What is the correct initiation system for ISKCON?

[theist 1]

 

The only difference is that they are fanatic and arrogant and suffering from severe superiority complex which is actually obstructing their spiritual advancement.

 

 

Well sounds like me all but the fanatic part. I am certainly arrogant and have a superiority complex which obstructs me from having a relationship with Krsna.

 

I have great problems with the ecclesiastical system but I find the rank and fill Iskcon members to be very very pious in many ways. More so than me that is for sure.

[krsna 3]

<!-- the main section of the post goes here --> by

Janakirama Dasa

 

Although each disciple in ISKCON has a unique relationship with his or her Guru, in my observation there are some general characteristics that can be outlined.

Firstly, Gurus tend have disciples in many areas of the globe, and rarely do disciples live in close proximity with their Guru for extended periods of time. The primary reason that Gurus and disciples live apart is that Gurus tend to travel, often making disciples in parts of the globe they may only visit a few times a year, if that. The lack of a close connection between Guru and Disciple is also due to the transient nature of our society.

It is structured in such a way that people move here and there for their jobs, education, etc. One of the most problematic results of the temporal nature of Guru-Disciple relationships in ISKCON is that Guru tends to mean a preacher of doctrines derived from various sources, but this does not allow him to be a teacher.

I distinguish “teacher” from “preacher” in that the former systematically educates the student in a particular body of knowledge or book over an extended period of time. After being taught the student knows the contents of that body of knowledge, and upon further study is in a position to teach it to others.

A preacher on the other hand does not stay with the student for a period of time long enough to complete a series of lectures or classes on an entire book (say, the Bhagavad-gita). Unlike teaching (good teaching that is) preaching is not systematic. A preacher may speak on the basis of inspiration and personal realization rather than merely convening the contents of a book as a teacher does. A preacher often jumps from one text to another, for instance lecturing on the Gita one night and the Bhagavatam the next day; and this is done even without making the logical connections between texts or topics lectured upon.

I say Gurus in ISKCON are preachers because ISKCON Gurus rarely take the time systematically teach a particular book to their students. Rather, most instruction is a unsystematic, bouncing from one book to the next over the course of a few days. I think that this definition and conception of a Guru has been fine for some people in ISKCON, but for others it is inadequate.

I do not wish to suggest that preaching is unimportant, but that preaching without teaching is incomplete. From this main problem—preachers without teachers—a number of problematic consequences follow. One is that ISKCON is mainly made up of people whose knowledge of sastra has been collected piecemeal, from a wide range of sources and in an unsystematic manner. Even those ISKCON members getting PhDs or something of that sort were never educated in sastra. Thus, devotee PhDs may know Sanskrit from Indologists, philosophy from the Western philosophers, science from the scientists, etc., but we do not know sastra from the their Guru. Those that do not go into academics are just left with a mish-mash body of information.

Another danger is that without a strong foundation in sastra, the worldview of ISKCON will simply float wherever the winds of Western culture thrust it. The worldview might change even without us knowing it, for if there are no Gurus whose knowledge is firmly rooted in sastra, then no one would be able to determine a deviation from a genuine teaching based on sastra. I think we need to introduce into ISKCON the notion that Guru-ship can be more than an itinerate preacher. We need to show that a Guru can also be a systematic resident teacher.

We must re-conceptualize the role of the Guru to that of an educator in sastra, or in the very least this conception must be added to the current view.

[krsna 3]

Not so confusing after all

[Here are responses from some prabhus in regards to the last

discussion, "The rest is confusing, why?"]

Dipikapedia discussion #7

 

Revealing Disclosures

When the acharya declares 3 times, it is confirmed.

Devotee_1: I wrote to a godbrother, who is a temple president, who

doesn't accept the ritvik idea. Our exchange was about the appointment

tape, 5/28/77, wherein they say that Srila Prabhupada ordered them to

be gurus. He says that devotees in Iskcon feel that the ritvik idea is

offensive to Srila Prabhupada and therefore ritviks should not be

allowed in Iskcon temples.

Devotee_2: Ok, we will discuss their view on this appointment tape,

and why they think the ritvik idea is offensive to Srila Prabhupada.

Devotee_1: The question and answer on the appointment tape goes as

follows-

Satsvarupa: 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.

Devotee_2: That part seems pretty clear to me. The rest of the

conversation seemed, at first, a little confusing except for one part,

but when you really study it, it's not at all. Srila Prabhupada say 3

times, "on my order" or something to the same effect:

(1) "on my order..."

