Tattva-viveka
The "Founder-Acarya" Misconception
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 12:26 am
Dandavats all,
I'm writing an article for the Harmonist dealing with the "founder-acarya" misconception. Below is a first draft. I'm putting it up here for discussion--have I missed any points, does it all make sense, how can the arguments be improved, etc.
The "Founder-acarya" Misconception
Citta Hari dasa
In this article I will address the idea that has arisen among a sector of followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada that he is the “founder-acarya” (or “sampradaya-acarya”) of the Gaudiya sampradaya, or even the founder of his own sampradaya. This idea is derived in part from Srila Prabhupada’s usage of the term “founder-acarya,” a term that first came to be used during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. In the years since his disappearance the term founder-acarya has taken on a broader definition than its original use by either Saraswati Thakura or Srila Prabhupada. According to this broader definition its adherents put forth the idea that Srila Prabhupada holds a position in Gaudiya history that does not square with reality, a position analogous to that of acaryas like Sri Madhva or Sri Ramanuja. A few examples should suffice to illustrate what the term “founder-acarya” has come to mean for those who wish to place Srila Prabhupada in this position:
”Srila Prabhupada is not just an acharya; not just the founder of a society; he is the Founder-Acharya of the Krishna Consciousness Movement, which is a dynamic spiritual reality - the Yuga Dharma. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada is to be appreciated not merely as the acharya of a few intimate servants or even the acharya of a single generation of disciples. Rather, as the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, he established the standard of Krishna consciousness to be practiced by all sincere followers for ten thousand years to come.”
Atmatattva das [http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/50/1/AC-Bhaktivedanta-Swami-Prabhupada-Founder-Acharya-of-the-Golden-Age/Page1.html]
“Srila Prabhupada is our samsthapaka-acharya. It is the duty of the samsthapaka-acharya to establish the rules, regulations and siddhanta of a sampradaya. He has the right and obligation to adjust external principles to suit time, place and circumstance. Others are only acharya in as much as they follow his standard. Let's not have another Kirtanananda, who claimed he was the "samsthapaka-acharya of New Vrindavana". There are no two samsthapaka-acharyas. The founder-acharya is one, and for our line it is Srila Prabhupada. Others who think they can adjust the teachings of the samsthapaka-acharya are nothing but pretenders; their authority is lost.”
Jahnava-Nitai dasa [http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28243-third-sex-gay-vaisnavas-8.html]
“It is the desire of Mahaprabhu Himself that Srila Prabhupada should be accorded special, almost unprecedented honor in the Gaudiya-sampradaya. Bhaktivinoda Thakura predicted Prabhupada’s appearance, and as far as we know no other great acarya is scheduled to appear in the near future. So, it is obvious that Srila Prabhupada is destined to be prominent in the Brahma-sampradaya in this yuga in the same way that Srila Madhvacarya is prominent in the sampradaya and Sri Ramanujacarya is prominent in the Sri-sampradaya.
“Never will anyone be single-handedly glorious and successful, and thus no one will ever attain a position like Prabhupada’s. As Dhruva Maharaja’s position is unique in this universe, Prabhupada’s position is unique in our sampradaya. Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya – now and always. It is a simple thing to understand: Lord Caitanya’s ecstatic love of Godhead will always be distributed by Srila Prabhupada. As all avatars in this yuga prepared the field for Lord Caitanya’s advent, we can also say that all gurus and acaryas in our line have assisted in laying the foundations of Srila Prabhupada’s mission, the destined main branch of Lord Caitanya’s movement.” Sriman Nrsingha Prabhu [http://www.krishnaconsciousnessmovement.com/jagatguru.html]
There are a number of assertions made by the adherents of this idea. I’ll list the main ones and address each one in turn. They are:
1) That the term “founder-acarya” (or if we render it into Sanskrit the “samsthapaka-acarya”) refers not only to the founder and acarya of a specific institution but also means “sampradaya acarya,” i.e., the acarya of the Gaudiya sampradaya.
2) That Srila Prabhupada is the founder and acarya of the yuga-dharma, and the standards he set are to be followed by sincere followers for 10,000 years.
3) That Srila Prabhupada occupies a unique position in the Gaudiya sampradaya and that this position is analogous to the positions of acaryas like Madhva and Ramanuja.
