beyond the smoke and mirrors

[Guruvani 0]

Beyond the smoke and mirrors of all these quotes that Srila Prabhupada said this or Srila Prabhupada said that, we have to understand that his instructions to the GBC in his finals days are what we must go by to determine how ISKCON movement would go on in his absence.

In his last days he modified his rtvik system and made some changes in preparation for his departure. He appointed 11 rtvik officials who would replace the previous system of having only his immediate secretary give final approval for initiations. The rtvik system was in place for over a decade in ISKCON and just before Prabhupada left he made some changes that would go into effect for the post-samadhi era of ISKCON. He appointed 11 men who would have the authority to sanction initiations into ISKCON and he also gave the GBC authority to approve new rtvik officials in the future if the necessity arose.

After establishing his post-samadhi version of the rtvik system for ISKCON, Prabhupada ordered the GBC "Don't change anything after I am gone".

 

This is what is relevant to the administration of ISKCON. It is not all these out of context quotes from lectures and walks and other such references.

 

We must look at Prabhupada's exact specific instructions to the GBC and how he had ISKCON set up. The administration of ISKCON is determined by Prabhupada's exact, direct instructions on this matter and all of these other quotes of a philosophical nature are just general comments be made about the philosophy.

 

Beyond the smoke and mirrors, beyond the selfish interest and party spirit, beyond all these out of context quotes and statements we have to look at Prabhupada's exact, specific instructions as to how ISKCON should be administered.

That is what we should be concerned with. Not trying to justify rebellion and selfish interest by using Prabhupada words to support our actual defiance of his direct orders to the ISKCON administrataion.

[Guest guest]

Quote: After establishing his post-samadhi version of the rtvik system for ISKCON, Prabhupada ordered the GBC "Don't change anything after I am gone".

 

If you can prove this statement was in fact made by Srila Prabhupada after he appointed eleven disciples to formally act as rtvks, this would be a smoking gun. Can you prove this statement was made at that time?

 

[Guruvani 0]

I will come clean as to my actual source of this supposed statement that Srila Prabhupada. I heard that Srila Prabhupada made this statement from a Godbrother who was temple president in L.A. back in the late 70's and who was privy to all the inside information on these issues.

I don't have a tape or transcript of that actual instruction. I would not doubt at all that this order of Srila Prabhupada was one of his instructions that was deleted from the tapes that were made of all of his speaking in his final years.

It is a known fact that some tapes of Prabhupada were edited and portions of them erased.

Dhira Krishna Maharaja was my original source of this information and he is not even a rtvik advocate and was not one at the time he shared this information with me.

He was simply being honest and truthful about what he knew, even though he was a follower of Sridhar Maharaja and not a rtvik advocate, so his motives seemed to be sincere.

 

Other than this I have to honestly admit I don't have any specific statement to post as a reference.

I think that Prabhupada has said many times that nothing should be changed from the way he set up ISKCON.

Why would he revise the rtvik system just before his passing if it was to become obsolete in a few weeks after his passing? The appointment of the 11 rtviks was his response to the GBC's inquiry as to how ISKCON would go on when he was gone. The GBC deputed Satsvarupa Maharaja to ask him about that and he said that he would appoint some of his disciples to act as rtviks, which he later did.

 

Why is there any confusion as to what Prabhupada wanted? The GBC asked him about it, he said he would appoint rtviks, he appointed rtviks and said "don't change anything after I am gone". What is the confusion? It is very simple to understand unless you have some agenda - you want to be guru, you want Gaudiya Math gurus or whatever.

[Guruvani 0]

The endless debate over the "Rtvik" or "guru" issue has yet to be resolved by debating the "the final order" and all such directives and instructions of Srila Prabhupada. Debating the issue of whether "they are his disciples" means they are the Rtvik disciples or Srila Prabhupada's disciples has yet to be conclusively proven due to the problem of interpretation and jugglery of meaning. In the so-called "appointment tape" Srila Prabhupada's intentions are clearly elucidated in the very beginning where he responds to Satsvarupa Maharaja's question "Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted". Srila Prabhupada replies "Yes, I shall recommend some of you after this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas." Tamal Krsna Goswami asks "is this called Rtvik acharya?" and Srila Prabhupada corrects him and says only "Rtvik, yes". We can see here that Srila Prabhupada left off the "acharya" from the "Rtvik acharya" suggestion of TKG.

