As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and "maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation. It is just like this: Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of water." Philosophical speculation in the accepted sense then means to try to understand, under the direction of Sastra and Guru, just how Krishna is the taste of water. The points of Bhagavad-gita, though they are simple and complete, can be understood from unlimited angles of vision. So our philosophy is not dry, like mental speculation. The proper function of the brain or psychological activity is to understand everything through Krishna's perspective or point-of-view, and so there is no limit to that understanding because Krishna is unlimited, and even though it can be said that the devotee who knows Krishna, he knows everything (15th Chapter), still, the philosophical process never stops and the devotee continues to increase his knowledge even though he knows everything. Try to understand this point, it is a very good question.

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for your response. I'll be happy to continue to correspond with you via the forum. I accept that may experience what I'm writing here as being tenuous and dangerous. On the other hand, I experience the things that I'm sharing as being real. They seem like common sense to me. Additionally, it feels inspiring to allow myself to continue to describe my experience, without holding back, due to some fear of social rejection. I encourage you to continue to fully express yourself on this forum, and to continue to present your experience and understanding of Krsna Consciousness, in an open way. I'll be interested to read your thoughts, perceptions, and realizations. I would like to include something at the end of this post. It's two excerpts from the Prologue to the second edition of the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL). When I first read it, I connected with the expression "a perceived culture of fear and repression". The more I allow myself to express my experience on these topics, the less fearful and bitter I feel, and the more fun and interesting life is. When I first read PL, I also thought something along the lines of "You wrote just what I’ve been thinking for many years." Thank you for reading my post. Sincerely, Alex <hr> Support for PL and Apprehension to Express It Typical comments that I’ve received, at places like ISKCON leadership meetings and Sunday Feast programs, from devotees serving in all capacities within Srila Prabhupada’s movement, including top-level leaders in ISKCON, include statements, delivered in hushed tones, such as "I really liked your paper, The Prominent Link. You wrote just what I’ve been thinking for many years." Concurring with the statements of Ambarisa Prabhu and Balavanta Prabhu in the Foreword and Preface, many Vaisnavas emphasize the straightforward common sense of the concepts in PL. These concepts include realization of Srila Prabhupada as the prime transcendental initiator, and the practical efficiency for spreading the movement of the practice of all members of the movement accepting Srila Prabhupada as the object of worship as the prominent and direct link to the parampara. Many devotees have expressed disappointment and sadness that these principles have been neglected and overlooked by the leadership of ISKCON. Tones tend to be hushed in such conversations due to an apprehension that expression of such views is discouraged in the organization, and that such expressions would incur the disfavor of members and leaders of the institution. There is a perceived culture of fear and repression in the ISKCON organization, masked by a pretense of openness to frank discussion of issues. Ostensibly ISKCON wants innovative, thoughtful members who boldly apply their intelligence, within the framework of guru, sastra and sadhu, for gaining a deeper understanding of devotional principles. In practice, as experienced by many, if one does not conform to the organizational line on issues such as those addressed in PL, then the institutional leadership, without rational discussion or genuine attempt at understanding, often condemns the dissenter and discourages members of the organization to honestly look at issues from unorthodox perspectives. The implied message is "We have already thoroughly considered these issues. So you needn’t apply your intelligence here, because we’ve thought it through for you." Such a stance is unlikely to attract and retain independently thoughtful members. There is in the organization a veneer of broad-mindedness, accompanied by an implicit assertion that views such as those espoused in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link are not to be found amongst persons in good-standing in the organization. If someone in the organization advocates such convictions, they are then branded and condemned, and pressured to leave the institution. Once they have left, it is again safe for the leadership to declare to the members that no one in good-standing would hold such views as expressed in essays such as The Prominent Link, and anyone who thinks that way is deviant, and so you’d do better to not even consider thinking in that way. Authoritarian dynamics, wherein the leadership is fearful of permitting subordinates to analyze and discern for themselves, may be somewhat prevalent in today’s religious institutions, but they are not conducive for Vaisnava society or relationships. Such reluctance to allow members to fully utilize their cognitive faculties may stem to a substantial degree from a benevolent desire to protect. The ISKCON organization may also benefit, however, from introspectively looking at other motivations for this authoritarianism, such as fear that members, upon analysis of facts from an alternative perspective, may realize that they are being, in some ways, misled. We understand that this imperious leadership style is not extant throughout the organization, but it is manifest with sufficient regularity and pervasiveness that many, perhaps most, of Srila Prabhupada’s followers, both inside and outside the institution, feel alienated and stifled. Thus, for the purpose of attracting and maintaining satisfied, intelligent members, it is, we believe, imperative for ISKCON leadership, especially at the top levels, to seriously assess its mode of addressing issues and concerns. As Balavanta writes in the Preface to PL, spiritual matters in Srila Prabhupada’s society must be resolved through "open and frank discussion amongst mature devotees whose voices are not suppressed." (...) We understand that there are many fears, ranging from loss of important personal relationships to loss of legal battles, associated with implementation of the PL model. We contend with confidence that Srila Prabhupada’s movement possesses the strength to handle the challenges that will arise with the PL paradigm, and that the movement will undoubtedly be strengthened by accommodating and encouraging the PL model.