(2) "Be actually guru, but by my order." And then Prabhupada says,

(3) "When I order, you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That's

all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it."

The interesting thing is, how Prabhupada repeated himself three times,

which is the method of final confirmation mentioned in the sastra.

 

SB purport 10/9/20- When anything is uttered three times, "do it, do

it, do it." One should understand that this is meant to indicate great

stress on a fact.

 

Adi lila 17/23 Translation: "This verse repeats the word "eva" [or

certainly] three times for emphasis, and it also three times repeats

"harer nama" [the holy name of the Lord], just to make common people

understand. PURPORT : To emphasize something to an ordinary person,

one may repeat it three times, just as one might say, "You must do

this! You must do this! You must do this!

 

Madhya lila 25/15 "To stress something important, one repeats it three

times."

 

It looks pretty clear that Prabhupada stressed this point 3 times,

when he said "on my order," three times, which is the Vedic method of

firm confirmation. So, where is /was that final diksa order? Where is

the actual order for them to be a full, regular diksa guru in this

conversation? Or, where does Srila Prabhupada make such an order

anytime afterwards?

 

Devotee_1: JAS [Jayadvaita Swami] and other leaders and gurus say it

doesn't exist. I was sitting in a class that was being given by JPS

[Jayapataka] at NT and he said in class that "well actually Prabhupada

never did appoint any one to be a guru, he was going to but I guess he

forgot or something!!" Can you believe that JPS would say that

Prabhupada would forget something as important as that?

 

Devotee_2: Of course Srila Prabhupada wouldn't forget naming the next

acharya(s). He told us how important this appointing the next acharya

was, in this conversation of 8/15/76:

 

Srila Prabhupada - "They did not even consider common sense - that if

guru maharaja [srila Prabhupada's guru maharaja, Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta] had wanted to appoint somebody as acharya, why he did

not say? He said so many things and this point he missed? The main

point? And they insisted on it. They declared, 'Come on unfit persons

to become acharya…'

 

Devotee_1: Yes, it seems clear to most devotees, that if Srila

Prabhupada wanted these 11 to be diksa gurus at that time, he would

have said so, right there and then, on 5/28/77. He would have said

they would be diksa gurus, when he was asked the question of what he

wanted after he was no longer with us. So, Srila Prabhupada said so

many things in 1977, but this main point, he missed? No, that did not

happen, he said exactly what he wanted.

 

Devotee_2: His answer was officiating acharyas, not diksa gurus. He

put off the diksa appointment idea, [which is what they really wanted

to hear], by saying 3 times, "when I order." Srila Prabhupada didn't

appoint any one as diksa guru because he knew that no one was

qualified at that time. If he thought so, he would have said "diksa"

instead of "officiating acharya."

 

If he had ever named them diksa gurus after 5/28, you can be sure they

would have advertised that recording or document all over the

movement. Since we find no such evidence, it only proves that Srila

Prabhupada never appointed any disciple to be diksa guru.

 

TKG [Tamal Krishna Gosvami] confirmed this point, when he confessed

this at a Topanga Canyon meeting, saying "Actually Prabhupada never

appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed

them gurus."

 

SDG [satsvarupa dasa Gosvami] also was reported to say, in the old

journal, Vedic River Review, that any of his disciples could accept

him as a ritvik acharya, if they wanted to, thereby admitting that he

was an officiating acharya. Hamsadutta said something similar, as did

Ramesvara and Kirtanananda.

 

Devotee_1:

 

Praladananda Maharaja, [iskcon guru], has been reported by a recent

BTP publication to have said that there are "no uttama devotees in

Iskcon."

 

Devotee_2:

 

He should know, since he associates with most of the gurus. So if he

says so, it must be true. And he should also know that Srila

Prabhupada writes in "Nectar of Instruction" that he only recommends

the uttama devotee to be diksa guru, and that kanistha and madhyma

gurus can only give "insufficient guidance." Srila Prabhupada

therefore does not order any devotee who is less than uttama to be

diksa guru. Praladananda Maharaja is therefore saying that no guru has

been ordered by Srila Prabhupada to be diksa guru.

 

Many gurus have privately said that they felt themselves to be

officiating acharyas, not full gurus, and some gurus have given secret

ritvik initiations. TKG [Tamal] did this, he gave ritvik initiation to

2 devotees, with the knowledge that Srila Prabhupada was their guru,

the ceremony being after Srila Prabhupada left our sight. So action

speaks louder than words. TKG railed against the ritvik notion so many

times, but he did it himself! So where is his conviction on the issue?

