|
One Question and one question only It can be argued that the guru issue is one question only, and we are presenting this one question. It is the method of lawyers to take each point of evidence and cast doubts in the minds of the jury. Everything in our world seems to have an element of doubt, due to the nature of duality. But, when we present all the points of evidence and look at the whole picture, then it becomes much clearer in our mind as to what the actual truth is. So here is part one of the question and the evidence. Hot Links to the main points on this page- Literal meanings of Srila Prabhupada's words -- Srila Prabhupada endorses a system of rep's? -- Is it in Sastra? -- has it happened before? -- who is a living guru? -- Vedic authorities endorses what? -- is ritvik normal? -- elementary English tells us -- great corrupter of religions -- is ritvik sastric? -- is it traditional? -- How and when a diksa guru is ordered -- how are names included in black book? -- But, he said they would be gurus -- statements that seem like contradictions -- How do new devotees survive these falldowns? -- more later The question, the 2 answers, the evidence. The question is – did Srila Prabhupada decide for a ritvik plan for the future [after no longer with us] – or – did Srila Prabhupada only make a temporary ritvik plan? #1- A plan for the future, when he "is no longer with us." Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas. Note- If we take these words point blank, many of us conclude that this is the answer to the question [i.e. Srila Prabhupada’s initiation plan for future, “after no longer with us.”] Many devotees assume that Srila Prabhupada said what he meant, and meant what he said, that his plan for the future was “officiating acharyas, ” or “ritvik, yes.” [meaning “officiating acharyas” and ritvik are the same thing.] #1a- A temporary plan, only to function up until Srila Prabhupada leaves our vision. On the other hand, we find that devotees claim that Srila Prabhupada only meant this ritvik plan to be a temporary plan. They say the 7/9 letter was only a temporary plan. If #1a,[temporary] is true, then there’s nothing to argue about. If #1[for future] is true, then we are forbidden to challenge or question why Srila Prabhupada ordered this system, and thus again, nothing to argue about. So, the one and only question is – did he, or did he not, order a future ritvik system? From that, we simply obey. We shall attempt to present evidence for either side. As a note of interest, this web page has not touched on the point of "henceforward" in the 7/9 letter as of yet. It is the "temporary" contention that this word "henceforward" is the only argument that the "future" contention devotees have. So we will touch on this word "henceforward" at some point, still we have touched on 12 or so points of interest so far in this thesis. #2a-
Literal
versus Contextual Meaning Briefly,
literal vs. contextual means- 1.
The literal (or direct) meaning of an utterance is captured by
its propositional representation.
[Definition-
Propositional representation is symbolic description, more
details given below.] 2.
The contextual (or indirect) meaning depends on how the speaker
uses the utterance in a particular context.
* example-
"Were you born in a barn?"
o To someone describing their humble
beginnings.
o To someone who just left the door
open. By
usage of the above definition template, we will examine the
possibilities of literal meanings and contextual meanings in the
conversations of which Srila Prabhupada explained what he meant by an
officiating acharya [or ritvik] program. For
example, we look at the question and answer of the 5/28/77 conversation- 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. Propositional
representations [taken from example below]- STG- *O
[then (our next question)] *
P [concerns (initiations in future)] *Q
[when no longer with us (Srila Prabhupada)] *R
[(answer) how it (initiations) will be conducted (first and second
initiation)] *
cause (O,P) *
cause (Q,R) Srila
Prabhupada - *S
[after settled up (this)] *T
[recommend (I shall, some of you)] *U
[act as (officiating acharyas)] *
cause (S,T,U) By
examination of the elements of these sentences, we find a series of
literal or direct meanings being captured by their propositional
representations. SDG is speaking literally in all elements of his
utterances, such as “next question,” and “concerns
initiations,” and “’in the future,” and “when you're no longer
with us,” and “first and second initiation” and “would be
conducted.” There are no contextual meanings found here. Contextual usually means a
metaphorical comparison to some other context, thus an indirect meaning.