Dear Beggar Prabhu, Thank you very much for reading my posts, and thank you for sharing the excerpt from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, from a 1931 issue of the Harmonist. I read the excerpt with interest. I appreciate the points that you bring up. With respect to the quotes from Srila Prabhupada, relating to "presence", vapu and vani, it seems to me that in addition to addressing specific situations relating to specific people, Srila Prabhupada makes statements about general principles. Though I remain open to the possibility that these quotes from Srila Prabhupada, which I shared, might be relevant only to those people who were serving his mission before November 14^th, 1977, I wouldn't say that I'm convinced that this is the full meaning of the quotes. With respect to the acaryas Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, and how the Prominent Link model might relate to them, I'd like to share an excerpt from the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, which I feel is interesting in relation to this topic. I thank you for reading. Sincerely, Alex <hr> Çréla Prabhupäda is not physically present and the PL model claims that he can be the direct link to the paramparä. Would it be acceptable, then, if a devotee accepted Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura as the direct link to the paramparä? <u1> </u1>In the verse yasya deve parä bhaktir yathä deve tathä gurau tasyaite kathitä hy arthäù prakäçante mahätmanaù, Çré Kåñëa specifies a two-center system, with the Lord as one center and the spiritual master as the other center. The spiritual master center must be the current link to the paramparä. We maintain that Çréla Prabhupäda is the current link and suggest that he can remain in that role for the duration of his movement. As described at the end of the Scenarios section, Çréla Prabhupäda’s followers know Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura and the other personalities who constitute the paramparä primarily through Çréla Prabhupäda. Çréla Prabhupäda’s followers, however, notwithstanding when they joined his movement, are expected and encouraged to develop a primarily direct relationship with Çréla Prabhupäda. This direct relationship is naturally enhanced by the guidance and realizations provided by Çréla Prabhupäda’s followers.<u1></u1><u2></u2><o></o> All members of Çréla Prabhupäda’s movement do have direct relationships with Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, Çréla Bhaktivinoda Öhäkura, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, and other transcendental personalities. These relationships, however, are not primarily direct, but are primarily through Srila Prabhupada. <u1></u1> “Direct, current, and primary link to the paramparä" is defined as the Vaiñëava through whom Çré Kåñëa is giving the most direct transcendental knowledge. For many devotees, regardless of who performed the initiation ceremony, Çréla Prabhupäda fulfills the definition of direct, current and primary link. It is important for the institution to acknowledge that Çréla Prabhupäda is playing this role, and will continue to play it for many, perhaps even most, members of his movement, for the lifetime of his movement. <u1></u1> What if someone claims "By the definition given above, the direct link for me is Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé [or Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, or Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura]"? The view of the PL model is that if someone did originally connect with the saìkértana movement through the books of Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura or Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé, then Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura or Srila Rupa Goswami would arrange to connect that person to Çréla Prabhupäda, because Çréla Prabhupäda is the current link for the present time. Still, we are open to hear and observe the experiences of others, and adjust our perspective accordingly. If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Çréla Prabhupäda, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.<u1></u1> Çréla Prabhupäda’s organization is for those who are directly connected with the paramparä through Çréla Prabhupäda. Someone may be primarily linked to the paramparä through someone else, and that is appreciated. However, that linkage is not necessarily part of Çréla Prabhupäda’s institution. For example, if someone is in the line of the Çré-sampradäya, Çréla Prabhupäda’s followers honor that, while recognizing that it’s not in Çréla Prabhupäda’s line.

