bhakta v bhakta

[Guest guest]

THE TRAGIC CASE OF

 

BHAKTA V. BHAKTA

 

 

 

 

 

What a shame that devotees – who were once friends, should clash over something

as insignificant as a letter written nearly thirty years ago.

 

Okay, I happen to think that the IRM have a basic point and that Srila

Prabhupada did not appoint successors in 1977. It would be ridiculous to

suppose he would when most of the GBC leaders were still in their 20’s, had

been devotees for less than ten years and had very little experience of life,

let alone spiritual life.

 

I have sons that age who’ve grown up as devotees, but if they told me that they

felt qualified to accept disciples all over the world, I’d advise them (after

I’d finished laughing), to stick with their jobs and become a bit more serious.

 

Mistakes have been made and acknowledged. But whatever the events of the late

70’s, whether there was an appointment tape or not, whether there were secret

meetings, conspiracies, indiscretions, power struggles or not, it’s all water

under the bridge now and we must recognise that with the passage of time

(decades) the situation is now completely changed.

 

We presently have many devotees who’ve been practising Krishna Consciousness

seriously for thirty to forty years. Now in their 50’s and 60’s and having gone

through all that life can throw at them, many senior devotees are actually

qualified to train newcomers in the art of devotional service. They have

matured, suffered defeats and become introspective, some have died and the rest

of us are experiencing the fleeting nature of life. We know we have nothing to

gain here and must become serious.

 

Nothing remains the same – life is a process of change and adjustment and the

student naturally becomes a master in course of time in whatever field, but

especially in Vaishnavism. In fact, the disciplic succession has not only been

the basis of Vaishnava tradition since time immemorial, but our parampara

represents the very authority of the system in that it has been handed down

century after century with minimal change. Take that element away and we are

left with nothing more than a narrow, sectarian cult.

 

* How many times have we heard that the spiritual master speaks according to time and place?

 

* How then do you turn an instruction, three decades ago, into an iron rule for all time?

 

It is simply not appropriate, reasonable or logical for situations change from

minute to minute in the material world. So for IRM representatives to say that

Iskcon is no longer Prabhupada’s movement and to disturb people’s minds with

inflammatory, anti-devotional literature, as they were doing at London’s Ratha

Yatra festival is not only objectionable (Hare Krishna’s publicly criticising

Hare Krishna’s), but is a crime against Prabhupada, who always sought to

present Krishna Consciousness nicely.

 

One thing must be understood – SRILA PRABHUPADA DID NOT WANT THIS.

 

If Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the only guru for all time and wanted no

continuation of the disciplic succession after his departure he could have made

his wishes crystal clear, drumming it into us on a daily basis, in his letters,

classes and conversations. He didn’t do that and the little he said about it

shows how important it was to him.

 

The IRM is fixated on the problem of guru abuse – an issue that obviously needs

to be addressed from time to time, but this is only one of many problems that

will occur from time to time in a worldwide organisation. We’ve also had child

abuse, the abuse of women, the lording it over of one devotee over another etc.

resulting in considerable misery and havoc in many people’s lives. It’s wrong

because the temple is meant to be a spiritual oasis where people come to seek

shelter from the miseries of material life. There is simply no room for abuse

of any kind in a spiritual movement. Everyone who approaches Krishna for

shelter deserves to find it.

 

Guru abuse is destructive because it causes devotees to loose faith in the

process. But the IRM solution of broadcasting devotee’s faults in an aggressive

and negative way is equally detrimental, as it has the same result. Their

solution is therefore at least as bad as the original problem – worst in that

it seeks to undermine the very means by which Krishna Consciousness has

remained relevant from ancient times to the present day.

 

There is no such thing as a person without faults and if the qualification for

training the next generation in Krishna Consciousness is that we must first be

free of all faults we are setting an impossible condition that even Srila

Prabhupada may not quite live up to. We need to get real and realise that we’re

living in the material world where everything has some element of fault.

 

Truth is likewise to be found in no extreme and Vishnu’s place as the central

deity of the tri-murti indicates that the path of bhakti is one of moderation

and balance – a middle path between all extremes.

 

If we therefore apply balanced reasoning we will conclude that Prabhupada should

not be the only guru in Iskcon. But neither should he be eclipsed or forgotten.

Similarly, his senior disciples should take responsibility for initiating

newcomers. But they should not consider that they are initiating by their own

grace, but Prabhupada’s for in the mean lies a natural balance.

 

I wish no offence to the devotees concerned. I hope you all actually ‘come back

to Prabhupada’, but I find the IRM position as it stands naïve, distasteful,

low-minded and fanatical.

 

Yaduvendu das

[Guest guest]

The Tragic Case of Guru v. Bhakta – A Response to Yaduvendu Das

 

 

The following is a response to an article entitled "The tragic case

of Bhakta v Bhakta" by Yaduvendu Das, in which he attacks the IRM

for promoting the fact that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru for

ISKCON. Statements from Yaduvendu's article shall be enclosed in

brackets thus , with Yaduvendu referred to as the `author'.