All his negative debate on the ritvik issue is rendered nil and void.

 

Devotee_1: Well, that's pretty clear, since we see several gurus

saying that Srila Prabhupada never ordered them gurus. There seems to

be no argument on that, since the gurus admit it. So, why are devotees

still arguing this point? The conclusion seems very clear, so why keep

arguing? Why don't all the devotees just own up to the truth? Many of

these gurus have made their sudden disclosure of a candid revelation

of what they really think, [because the truth tends to suddenly come

out at some point in time] that they are officiating acharyas. The

writing is on the wall, so all others should just admit to the truth.

 

Now, on the matter of why the ritvik idea is offensive to Srila

Prabhupada, as they say. Why would it be offensive to Srila Prabhupada?

 

Devotee_2: Since it was Srila Prabhupada himself who introduced the

terms and ideas of `ritvik' or "officiating acharya," it seems a

bizarre notion that such ideas are offensive to him.

 

Devotee_1: There may be two possibilities in this objection. Perhaps

they think that the ritvik devotees, or some of them, are offensive to

them, and Srila Prabhupada's movement, and therefore offensive to

Srila Prabhupada himself. Or, they think that the idea of ritvik

representatives is offensive to Srila Prabhupada, because they think

it's a preposterous idea.

 

Devotee_2: Yes, perhaps they think that ritvik devotees are offensive.

Well, there are several sectors of the ritvik contention. Just like

there are many sects of all main religions. There are the orthodox

Jews, and secular Jews. And there are many denominations of Christians

and Muslims, some fanatic, some not. In a similar way, there are

several sections of so-called ritvik devotees, some fanatic, some not,

and in Iskcon there are fanatics and tolerant and reasonable devotees

as well. Both types of devotees are found on both sides of the fence.

 

Devotee_1: Some ritvik devotees are verbally offensive, [in writing],

to the Iskcon gurus and devotees.

 

Devotee_2: True, and some aren't. Some just want to have scholarly

discussions. On the other hand, some Iskcon devotees who were

physically abusive to the ritvik devotees. Like in India, they were

planning to use weapons and bombs against the ritvik devotees.

Planning to wreak physical harm to devotees is more offensive than

mere verbal abuse, some might say. So, this goes both ways, both sides

are offensive. Devotees of Lord Krishna never resort to physical and

verbal abuse in order to make a point. They only use philosophical

persuasion, and if that doesn't work, they give it up, they don't get

violent.

 

Devotee_1: That's true. So, how is the ritvik idea offensive to Srila

Prabhupada? They seem to think that the idea of having ritvik

representatives of the acharya, who accepts disciples after he is not

in our vision, is a preposterous idea.

 

Devotee_2: Yes, I think this is the main objection. They think it's

preposterous, but … to whom? Is it offensive to Srila Prabhupada, or

is it really offensive to them?

 

In argumentation, we usually follow three steps, 1. First you make

your postulation [or theory]. 2. You demonstrate your theory, you give

your data and evidence and logic, which supports your theory. 3. You

make a conclusion, after extensive debate or discussion, covering all

the angles of evidence and logic, you come to a conclusion, which is

acceptable to all reasonable devotees.

 

So, in this question of the ritvik idea being offensive to Srila

Prabhupada, we have #1, the theory. What we need next is the #2 part,

the demonstration of evidence and logic. We know it's offensive to

them, but where is the demonstration of logic and evidence? You cannot

build your argument on the opinions of neophyte devotees, who recently

became devotees in the last 20 or 30 years. You must base your theory

on the authority of your own guru and previous acharyas, and sastra.

 

So the real question is, where did Srila Prabhupada say anything

negative about the ritvik idea? Where have previous acharyas said

anything bad about officiating acharya ideas? Does sastra say any

negative thing on this subject? We don't get any such evidence from

the proponents of this theory of "ritvik is offensive to Srila

Prabhupada." We think the only negative thoughts are from these gurus,

who somehow think that the ritvik idea will be inauspicious for them.

 

Devotee_1: Where is there evidence for the other way, that this ritvik

idea is normal?