Now, this is clearly and unquestionably a statement where Srila Prabhupada says that the Rtvik system will continue after his departure. Though Srila Narayana Maharaja adamantly rejects both the term and concept of Rtvik, we have documented evidence that Srila Prabhupada acted quite to the contrary and undoubtedly advocated and established the Rtvik system for ISKCON. The confusion comes with the interpretation and extrapolation of meaning of his subsequent statements as his secretaries attempt to manipulate the conversation to arrive at the conclusion they wanted to hear rather than the clearly definitive conclusion Srila Prabhupada enunciated to them. In an effort to actually pressure Srila Prabhupada into saying what they wanted to hear, despite the fact that he just gave a clear and definitive answer to their inquiry, they pressed the issue further as Satsvarupa Maharaja says "Then, what is the relationship of the person who gives the initiation?" and Srila Prabhupada says "he is guru, he is guru!"

Now, this is where the "guru" proponents begin to interpret and construe that the Rtvik will be the guru of the initiate. Though we can look back to the course of the discussion and see that Srila Prabhupada was speaking in terms of a Rtvik officiating on his behalf and easily see that the initiator is Srila Prabhupada and the appointees are Rtvik. The "guru" proponents interpret this as Srila Prabhupada saying that the initiates will be their disciples and not disciples of Srila Prabhupada. However, when Srila Prabhupada answers SDG's question he is speaking in terms of himself being the initiator and the Rtvik being an officiator. So, the answer to the question "What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation?", is that since Srila Prabhupada is the one actually giving initiation, the answer to the question that "he is guru, he is guru" is referring to Srila Prabhupada and not the officiating person. However, by some wild stretch of the imagination the "guru" proponents interpret this statement by Srila Prabhupada to mean that the initiate will be disciple of the Rtvik. This is clearly a jugglery of meaning and misinterpretation of Srila Prabhupada's direct and concise pronouncement concerning this issue.

The course of the conversation then turns to SDG again who says "So, then they may also be considered your disciples?" and Srila Prabhupada replies "Yes, they are disciples"....................

"but why consider who?" Srila Prabhupada clearly says again here that the initiates would be his disciples and in essence chastises SDG for even questioning even further whose disciples they would be. Srila Prabhupada just said directly that he would appoint Rtviks who would initiate disciples on his behalf and he is clearly getting disturbed by any further questioning about whose disciples future initiates would be.

Now, it seems that Srila Prabhupada's statements are very clear, concise and self-explanatory on this issue, right? Well, it seems so, yet Tamal Krsna Goswami seems to be confused and unable to absorb what Srila Prabhupada is saying so he presses the matter further in pursuance of an extended explanation when he says "NO!" He is asking that these Rtvik-acharyas (even though Srila Prabhupada already corrected him by leaving off the acharya part of Rtvik-acharya), they are officiating, giving diksha, the people they are giving diksha to............. who's disciples are they?

Now, wait a minute! Did not Srila Prabhupada just answer that question when SDG posed it? Yes he did! The whole subject of the conversation was Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtvik to initiate on his behalf after his departure, so why is TKG asking Srila Prabhupada whose disciples they would be? Could it be because he was trying to coerce Srila Prabhupada into saying what he wanted him to say (which is that the initiates would be the disciples of the Rtvik)? Srila Prabhupada replies "They are his disciples". TKG again expresses his confusion and dissatisfaction by saying "They are his disciples?" and Srila Prabhupada says "Who is initiating, his grand-disciples".