The
same series of direct meanings are found in Srila Prabhupada’s answer
to the question, such as “Yes,”
and “I shall recommend some of you,” and “After this is settled
up,” and “I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating
acaryas,” which are all direct meanings captured by
propositional representations. To
try to claim some kind of indirect or contextual meanings in the
question and answer is to stretch the imagination of accepting some
assumption which is not substantiated by any kind of supporting
representation. There is no evidence for any other contextual
interpretation. Yet,
the "powers that be" want to base the whole society's
conclusion with unsubstantiated assumptions. Such assumptions may be
that they posit that Srila Prabhupada is answering the question with a
temporary plan for officiating acharyas, even though he was clearly
asked about a permanent plan for the future, wherein there is no phrase
or words to indicate any temporary plan as such. Such indirect contexts
do not exist, and therefore such a nebulous stance has wrought all this
strife and fighting, resulting in the aparadhas to so many devotees, and
ostracizing older Srila Prabhupada disciples, and retarding the growth
and stability of the movement, all over some assumed contextual meaning
in the face of blatant direct meanings. So they choose assumption over
direct meaning, and thus choosing chaos to the society over a simple and
direct understanding which could give stability to the society. I
know many devotees who are just plain and simple devotees, not word
wranglers, and they accept the direct meaning of Srila Prabhupada’s
utterance of his answer, that his answer is officiating acharyas, and
yet they are forbidden to say so, and they have to live in silence of
what they believe due to unfair prohibitions on discussions on these
matters. One
guru said, "we can't defeat the ritviks, but we know we are right,
and we know Srila Prabhupada wants us to be gurus." With this
logic, usually a "knowing"
of anything, means a cognizance of images and facts, and ideas, all
bound together in logical and progressive patterns. This entails the
ability to communicate these ideas, images, and facts to other
intelligent human beings. "Knowing we are right" means there
is some direct cognizance going on, of ideas arranged in logical
progression, and an easy flow of communication of such ideas. Being
unable to explain all the above simply means that the real idea isn’t
there in the brain. “I think, and maybe,” are not substantial
criteria for a society’s conclusion to such questions. We cannot
assume a collective conclusion without the above process of cognizance
and verbal explanation of ideas. We
assert that if Srila Prabhupada did mean a temporary officiating acharya
system, then he would have indicated at least once that he meant it to
be a temporary system, or Tamal or some devotee would have requested him
to make that clear. Many devotees have said that if someone could come
up with such evidence that he meant a temporary system, then they would
accept that conclusion and there would be no argument, but there has
never been any such evidence. On the contrary there are so many points
of evidence that points toward a future officiating acharya system, and
some say with the possibility of adding regular gurus, and one not
negating the other. The following is more detail on propositional representations- Definition-
Propositional representation is symbolic description. Each
proposition consists of a set of predicates and arguments which are
represented in the form of predicate calculus: [The
subject is what (or whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate
tells something about the subject.] An
Example An
event; (X) John hit Chris with a unicycle, the unicycle broke, because
of this John started to cry, which caused Chris to be happy. A
propositional representation
* P [hit (John, Chris, unicycle)]
* Q [broke (unicycle)]
* R [cry (John)]
* S [happy (Chris)]
* Cause (Q,R)
* Cause (R,S) Each
set of predicates (words like hit, broke, cry, happy are first
order-predicates; Cause is a second-order predicate) and arguments
(often consisting of an agent/subject (e.g. John in ‘P’), a
recipient/object (e.g. Chris
in ‘P’) and an instrument (e.g. the unicycle in ‘P’)) are in
turn manipulated as propositions: event/statement “John hit Chris with
the unicycle” is represented as proposition ‘P’. [example taken