Dear Bhaktajan Prabhu, At the end of this email, I'd like to share with you some other references from Srila Prabhupada, which you might potentially find interesting. Sincerely, Alex <hr> " Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the transcendental sound received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance of life. That will make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very strongly about my absence you may place my pictures on my sitting places and this will be source of inspiration for you. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67) " But always remember that I am always with you. As you are always thinking of me, I am always thinking of you also. Although physically we are not together, we are not separated spiritually. So we should be concerned only with this spiritual connection. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Gaurasundara, 13/11/69) " So we should associate by vibration, and not by the physical presence. That is real association. " (Srila Prabhupada, lectures SB, 68/08/18) " There are two conceptions, the physical conception and the vibrational conception. The physical conception is temporary. The vibrational conception is eternal.[...] When we feel separation from Krsna or the Spiritual Master, we should just try to remember their words or instructions, and we will no longer feel that separation. Such association with Krsna and the Spiritual Master should be association by vibration not physical presence. That is real association. " (Srila Prabhupada, Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, BBT 1973, Page 57) " Therefore we should take advantage of the Vani, not the physical presence. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Suci Devi Dasi, 4/11/75) " I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically present, as I am getting guidance from my Guru Maharaja. " (Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, Vrindavan, 14/7/77) " It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life. " (Srila Prabhupada, SB 3.31.48, purport) " I am always with you. Never mind if I am physically absent. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Jayananda, 16/9/67) Paramananda: " We're always feeling your presence very strongly, Srila Prabhupada, simply by your teachings and your instructions. We're always meditating on your instructions. " Srila Prabhupada: " Thank you. That is the real presence. Physical presence is not important. " (Srila Prabhupada, room Conversation, Vrndavana, 6/10/77) " You write that you have desire to avail of my association again, but why do you forget that you are always in association with me? When you are helping my missionary activities I am always thinking of you, and you are always thinking of me . That is real association. Just like I am always thinking of my Guru Maharaja at every moment, although he is not physically present, and because I am trying to serve him to my best capacity, I am sure he is helping me by his spiritual blessings. So there are two kinds of association: physical and preceptorial. Physical association is not so important as preceptorial association. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Govinda Dasi, 18/8/69) " As far as my blessing is concerned, it does not require my physical presence. If you are chanting Hare Krsna there, and following my instructions, reading the books, taking only Krsna prasadam etc., then there is no question of your not receiving the blessings of Lord Caitanya, whose mission I am humbly trying to push on. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Bala Krsna, 30/6/74) " Anyone who has developed unflinching faith in the Lord and the Spiritual Master can understand the revealed scripture unfolding before him'. So continue your present aptitude and you will be successful in your spiritual progress. I am sure that even if I am not physically present before you, still you will be able to execute all spiritual duties in the matter of Krsna Consciousness, if you follow the above principles. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Subala, 29/9/67) Devotee: " ...so sometimes the Spiritual Master is far away. He may be in Los Angeles. Somebody is coming to Hamburg Temple. He thinks 'How will the Spiritual Master be pleased?' " Srila Prabhupada: " Just follow his order, Spiritual Master is along with you by his words. Just like my Spiritual Master is not physically present, but I am associating with him by his words. " (Srila Prabhupada, SB Lectures, 71/08/18) " Just like I am working, so my Guru Maharaja is there, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Physically he may not be, but in every action he is there. To serve master's word is more important than to serve physically. " (Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, Vrindavan, 2/5/77) " So that is called prakata, physically present. And there is another phrase, which is called aprakata, not physically present. But that does not mean, Krsna is dead or God is dead. That does not mean, prakata or aprakata, physically present or not present, it does not matter ." (Srila Prabhupada, lectures SB 73/12/11) " So, spiritually, there is no question of separation, even physically we may be in far distant place. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Syama Dasi, 30/08/68) " I went to your country for spreading this information of Krsna Consciousness and you are helping me in my mission, although I am not physically present there but spiritually I am always with you. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Nandarani, Krsna Devi and Subala, 3/10/67) " We are not separated actually. There are two - Vani or Vapuh - so Vapu is physical presence and Vani is presence by the vibration, but they are all the same. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Hamsadutta, 22/6/70) " So in the absence of physical presentation of the spiritual master, the Vaniseva is more important. My Spiritual Master Sarsavati Goswami, may appear to be physically not present, but still because I try to serve his instruction, I never feel separated from him. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Karandhara, 22/8/70) " I also do not feel separation from my Guru Maharaja. When I am engaged in his service, his pictures give me sufficient strength. To serve master's word is more important than to serve him physically. " (Srila Prabhupada, letter to Syamasundara, 19/7/70) Paramahamsa: " My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on Bhagavad Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing? " Srila Prabhupada: " Yes. You can associate with Krsna by reading Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations, comments. So where is the difficulty? " (Srila Prabhupada, Morning Walk, Paris 11/6/74)