 

Devotee_2: Srila Prabhupada says-

 

"the Christians are following Christ, a great personality….You follow

some mahajana, great personality….. you have to follow one great

personality, acarya…. acaryopasanam, following the acarya. So we have

got recognized acarya, just like you said, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya,

Nimbarka, Visnu Svami, Caitanya Mahaprabhu…..You follow one acarya,

like Christians, they follow Christ, acarya. >> Ref. VedaBase => Room

Conversation with Dr. Copeland, - May 20, 1975, Melbourne

 

Srila Prabhupada says to follow the great acharya, even Christ, which

is all auspicious for any new person who wants to follow the Bible. He

doesn't say that one must surrender to the less-than-pure priests of

the church of Christ. So, naturally, he would not recommend new

devotees to surrender to the priests of Iskcon, who are still

conditioned souls. But, if a disciple actually becomes uttama and is

ordered via transcendental medium from Srila Prabhupada, to be diksa

guru, even after 1977, we have no objection, we give all support to

such uttama devotee. Generally, we are not seeing that. We see the

officiating acharya system as being a very good idea for our Iskcon,

and several gurus have admitted the same. We see a similar system of

officiating acharyas in the Madhva and Ramanuja lines, where new

persons take full shelter of Madhva or Ramanuja. And we have three

Vedic authorities, Sri Bannanje Govindacharya, and HH Rangapriya

Swami, and Lakshmi Tatachar, who all endorsed the idea of officiating

acharyas. Some Iskcon leaders approached them, hoping they would

debunk the ritvik idea, but in the end they endorsed the ritvik plan

of Srila Prabhupada. After reading the 7/9/77 letter, and they all

supported Srila Prabhupada's decision for ritvik representatives.

 

Srila Prabhupada supported it himself, he made the plan, he never said

anything negative about it, he never said it was only a temporary

plan. All evidence points toward the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada

made an officiating acharya plan for the future, it is not offensive

to him. We hope this conclusion is acceptable for all devotees. If

not, they are invited to add their points to this website.

 

End of discussion #7. If any devotee wants to comment on this, please

do so, all entries are rendered as anonymous.

 

Dipikapedia website-

http://www.geocities.com/visoka123/visoka/Phil_exposition.htm

[Guest guest]

The current initiation system is good enough in ISKCON.

 

The envious ritviks will try to find fault with everything. Just ignore them.

[Guest guest]

<i>"The current initiation system is good enough in ISKCON."</i>

Define good enough.

[Guest guest]

our temple president does not recommend any 1 for initiation what to do??

[Guest guest]

That would be subjective and open a can of worms, so I will just say ... look up the definition of initiation. then look at ISKCON initiations. They will match. So nothing is wrong.

 

 

<i>"The current initiation system is good enough in ISKCON."</i>

Define good enough.

[Guruvani 0]

 

The current initiation system is good enough in ISKCON.

 

 

 

It might good enough for Deborah in the hotel room setting on a bed, but it would never be good enough for Srila Prabhupada.

 

He would never in a million years approve of the GBC guru system of facade gurus who come and go like Johns at a brothel.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

...So nothing is wrong.

A history of massive Iskcon guru fall downs is something seriously wrong and an alarming wakeup call that's been going on for almost three decades. Jiva jago, Iskcon is meant for waking up not sleeping. The "Emperor has no clothes" Syndrome is very pervading in current day Iskcon despite all the GBC reforms. In 1985 the GBC had the chance to repudiate the original eleven guru system which is sometimes referred to as the Zonal Acarya System. They went the other way and didn't break with the sordid, perverted past of 1978-1985. So now Iskcon has as a monument to that era, three "original" vestige acaryas, one who writes sex novels and has his feet worshiped, one who openly doubts his Prabhupada but couches his doubts in intellectual academic terminology (so nobody nows what he is talking about) and has his feet worships and and extremely overweight neophyte who is infamous for diplomacy and political intrigue, has more "disciples" than anyone on the planet and has his feet worshiped. The Soviet Union's Politburo tried to DeStalinize itself in the 1950's to break with an era of atrocities but even that didn't work for it eventually fell due to the hypocrisy, corruption and contradictions inherent in the Communist System.

[Beggar 0]

 

So now Iskcon has as a monument to that era, three "original" vestige acaryas, one who writes sex novels and has his feet worshiped...

Very sad situation.

[Guest guest]

 

That would be subjective and open a can of worms, so I will just say ... look up the definition of initiation. then look at ISKCON initiations. They will match. So nothing is wrong.

Definitions don't have to be subjective, because they are required.

I look at the definition of initiation and the phrase 'bona fide' is unavoidable.

That really needs definition and the 'matching' is precarious.