from the internet.] #2b- Srila Prabhupada endorses the concept of ritvik, or taking shelter of a great acharya, who is seemingly not here on the earthly plane, but actually he is fully present, as in the example of people accepting Christ. 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 And – Srila Prabhupada: Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation. > Ref. VedaBase => PQPA 9: Deciding for the Future Here, we see that Srila Prabhupada endorses the idea that present day people can take shelter of Christ, and he will liberate them. This assumes the idea that Christ is present in some capacity, and he is able to reciprocate with modern day people and liberate them. Srila Prabhupada says you must follow one great personality, acaryopasanam, and lists several recognized acharyas, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, and so on. Here, Srila Prabhupada supports the principle of #1 [future plan]. So, devotees criticize the ritvik idea, saying its like Christianity, like that’s something bad, but Srila Prabhupada endorses this concept! #3- evidence from sastra, from the Sri and Madhva sampradayas- Srila Prabhupada writes in Srimad Bhagavatam- “There are four sects of worshipful devotees of the Lord, and the chief amongst them are the Brahma-sampradaya, Rudra-sampradaya and Sri-sampradaya, descending directly from Lord Brahma, Lord Siva and the goddess of fortune, Laksmi, respectively. Besides the above-mentioned three sampradayas, there is the Kumara-sampradaya, descending from Sanat-kumara. All of the four original sampradayas are still scrupulously engaged in the transcendental service of the Lord up to date, and they all declare that Lord Krsna, Mukunda, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and no other personality is equal to Him or greater than Him.” > SB 1.18.22 Note- in the Sri-sampradaya, they have sastra, the scripture called Prappanamrta Tapana, which explains how the founder-acharya is the continuous savior, the udharika, of the coming generations, the current spiritual masters are his helpers, his upakarikas, and never equated to him even after hundreds of generations. The Madhva line is similar to this, as all new disciples identifies himself – mainly, primarily, directly, and foundationally – as a Madhvaite. The spiritual masters are groomed from birth, and still they sometimes fall down, yet the disciples are absolutely grounded in the life and teachings of their founder-acarya, they don’t feel devastated and betrayed, their faith in guru and Krishna remains solid. Here we have sastra, the bona-fide Sri-sampradaya sastra, called Prappanamrta, which supports the principles of the #1 answer. Both sampradaya models support the principles of the #1 [future plan]. Srila Prabhupada explains “we are coming in the disciplic succession from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and therefore our sampradaya is called the Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya.” TLK. So, we are coming from this same sampradaya, in which we find the model of the Madhva representation system, which supports the principle of #1 [future plan]. Here we see there are 3 institutions, which allow present day people to take shelter of the founder-acharya, being Christ, Madhvacharya, and Ramanauja-acharya. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada’s institution of Iskcon with the #1 scenario [future plan] is NOT a new idea. Since Srila Prabhupada approves of all these prior 3 institutions, certainly he can set up a similar system in his own institution. #4- Srila Prabhupada is still a living guru, and the previous acharyas are still living gurus, they are still in our realm, they still hear our prayers, they still continue to bless devotees in numerous ways. This concept supports the principles of #1, [future plan] meaning that Srila Prabhupada is still available for devotees to personally take full shelter of him, via a ritvik system, and will get his personal attention and blessings and acceptance as disciples. Srila Prabhupada’s representatives, his disciples in the capacity of siksa gurus, the ritvik acharyas, they are also present and available for the new disciples to receive some personal instruction, provided it is the same instruction coming from the founder-acharya, Srila Prabhupada. Evidence for these claims are fully explained in the article- “Great Souls sometimes Reappear.” Link- http://www.oocities.org/visoka123/visoka/souls_reappear.htm #5- Three Vedic authorities, Sri Bannanje Govindacharya, and HH Rangapriya Swami, and Lakshmi Tatachar, all endorsed the idea of #1 [future plan]. 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 letter, and they all supported Srila Prabhupada’s decision for ritvik representatives, #1 [future plan]. They confirmed that "this system can continue perpetually even in the physical absence of HH Srila Prabhupadaji," they say it’s been done before. [link] #6- The idea of the founder-acharya remaining the main guru, who continues to give divya-jnana, or love of god to all generations within his own institution, this is the actual norm. The idea of multiple acharyas operating in a large institution, without apparent authorization by the founder-acharya, this is NOT the norm in our Vaisnava history. Srila Prabhupada supports this idea of “one great personality, or following one acarya” like in the case of Christ and Ramanuja and Madhvacarya, as seen in point #2 above. This was supposed to be the case in the Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon as well. The Gaudiya Matha failed, because Srila Bhaktisiddhanta told them to form a GBC and eventually a self-effulgent acharya would immerge. But they disobeyed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and artificially created unfit gurus. This is clearly seen in the conversation below. And similarly the Iskcon institution is failing due to a similar situation of multiple gurus, without apparent order from Srila Prabhupada, and the introduction of unauthorized guru tattva conclusions - this is not the norm of our Vaisnava history of large institutions. Srila Prabhupada- “Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? Because they tried to become more than guru. He, before passing away, he gave all direction and never said that "This man should be the next acarya." But these people, just after his passing away they began to fight, who shall be acarya. That is the failure. They never thought, "Why Guru Maharaja gave us instruction so many things, why he did not say that this man should be acarya?" They wanted to create artificially somebody acarya and everything failed. They did not consider even with common sense that if Guru Maharaja wanted to appoint somebody as acarya, why did he not say? He said so many things, and this point he missed? The real point? And they insist upon it. They declared some unfit person to become acarya. Then another man came, then another, acarya, another acarya. So better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by Guru Maharaja. That is perfection. And as soon as he learns the Guru Maharaja is dead, "Now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and I become guru." Then he's finished.” > Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- August 16, 1976, Bombay #7- The case for elementary English- This is a crucial point of evidence. The major claim for the #1a stance are the points in the 5/28 conversation of “regular guru” and “disciple of disciple” and so on. The proponents of #1a [temporary plan] say that this ritvik plan was only meant to be temporary, and these ritvik appointed men will automatically become “regular gurus” when Srila Prabhupada is “no longer with us.” This is the message they give us from the 5/28 conversation. These kind of thought patterns are fundamentally the root cause of all corruptions in all religious movements, which is the misinterpretation of the words of the founder-acharya. I may be a rascal and a fool, and I may only claim a few assets. Number one, I am fortunate to have a bona fide guru, Srila Prabhupada, who is a pure devotee of Lord Krishna. Number two, I seem to have a rudimentary grasp of the English language. I got a little educated, in college, and I guess that’s required in Kali-yuga for one to understand the English language and definitions of words. But too much education will render one an ass, as Srila Bhaktivinode has said. We’ve got all these Phd authorities, who claim to be master of the English language [which is an essential element of higher education] and have the audacity to preach to the congregation [knowing full well the real definition of certain words] this charade that the 5/28 conversation supports the #1a stance [temporary plan]. Misinterpretation and giving the wrong definition of words, this is the age-old tactic of the corrupters of spiritual movements. They take the original words of the founder-acharya and of the scriptures, and make some personal interpretation according to their own ulterior motives. Corrupt scholars of the Bible interpreted certain words to support meat eating, and thus we have millions of so-called Christians who make a mockery of the teachings of Christ. They made similar corruption all the early teachings of reincarnation, so they could use scare tactics to control, and keep that cash flowing. Srila Prabhupada said that Jesus was an educated man who knew the difference between the definitions of “kill” and “murder” and thus he would not make the mistake of making a suggestion that the mandate “shall not kill” was only to humans. Sarvabhauma Battacharya’s pastime with Lord Caitanya is another example, which drives home this principle. As is the usual case with the mayavadi propensity, Sarvabhauma spoke to Lord Caitanya for 7 days, using flowery language to misinterpret the Vedanta-sutras, and Lord Caitanya rejected all his interpretations, saying they were like clouds obscuring the sun. Lord Caitanya accepted the words of Vedanta-sutra as they were. So we have it with the official version of the 5/28 conversation. They claim this is the appointment tape, where Srila Prabhupada appointed some gurus, as it is written in the Lilamrta. It’s an amazing feat of tomfoolery that they can convince anyone, with half a brain, that Srila Prabhupada made