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for your response. I find myself often learning and discovering new things, as I read and re-read Srila Prabhupada's writings. There seems to be more than a lifetime's worth of reading for me, in Srila Prabhupada's writings. You seem to have a sense of humour, so I'd like to share with you something that I find funny, at the end of this post. It's an excerpt from an email that I got from Dhira Govinda Prabhu on Oct. 8^th, 2006. Thank you for reading. Sincerely, Alex <hr> We've heard the position that asserts the necessity for a "physically present guru". This stance seems to be susceptible to the banana peel argument. That is, the physically present current link slips on a banana peel and thereby ends his manifest pastimes. Oh no, now I don't have a physically present guru. Let me go to Radha-kunda, or Oklahoma, or wherever, to find one. There, I did it. I found another physically present guru who is now my direct link. But look out for that banana peel... Then of course an advocate of that position may assert that the physically present spiritual master can still impart knowledge after his manifest pastimes are completed, so there is no need to search again for another. But then it seems that this sort of transmission of knowledge, not dependent on physical presence, is possible for just about anyone, except Srila Prabhupada. In presenting the above it is important to realize that as aspiring devotees we of course want to hear from physically present spiritual teachers to enrich and guide our spiritual lives. The banana peel presentation above refers to the "guru in the singular", the direct and prominent link to the parampara.

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for your response, and for continuing to correspond with me. There's no need to soften your choice of words. You seem to experience me as engaging in self-deception, and as wishing to deceive other people. You seem to see me as lying to myself, and then lying to others, thus doing them harm. I acknowledge and accept that this may be how you perceive me. You may see me differently from how I experience myself. I'm not looking to convince you. I do want to express and assert my experience and understanding. I don't want to shut up, or withdraw, simply because you see things differently from how I see them. I experience Srila Prabhupada as being present in my life. I'm interested in sharing about this experience with others. Others may or may not be interested in reading what I want to share. Still, I feel benefit from honestly sharing it on this forum. In connection with this theme of presence, there's an excerpt from an article by Dhira Govinda Prabhu, that I would like to include below. You may or may not find it interesting. You may or may not connect with it. Still, I'd like to share it at the end of this post. Thank you to everyone who reads it. Sincerely, Alex <hr> In Vaisnava societies the question has arisen whether the relationship between spiritual master and disciple necessitates physical presence. Of course there are numerous quotes from Srila Prabhupada regarding the primary importance of vani compared to vapu. Still, the controversy is there, with regards to the continuation of the disciplic succession, regarding the role of physical presence. Srimad-Bhagavatam explains "Persons who are learned and who have true knowledge define sound as that which conveys the idea of an object, indicates the presence of a speaker screened from our view and constitutes the subtle form of ether." (SB 3.26.33) I invite us to consider this verse with respect to the question of presence. Sound vibration indicates the presence of a speaker screened from view. So, when we hear Srila Prabhupada’s sound vibration, might we understand that he is, with reference to the above definition, present and screened from our view. This screening, of course, is a reflection of our limitations and not of Srila Prabhupada’s lack of full presence. Lord Brahma received knowledge, was initiated into knowledge, from a Speaker screened from view. Does that indicate that the initiation was not valid, because the speaker remained concealed? Did Lord Brahma not have a living spiritual master, because the Speaker was screened from view? We understand from Srila Prabhupada that Lord Brahma received knowledge from within the heart. I think it’s important to realize that this is the case not just with Brahma. In any authentic relationship between guru and disciple, knowledge is received within the heart. "Divya jnan hrde prokoshito." Genuine disciplic succession is based on sound, and it is also based on presence, though this presence is not mundane. My understanding is that even if the spiritual master, in the common sense of the term, is “physically present”, still he is screened from the view of conditioned souls. That is, his transcendental position is not seen, or understood. And, transcendental knowledge is conveyed through the heart. In a consciousness of receiving this knowledge, we open a direct relationship with the guru. His presence is manifest, and the essential process of diksa is alive within us. This consciousness that allows us to enter this relationship entails a conscious choice to serve our spiritual master.