Now, we get to the crucial point here in this conversation (a conversation that TKG is having problems understanding or accepting) with the interpretation of these words of Srila Prabhupada. Even though the whole discussion was about Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtviks to initiate after his departure, TKG has managed to lead the conversation to a point to where he might be able to confuse the issue and get Srila Prabhupada to say what he wanted him to say. However, here again Srila Prabhupada says in clear terms "Who is initiating, his grand-disciple". The meaning of this statement is quite clear. The initiates will be the grand-disciples of "who is initiating". Who is initiating is Srila Prabhupada and that has been well established by the course of the entire discussion which was about Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtviks to initiate on his behalf after his passing away. In an effort to ease the disturbance that TKG is clearly showing towards the whole issue of the post-samadhi Rtvik system, Srila Prabhupada has tried to appease his disciples by referring to future initiates as "grand-disciples", though it is clear from the course of the whole conversation that they will be formally considered disciples of Srila Prabhupada. In this sentence Srila Prabhupada goes to make a distinction that post-samadhi initiates will be considered "grand-disciples" of "who is initiating". This slight compromise that Srila Prabhupada enunciated could very well have been just a measure meant to appease his direct disciples who might feel some sense of dissatisfaction with the idea that future initiates would also be considered his disciples. Under pressure from TKG, who was showing some confusion and dissatisfaction with Srila Prabhupada's Rtvik instructions for the future of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada coined future initiates as "grand-disciples" though it has been conclusively established that the Rtvik system was to continue in the future of ISKCON.

Srila Prabhupada ended this topic by saying "When I order you to become guru, he becomes regular guru, that's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple that's it. Just see!"

Here Srila Prabhupada is being somewhat sarcastic as says "just see!" He says "he becomes disciple of my disciple, that's it!" What did Srila Prabhupada mean by saying "that's it"? Could he have been seeing that if he becomes disciple of my disciple in ISKCON, that's it................ the end of ISKCON?

Where is the evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered anyone to be guru in ISKCON after his departure? There is not one authoritative statement where Srila Prabhupada authorizes anyone to be diksha guru in ISKCON after his departure. There are however several statements where Srila Prabhupada says that he would appoint Rtviks to officiate on his behalf after his departure. Which system do we have the most evidence for? Clearly, the only indications we have for how Srila Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to continue was the Rtvik system and not one iota of evidence that he wanted the Rtviks to become diksha gurus after his departure. And, to think that Srila Prabhupada gave the GBC authority to appoint diksha gurus in ISKCON goes against everything we have been taught about the true nature of a real acharya, whom is never appointed by committee.

No real acharya has ever been appointed by committee, however Srila Prabhupada did authorize the GBC to appoint more Rtviks as necessary from the senior sannyasis of ISKCON.

[Guruvani 0]

Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples:

 

"...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple,..."

(Srila Prabhupada 's Declaration of Will, June 4th, 1977)

 

This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up.

 

[Guruvani 0]

As far back as 1968 we have evidence that Tamal opposed Prabhupada's rtvik system and tried to discredit the idea with Srila Prabhupada but Prabhupada shot him down and continued to do so until he finally passed at which time Tamal was able to lead the conspiracy to deviate the GBC from the rtvik doctrine so that he and a few others could take over the movement and become gurus, eat off gold plates and be worshipped as good as God.

 

 

quote:

--

Tamal Krishna: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the...

Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual Master. How can you say without. As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means that you are following the Spiritual Master.

Tamal Krsna: I was referring to a living Spiritual Master.

Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of...Spiritual Master is eternal...[...] As you say that "by reading bible", when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

(Morning Walk, Seattle, 2.10.68.)

--

 

In this excerpt from 1968 we can see Tamal trying to discredit the rtvik conception, but we are seeing quite plainly that Prabhupada was trying to correct him as he did so many times to no avail as Tamal finally got his way after Prabhupada was gone.

 

 

[Guruvani 0]

Tamal Krsna: These men (the 9 named). They can also do second initiation. So there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who would give initiation is doing so on your behalf.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

S.P. Conversation July 8th 1977.

 

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada: "....Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality..You follow one acarya, like Christians, they follow Christ, acarya. The Mohammedans, they follow acarya, Mohammed. That is good. You must follow some acarya..Evam parampara-praptam."

(Conv. Melbourne, May 20, 1975)

 

[Guest guest]

By smoke and mirrors I'm sure you are not refering to all the books that Prabhupada labored so hard to make available to us.

 

In those books we see tons of examples of how transcendental knowledge is given and received. I feel most comfortable with those examples.

 

Is Prabhupada accessable even now? You bet. And I don't need the sanction of the GBC or a ritvik priest to approach him. I choose the, pray to the Supersoul for *hears to hear and then open a book method*.

 

Can't be a memeber of ISKCON that way? Oh well. That's life.