 

Yaduvendu concludes his article by saying he finds the position of

the IRM:

 

[naïve, distasteful, low-minded and fanatical.]

 

The reason for his ire is made very clear right at the outset of his

article wherein he states:

 

[We presently have many devotees who've been practising Krishna

Consciousness seriously for thirty to forty years. Now in their 50's

and 60's and having gone through all that life can throw at them,

many senior devotees are actually qualified to train newcomers in

the art of devotional service. They have matured, suffered defeats

and become introspective, some have died and the rest of us are

experiencing the fleeting nature of life. We know we have nothing to

gain here and must become serious.]

and later on he adds [similarly, his senior disciples should take

responsibility for initiating newcomers.]

 

The author Yaduvendu Das, is of course here referring to himself,

since he has been a devotee for over 30 years, is in his 50's, and

is presently experiencing the fleeting nature of life as a `senior'

devotee.

 

He then goes onto argue that Srila Prabhupada cannot remain as the

Diksa Guru for ISKCON and others must be allowed to take his place.

In particular, to ensure that even devotees such as himself, who

maybe full of faults, can still be allowed to become Diksa Gurus, he

even states that Srila Prabhupada himself may have faults:

 

[There is no such thing as a person without faults and if the

qualification for training the next generation in Krishna

Consciousness is that we must first be free of all faults we are

setting an impossible condition that even Srila Prabhupada may not

quite live up to.]

 

However Srila Prabhupada states that a pure devotee is faultless:

 

"This ecstasy is possible for a devotee who is fully absorbed in

incessant thoughts of Krsna. Such a pure devotee of the Lord is

naturally *faultless* because he is always associated with the

supremely pure Personality of Godhead."

(S:B, 3.1.32)

 

Consequently in his desire to open up Guru-ship to anyone such as

himself who is in his `50's and 60s', and who has been a devotee

for `thirty to forty years', the author has resorted to implying

that Srila Prabhupada may not have been faultless – i.e. not a pure

devotee, and therefore a conditioned soul subject to the 4 defects.

As well as this insinuation of the author being highly offensive to

Srila Prabhupada, motivated as it is by a desire to become Guru, the

idea that one can become a Guru simply due to longevity in the

movement is of course proven incorrect by the facts. The *oldest*

devotee in the movement, Satsvarupa Das, was has been practising for

almost 40 years, and is 66, was only recently exposed as having an

illicit affair and had to step down from being Guru. Similarly many

other recent casualties such as Prithu Das, Vipramukhya Das and

Suhotra Das, were all in their 50s and 60s, having been devotees

for `thirty to forty years', and all had to step down from the

position of Guru relatively recently.

 

So immediately the main thrust of Yaduvendu's thesis, viz. that the

IRM's stance is wrong because as long as someone has been a devotee

for more than thirty years, they can be Guru, because Srila

Prabhupada himself may not have been free from fault – is proven

incorrect, and his thesis stands defeated.

 

However for completeness we will also rebut some of his other points.

 

[What a shame that devotees – who were once friends, should clash

over something as insignificant as a letter written nearly thirty

years ago.]

 

Yaduvendu here refers to Srila Prabhupada's final directive on

initiation issued to the whole movement on July 9th, 1977, in which

he sets out how he will remain the Diksa Guru for ISKCON via the use

of ceremonial priests (ritviks), who would accept disciples on his

behalf. His assertion that as this was a letter written nearly 30

years ago it is `insignificant', is absurd for the simple reason

that EVERYTHING Srila Prabhupada wrote would have been

written `nearly 30 years ago' or more. So either everything Srila

Prabhupada wrote is insignificant, or only directives to the whole

movement are insignificant. Either way, again the author reveals his

contempt for Srila Prabhupada. How can we sing every morning in Guru

Puja to Srila Prabhupada that:

 

"My only wish is to have my consciousness purified by the words

emanating from his lotus mouth"

 

if we simultaneously think that the orders of the spiritual master

are insignificant?

 

And such a faithless disciple, who thinks Srila Prabhupada may have

been a conditioned soul, has the audacity to stake his claim on

behalf of all the `senior devotees' to become Srila Prabhupada's

successor.

 

[Okay, I happen to think that the IRM have a basic point and that

Srila Prabhupada did not appoint successors in 1977.]

 

It is acknowledged by all that Srila Prabhupada DID appoint Ritviks

in the July 9th directive. If Yaduvendu is also acknowledging that

these ritviks were NOT also appointed as Diksa Gurus, then obviously

they can only have remained as Ritviks. In which case WHERE is the

authority for these ritviks, or anyone else for that matter, to

suddenly become Diksa Gurus? Yaduvendu here unwittingly supports the

IRM's basic point – that only ritviks were ever authorised by Srila

Prabhupada.