Dear Beggar Prabhu, Thank you for your response, and for the excerpt that you've shared with me from Sridhar Maharaj, wherein he states, among other things, "All Vaisnavas are considered gurus." I'd like to share with you two short excerpts from an article, which was written by Dhira Govinda Prabhu, and which I appreciate. I thought of these excerpts right away, as I read the excerpt that you shared with me. The excerpts below touch on the topic of "gurus in the plural". " We need a guru in whom we have absolute faith and whom we are willing to follow unconditionally in order to spiritually progress to the realm of pure devotion to Sri Krsna. This statement is made with reference to the point that each of us has many gurus, with 'gurus' used in the sense of 'teacher', or 'person who inspires and guides us'. We have many gurus, and it is understood that we generally don't consider these many gurus to be on the absolute platform. That is fine, realistic, to be expected. That said, we need one guru, or at least one guru, who is on that absolute platform and in whom our trust is implicit and absolute. " (...) " Of course, that person will naturally have so many other devotees guide, instruct and mentor him/her during their spiritual lives. Although the person may consider one or more of these other devotees to be on the absolute platform, it is not necessary that s/he considers as such, or that those guides and mentors be on that platform, because Srila Prabhupada is perfectly serving in that capacity for the aspiring devotee. " Thank you very much for reading my post. Sincerely, Alex

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, I thank you for your response. I acknowledge, honour, and accept that you perceive and experience me as following shastra-sadhu-shastra, rather than guru-sadhu-shastra. I'm not looking to invalidate your experience of me, gathered from reading my Internet postings. From my perspective, Srila Prabhupada is not a shastra, though he did produce commentaries on shastra, and he write books that I read. Even though I would be willing to accept, in my life, Srila Prabhupada's teachings as being a kind of shastra, still I would say that Srila Prabhupada is a living individual person, and not himself a sastra. I would say that he is a guru, and that he is qualified and available. I thank you very much for reading what I wanted to share. Sincerely, Alex

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu, Thank you for your response, and for your good wishes. I read Srila Prabhupada's words. The more I read, the clearer things seem. Sometimes someone recommends something from Srila Prabhupada, for me to read. I remain open to hear the experience and understanding of Vaisnavas. The way I see it, a part of Krsna Consciousness is associating with devotees. The interesting thing to me about the experiene that I related, is in connection to the value of letting Srila Prabhuapda speak for himself, rather than endeavouring to squeeze him into the box of my preconceptions. I had a neat experience with that devotee. I read what he wrote, and I wasn't sure if it was in line with my understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. So I asked him a few simple questions. Sadhu-sangha. I was really impressed with his response to me. He didn't preach to me, or defend his position. He told me that it was a deep subject, then he gave me well over 30 references from Srila Prabhupada, to look at. One of these references was, from what I remember, over a hundred pages long. It was an entire chapter from the CC. The devotee asked me if I would be willing to read through these, at least once, ideally twice, before we engage in dialogue, so that we might do it with sober mind and intelligence. Anyway, I still haven't read all of the references yet, but I was impressed. It was like he was letting Srila Prabhupada speak for himself, and then letting me hear him for myself, without filters, and then make up my own mind. After that, he was willing to engage in dialogue with me. I thought that was pretty cool. I don't think that sort of thing had ever happened to me before with devotees. To me this is part of friendship, sadhu-sanga. Sincerely, Alex