Of course, there are many Vaisnavas who do not hold Srila Prabhupada in as much esteem as do those within ISKCON, or those who are on the same disciplic “branch”. The modern day landscape now includes Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada and their disciples who expound different perspectives on this subject than do the living representatives of Srila Prabhupada. I’m focused on the latter group in this article, however, as there is enough controversy to address just within this circle.
Our siddhanta emphasizes the significance of the complete individuality of both Visnu tattva personalities and the jiva-tattva. The relationships between the individual jivatma’s are all unique, what to speak of the Jivatma’s relationship with the Lord. The jivatma who assumes the position of the living Guru is simultaneously acting and speaking on behalf of the Lord (Caitya Guru/Paramatma) as well as the Past Acaryas within the disciplic succession (Sadhu), for which his own Spiritual Master is the most recent representative. The Guru, by definition, agrees to have an intimate relationship with any and all whom he accepts as disciples. The nature of that relationship is first and foremost unique, but must also fall within the boundaries of Guru, Sastra and Sadhu.
Our present circumstances are somewhat extraordinary, primarily due to the exalted spiritual position of both AC Bhaktivedanta Swami and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. As I have described in my "Sampradaya Acarya" paper, which discusses the issue in great detail, I am referring to what is commonly accepted as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s list of 32 “bona fide” Acaryas going back to Lord Brahma. The disciples of Srila Prabhupada accept the fact that he has included his own name on that list.
One of the symptoms of a Sampradaya Acarya is that those within their disciplic succession consider the Acarya’s commentaries on sastra to be as authoritative as those commentaries made by the other previous Sampradaya Acaryas, i.e., the previous top-most authorities on the original sastra. This is certainly the case with Srila Prabhupada’s writings. When we consider the Sampradaya Acarya, the process of judging according to the principle of Guru, Sastra and Sadhu is much different than when we are appraising the “regular” guru who is held to the test of the past Guru, Sastra and parampara authorities. In the case of Sampradaya Acaryas, they essentially stand as both Guru, Sastra and Sadhu.
In Srila Prabhupada’s case, we have much more archived content to consider as authoritative than was typically the case with predecessor Acaryas in our line. I’m referring, of course, to all the transcribed recorded lectures, conversations, talks, walks, letters, and so on. This degree of voluminous and variegated information is very unique amongst the Parampara Acaryas. While there is no doubt that it is a tremendous blessing to all present and future followers, it does pose certain problems for those of us trying to resolve differences of opinions amongst self-confessed conditioned souls based on the principle of Sastric verification. We add to this mix the indispensable electronic search engine commonly known as the Vedabase, which allows any neophyte with access to a computer to quote endless authoritative statements originating from the lotus mouth/mind of Srila Prabhupada in order to back up their personal thoughts.
Srila Prabhupada translated and purported many Vaisnava scriptures, which we all hold as absolute truth. Srila Prabhupada’s various statements pertaining to the Guru, Spiritual Master, Acarya, representative of Krsna, devotees, Vaisnavas, etc. are exactly what we are now debating. As is the custom, we turn to the search results of the Vedabase. It is most interesting to note the glaringly obvious use of the words “bona fide” preceding most of the terms Srila Prabhupada uses to describe a Vaisnava spiritual teacher. In fact, when we query the term “bona fide”, there are over 2,000 hits in the Vedabase. In most cases, the term “bona fide” is being used in very close context to a description of one of the above-mentioned Vaisnava authorities: Guru, Spiritual Master, Acarya, etc. Even though there are many more “hits” for these words themselves (Guru, Spiritual Master, etc.), if we study the references to those terms we find that the term “bona fide” is nearly always used at least once in close context to the other terms. So basically, what we are all debating is Srila Prabhupada’s meaning of the term “bona fide”, which is used synonymous with authentic, genuine, or real.
Obviously Srila Prabhupada felt it was necessary to repeatedly clarify that a student, disciple, seeker of truth be able to distinguish between a bona fide and an un-bona fide Authority. The knowledge and insight, therefore, must come from Sastra and Caitya Guru, the Lord in the heart. Naturally, the neophyte also judges the authenticity of the Guru by the qualities, actions and words of his or her senior disciples, as well as by the succession of past Acaryas within the disciplic succession. The great blessing that all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples enjoyed was that there was no risky gambling or guessing involved in accepting him as their Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupada himself was so aware of his exalted qualifications as the present Sampradaya Acarya that he could encourage newcomers to become initiated with very little training, knowing they would be empowered due to the nature of the lila. Srila Prabhupada recruited as many able bodied souls as possible in order to fulfill, to the greatest degree possible, his pre-determined mission as a nitya-siddha, Shaktavesa Acarya.
Srila Prabhupada provided his young disciples with copious volumes of purported sastra wherein he gave detailed descriptions of the characteristics and symptoms of advanced authorities. Alas, his recruited disciples couldn’t fully comprehend his super-exalted spiritual position nor the transcendental nature of the lila. After his disappearance, his senior disciples simply and foolishly adopted a very similar pre-initiation program, which only goes to show that even the most senior men were lacking the realization of Srila Prabhupada’s greatness. After this failed venture into Pundraka-like absurdity finally came to a close, the re-empowered GBC resumed giving diksa initiation to any disciple who met their approval, with the proviso that there was no GBC guarantee that these ‘pre-approved’ diksa gurus were actually bona fide according to Srila Prabhupada and the other Sampradaya Acaryas. Consequently, all newcomers must understand and fully adopt the age-old principle of Guru, Sastra and Sadhu, according to time, place and circumstance. That requires thoroughly studying all of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings -- in other words, establishing an intimate relationship with Srila Prabhupada, and knowing him to be the truly bona fide representative of Caitya Guru and all the past Sampradaya Acaryas. If and when a sincere seeker is convinced they are being introduced to their eternal bona fide diksa guru through the sublime direction of Srila Prabhupada, Caitya Guru and divine providence, then and only then should they take initiation.
Comments