an order on 5/28/77. I guess when a big Phd person says so, then naïve followers will sucker for their credentials and not think it through. Srila Prabhupada said “on my order.” Just like when we say, “on your mark, get set, go!” How does “on your mark” sound like “go?” “On my order” means its not happening now, but maybe in the future. Same with “when I order” which is already explained in the axioms. This is an indefinite proposition, and the outcome is dependant on concomitant variables. For example – “When I graduate from Med school, I’ll be a rich doctor.” This does not make me a doctor. There are variables, which need to be satisfied, like can I afford Med school? Will I make the grades? So on. Saying “when this happens” does not mean it will happen. No, Srila Prabhupada did not order any gurus on 5/28, nor is there any evidence thereafter, and there is no evidence that the ritvik plan was only temporary. This all supports the #1 stance. So far we have 6 points for #1 [future plan], and none for #1a [temporary plan]. #8- Some say that #1 "is not sastric." #9-
The
argument for tradition- Some
devotees seem to be programmed to a particular response whenever they
are confronted with the idea of a ritvik system. They chant these
mantras in their heads, and through their mouths, “its never been done
before, its not sastric, its not tradition, it’s a dangerous
philosophy, so on and so on, blah, blah, blah.” The
trouble with these mantras is the automatic curtailing effect they have
on the process of dialectic and philosophic inquiry into the origins and
validity of such mantras. It is the fashion for all Iskcon devotees to
repeat these mantras like parrots, and all discussion is stopped at that
point, as if the mantras give all evidence and logic to the illumination
of such issue, and the case is settled, and thus all thinking processes
are finished. Nothing is further from the truth. The
intelligent student will ask himself, “where are these mantras coming
from?” Have we heard our master, Srila Prabhupada, recite these
slogans? Did he say, “all acharyas must conform to all traditions done
before?” Has the previous acharyas or sastras ever said these things?
No, its only coming from some recently saved disciples of Srila
Prabhupada, without giving any prior references. Srila
Prabhupada writes in the Cc- “An acarya is an ideal teacher who knows
the purport of the revealed scriptures, behaves exactly according to
their injunctions and teaches his students to adopt these principles
also. … Every acarya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual
movement with the aim of bringing men to Krsna consciousness. Therefore,
the method of one acarya may be different from that of another, but the
ultimate goal is never neglected.” >>> Ref. VedaBase =>
Adi 7.37 The
above purport confirms that the methods of a great acharya may differ
from what was done before, and every acharya has a specific means of
propagating his spiritual movement, but his goals and principles are in
accordance with sastra. So
where are these mantras coming from? They come from errant disciples,
who set up the bogus zonal acarya system. The results of this fiasco is
plain to everyone, as said in Cc- “One
who tries to imitate the mahajanas just to become an imitative spiritual
master is certainly far away from following in the footsteps of the
mahajanas. Sometimes people cannot actually understand how a mahajana
follows other mahajanas. In this way people commit offenses and fall
from devotional service.” Madhya
17.186>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 17.186 So
the point being made here is that a great acharya will adjust according
to the place and time and circumstance, and whatever he does or says is
sastric, and he may differ from other acharyas on his methods, but the
goal is the same, and his success is assured, because he is a pure
devotee of Krishna and thus he is authorized by Lord Krishna. Since he
is a great acharya, he has the right to introduce different methods
according to time and circumstance. But those who try to imitate the great acharya, do not have the right to introduce different slogans or methods into our Vaisnava process, and the results of their programs show that they are not authorized by their guru or Lord Krishna. This is supportive of #1 [future plan]. Another point is, that "tradition" means the way things are usually done, but it does not mean that it is a law that it has to be done that way. We find no prohibitions in the Vedas against a future ritvik system, therefore there is no "law" against it. Also, we do not find any injunctions in the Vedas which demand that one must take initiation from a so-called "living guru." Therefore there is no "law" in the Vedas for so-called "living gurus." Continue with points 10 and 11, on to page 2, One question #2 Great souls sometimes re-appear- great souls The online encyclopedia- Dipikapedia
|