[Guruvani 0]

"If Mohammed as the servant of God and Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God, then where is the break of the disciplic succession? After all the disciplic succession is beginning from God, so how do you find that there is no disciplic succession?"

(SPL to Vrndavana Candra, 19/7/70).

 

[Guruvani 0]

"Physical presence is immaterial"

(S.P. Lecture 19.1.67)

 

"...one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic..."

(S.B. 3.31.48)

 

"So we should associate by vibration, and not the physical presence. That is real association."

(S.P.L. 19.1.67)

[Guest guest]

"Srila Prabhupada ended this topic by saying "When I order you to become guru, he becomes regular guru, that's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple that's it. Just see!"

 

 

this is clearly a demonstration that srila prabhupada wanted a regular guru system for iskcon, your (offensive)speculations about the intentions of tamal krsna maharaja and the(offensive... because you cannot know the mind of a pure devote) "sarcasm" of srila prabhupada are not enough to say that srila prabhupad says something but thinks the opposite

[theist 1]

that was me above

 

Yes those are all good examples. But just like the *living guru* (a term I detest) only proponents try to nullify those quotes the ritviks want to nullify the possiblity that there are presently genuine gurus in physical form here with us now. Examples of which are bountiful in the scriptures.

 

Can you live with the fact that you are both right? At least up to the point where you start saying others are wrong in this issue.

 

It is not difficult to accept both possibilities friends. If you realize this you will stop criticizng each other and hurting your own devotional creepers.You will also stop trying to control others and where they receive their Krsna Conscious understanding from. That's between each individual soul and Supersoul. You can make your judgments but why not make them on the fruit of the persons realizations instead of your own mental speculations?

 

 

[Guruvani 0]

rtvik proponents do not say that there are not living gurus or other gurus besides Prabhupada. That is just your imagination running away with you. What rtvik proponents do say is that Prabhupada establised a rtvik order in ISKCON and all your other allegations of what we say are false propaganda.

We are only concerned with what Prabhupada wanted for ISKCON. The Gaudiya Math leaders can do as the choose and they can be guru. We are just making the point about what Prabhupada established in ISKCON.

Other than that there might be other gurus in the world and we have never said that there is not. It is just a smear comapaign to make rtvik proponents look stupid and narrow. You are very mistaken about this matter.

 

[Guest guest]

.. but, for me, ritvik theory means that srila prabhupada is not able to make "complete" devotees..

 

a devote is one who learns from superiors, make friends with people with similar advancement, teach to people who are less advanced

 

and if one can teach, if he is pure, he can fulfill completely his role giving diksa to his disciples

 

if srila prabhupada has not the possibility to make other masters (siksa in our tradition flows naturally and easily in diksa) for me it sounds like to say that srila prabhupad is an half guru or a not complete guru who gives a non complete krsna consciousness

 

i think that a thing like that do hurts our devotional creepers and i am sincerely speaking of my realization and studies trying to avoid speculations

[theist 1]

Talk about smoke and mirrors. I have heard as much myself. Prabhupada's disciples that answer the internal call to be guru are routinely villified by some of their own godbrothers. In the last few years there has been a shift with "ritviks" breaking into slightly different versions.

 

No one denies that people wll think they hear that call prematurely. Listening to their own minds they cause havoc. But that is always the case in the materiaL world and it always will be. That's why its called the material world. You can't stop that with you ritvik proclamations. People want to cheat and others want to be cheated.

 

Say what you like but everyone knows that those who identity themselves as ritviks have, along with GBC, treated others outside their little paradigm wrongly in this regard.

[theist 1]

guest, I agree with that.

[Guest guest]

The fact is, we are not trying to look for power, we are not trying to gain anything but krishna, when such a goal has been established in the heart, who cares if something is run in a certain way or not?

 

[theist 1]

The Lord will reveal Himself through any and all avenues. Some will be more prominant in the life of any one individual according to that persons natural proclivity and how the Lord choose to manifest.

 

Let's all review the story of the Avanti Brahman.

[gHari 0]

<blockquote>Satsvarüpa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupäda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Ämära äjïäya guru haïä. Be actually guru, but by my order.</blockquote>

 

If we are to see through the smoke in the way suggested, then why would Srila Prabhupada bother saying "Because in my presence one should not become guru"?