 

[in fact, the disciplic succession has not only been the basis of

Vaishnava tradition since time immemorial, but our parampara

represents the very authority of the system in that it has been

handed down century after century with minimal change. Take that

element away and we are left with nothing more than a narrow,

sectarian cult.]

 

Of course no one, except perhaps the author, is proposing that we

take away the element of the parampara. The parampara CONTINUES with

Srila Prabhupada, just as it continued with Srila Prabhupada in

1966. The author presents no basis for his implied assertion that

the parampara would stop if Srila Prabhupada continued to represent

it.

 

[*How many times have we heard that the spiritual master speaks

according to time and place?

* How then do you turn an instruction, three decades ago, into an

iron rule for all time?]

 

Well a simple examination of the July 9th directive would reveal the

following:

 

Time: ISKCON's duration (as issued for application on a permanent

basis, since no limited time-frame is given)

Place: ISKCON (as issued for application in ISKCON)

Circumstance: "For the purpose of performing initiations, both first

initiation and second initiation" (as stated in the opening of the

July 9th directive)

 

So as long as ISKCON exists, and there is a need for initiation, the

directive IS being applied according to time, place and circumstance.

 

[if Srila Prabhupada wanted to be the only guru for all time and

wanted no continuation of the disciplic succession after his

departure he could have made his wishes crystal clear, drumming it

into us on a daily basis, in his letters, classes and conversations.

He didn't do that and the little he said about it shows how

important it was to him.]

 

It is accepted that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the

Diksa Guru for ISKCON. Unless this is accepted, the issue of Srila

Prabhupada even being replaced as the Diksa Guru for ISKCON does not

even arise. Hence that fact that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru

of ISKCON does not require proving. What does require proving is

that Srila Prabhupada should be REMOVED as the Diksa Guru for

ISKCON. If Srila Prabhupada had wanted this, then he could have made

his wishes crystal clear, drumming it into us on a daily basis, in

his letters, classes and conversations. He didn't do that.

 

And we have already seen that the disciplic succession CONTINUES

with Srila Prabhupada, so the idea that Srila Prabhupada acting as

the Diksa Guru for ISKCON would STOP the disciplic succession has no

basis. What the author is actually trying to say, quite bizarrely,

is that the lack of a MATERIAL body of a SPIRITUAL master prevents

him from acting as a Diksa Guru. However the author offers

absolutely no proof for such a fanciful suggestion.

 

[it is simply not appropriate, reasonable or logical for situations

change from minute to minute in the material world. So for IRM

representatives to say that Iskcon is no longer Prabhupada's

movement and to disturb people's minds with inflammatory, anti-

devotional literature, as they were doing at London's Ratha Yatra

festival is not only objectionable (Hare Krishna's publicly

criticising Hare Krishna's), but is a crime against Prabhupada, who

always sought to present Krishna Consciousness nicely.]

 

The author again puts forward a contemptible assertion that to

unauthorisedly throw Srila Prabhupada out of his own movement and

declare he is dead and unavailable as the Guru, (as has been done by

the current ISKCON regime which BTP is exposing) is NOT a crime

against Srila Prabhupada; but to simply state the truth about Srila

Prabhupada is!

 

[Guru abuse is destructive because it causes devotees to lose faith

in the process. But the IRM solution of broadcasting devotee's

faults in an aggressive and negative way is equally detrimental, as

it has the same result.]

 

We are not broadcasting a devotee's faults. We are simple repeating

the information broadcast by the GBC regarding their unauthorised

Gurus. Thus the author needs to take up his complaint with the GBC,

who are the source of virtually all our information.

 

Also it is important that devotee's DO lose faith in the

unauthorised Guru's and instead develop faith in Srila Prabhupada.

 

[Truth is likewise to be found in no extreme and Vishnu's place as

the central deity of the tri-murti indicates that the path of bhakti

is one of moderation and balance – a middle path between all

extremes.]

 

To say that truth can never be found in an extreme is itself an

extreme truth, and therefore the author has contradicted himself.

Further the author offers absolutely no evidence for his speculation

that truth can only be in the `middle'. Truth is to be found in the

orders of Srila Prabhupada. We strongly suggest the author consults

them, for he has not quoted any such orders even ONCE in his lengthy

diatribe against Srila Prabhupada.

 

[if we therefore apply balanced reasoning we will conclude that

Prabhupada should not be the only guru in ISKCON.]

 

If we therefore apply the instructions of Srila Prabhupada, we would

conclude that Srila Prabhupada established himself as the Diksa Guru

for ISKCON in 1966, sent out a directive that he would continue as

such, and never stated anything to the contrary. The only thing the

author has applied thus far is a whole string of false and

speculative statements, tied together by attacks on Srila Prabhupada

for maybe having faults, and on his orders for being insignificant.

 

So in conclusion, though the author had titled his attack on Srila

Prabhupada as being the `tragic case of Bhakta v Bhakta', in reality

it should be titled the `tragic case of Guru v Bhakta', since he who

is supposed to be a Bhakta has gone AGAINST his Guru, because he

wishes to be Guru himself.