 

I would suggest that where it is transcribed "Who is initiating. He is granddisciple", that actually Prabhupada meant or perhaps even said "Who is initiated, he is grand-disciple."

 

gHari

[gHari 0]

This is the short conversation that has resulted in all such hubbub, schism, aparadha, etc:<blockquote>SatsvarUpa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

 

PrabhupAda: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating AcAryas.

 

TamAla KRSNa: Is that called Rtvik-AcArya?

 

PrabhupAda: Rtvik, yes.

 

SatsvarUpa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...

 

PrabhupAda: He's guru. He's guru.

 

SatsvarUpa: But he does it on your behalf.

 

PrabhupAda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... AmAra AjJAya guru haJA. Be actually guru, but by my order.

 

SatsvarUpa: So they may also be considered your disciples.

 

PrabhupAda: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?

 

TamAla KRSNa: No, he's asking that these Rtvik-AcAryas, they're officiating, giving dIkSA. Their... The people who they give dIkSA to, whose disciple are they?

 

PrabhupAda: They're his disciple.

 

TamAla KRSNa: They're his disciple.

 

PrabhupAda: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.

 

SatsvarUpa: Yes.

 

TamAla KRSNa: That's clear.

 

SatsvarUpa: Then we have a question concer...

 

PrabhupAda: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.

 

INDEED ALL TALK OF THE TOPIC JUST ENDS

EVERYONE SEEMS SATISFIED AND IN CONCERT

</blockquote>

[theist 1]

clearly. I agree with gHari. Why would the word grand-disciple even arise otherwise?

 

This is also in harmony with Prabhupada's books. To take this one short conversation and draw a conclusion from it that is in opposition to all else Prabhupada wrote and said on the issue does not make sense to me.

[Guest guest]

ritvik and living guru are one the negation of the other ... it is very difficult to construct a system, in iskcon, in gaudya vaishnavism, and in induism also where these theories are living together.... also in the mind of a pratictioner...

 

if ritviks are right all the gaudya/iskcon gurus are bogus because, beeing srila prabhupada the jagad guru, they are in a wrong place, offenders, fallen

 

if the living guru theory is right, ritviks are impersonalists watering the role of guru with a speculated idea of a MYTHOLOGICAL srila prabhupada, with the hidden or inconscious purpose to not have a guru at all...... taking off the idea that a devotee can develop himself to the pure devotion (wich mean guru i.e.: he is eager to help others)

 

of course we are free to discuss and do a lot of things together like public sankirtan and so on... but it is not possible to avoid the problem, we are not talking about carrots, mushrooms and chocolate

 

every party thinks that the others are going to destroyi iskcon or gaudya math if they prevail

[Guest guest]

I humbly think that the "RITVIKIZATION" of iskcon is already running, and is very clear when we hear some gurus saying like that: "i am not a pure devotee, i can bring you to prabhupada not to krishna..." (i have heard it soooo many times)

 

the guru, by the grace of his master, have the direct experience of krsna (madurya lila, guna , rupa, namnam...like we chant in the guruvastakam), and if he has not it.... he is not a guru

 

and if he is not pure, how he can understand the teachings of a pure (prabhupad) and transmit them to the disciples?

 

if we consider this... we are already in the RITVIK AGE

 

>>>>>>prabhupada never said .. "i wil bring you to baktisiddhanta" but "i will bring you to krishna">>>>>

[gHari 0]

I think they purposely avoid trying to answer this question because their convoluted answers would make them look like insincere fools, and clearly reveal exactly who the real "word jugglers" are. Their case is founded on this gross error in logic, and built from there up on pure ego and hurt, stubbornly refusing to admit the irrationality of their premise.

<blockquote>Satsvarüpa: But he does it on your behalf.

Prabhupäda: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Ämära äjïäya guru haïä. Be actually guru, but by my order.</blockquote>

 

 

If we are to see through the smoke in the way suggested, then why would Srila Prabhupada bother saying "Because in my presence one should not become guru"?

 

I would suggest that where it is transcribed "Who is initiating. He is granddisciple", that actually Prabhupada meant or perhaps even said "Who is initiated, he is grand-disciple."

 

gHari

 

 

 

gHari