4) That, in keeping with the duties of a “founder-acarya,” Srila Prabhupada established the rules, regulations, and siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya.
5) That only a person in the position of “founder-acarya” has the right to adjust the details of the teachings to facilitate the dissemination of the overall message.
6) That there can be only one “founder-acarya.”
I’ll begin an analysis and refutation of these assertions with the definition of the term “founder-acarya.” Like those of his Godbrothers who also referred to themselves as founder-acaryas of their respective missions, Srila Prabhupada used the phrase founder-acarya to denote his position within ISKCON as just that: its founder and acarya, nothing more, and nothing less. “Founder-acarya” meant that Srila Prabhupada was the founder of an institution—in this case ISKCON—and the acarya of that institution. I have not found anything Srila Prabhupada said or wrote that would suggest that he considered himself anything other than this. And a VedaBase search for the term “sampradaya-acarya” yields only statements about personalities like Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, etc. The term clearly had--and according to ISKCON’s GBC still has--a very specific, commonsense definition:
ISKCON GBC definition of Founder-Acarya:
Srila Prabhupada, the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON
2.1 Definition
To fulfill the previous acarya's desire for a united worldwide preaching organization to expand Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, Srila Prabhupada founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as a distinct branch of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaisnava-sampradaya. Therefore he is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. (http://vyasapuja.net/iskcongbc/iskcon_law_book_ch2.html)
This is an accurate definition of the term founder-acarya. It is clearly spelled out that ISKCON is a distinct branch of the Gaudiya sampradaya, and this is ISKCON’s true historical position relative to the sampradaya. (Some make the claim that ISKCON is synonymous with the Gaudiya sampradaya, but this claim is so ludicrous that I won’t even address it here.) Since ISKCON is a branch on a much larger tree, how then can the founder and acarya of the branch be considered the founder and acarya of the tree when the tree was already in existence for hundreds of years before the branch? This conclusion makes no sense, while to say that Srila Prabhupada is the founder-acarya of ISKCON makes perfect sense. I cannot therefore agree with any definition of “founder-acarya” that broadens it so far beyond its intended meaning in defiance of all logic and the facts of history.
Point number two—that Srila Prabhupada is the founder and acarya of the yuga-dharma, and the standards he set are to be followed by sincere followers for 10,000 years—is a ludicrous claim, unsupported by any reasonable evidence. The founders of the “Krsna consciousness movement” are Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu, as we see from the Caitanya-bhagavata:
(give reference(s) from Caitanya Bhagavata and/or Cc.).
The yuga-dharma is the dharma for a given epoch of the world (which in Kali-yuga is nama-sankirtana, or nama-dharma) and is established by Bhagavan himself. The yuga-dharma was being practiced by Vaisnavas and with Saraswati Thakura the large scale dissemination of it began. Srila Prabhupada furthered this dissemination, but he most definitely did not start it. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts. As for the 10,000 year idea, Sriman Bhrigupada dasa has addressed this in his article on the topic (cite reference).
With assertion number three--that Srila Prabhupada occupies a unique position in the Gaudiya sampradaya and that this position is analogous to the positions of acaryas like Madhva and Ramanuja--I partially agree. I agree wholeheartedly that Srila Prabhupada is unique in the history of the Gaudiya sampradaya in that he disseminated Mahaprabhu’s teachings on a scale and magnitude never before seen. Yet despite this glorious fact I cannot agree with the idea that he did anything even remotely analogous to Madhva or Ramanuja. In a Sanga (cite reference) Swami B. V. Tripurari writes:
In Sri Caitanya's religion there are many lineages. Srila Prabhupada is a member and prominent guru in one of them, one that in modern times follows the vision of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada identified his movement as the movement of Thakura Bhaktivinoda. This statement is merely factual. It does not minimize Srila Prabhupada and would not need to be made if it were not for those who have tried to identify the title "Founder Acarya," with founders of sampradayas, such as Madhva, Ramanuja, and Sri Caitanya.
(From Sanga: Adi-Guru and Founder-Acarya
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2004/2004_19.php)
If we examine the history of previous acaryas who founded their own sampradayas we will see that their roles as founders are defined by a number of specific functions. In every case the acaryas who founded sampradayas espoused complete, coherent systems of thought—what I will refer to as a metaphysic-- with distinct characteristics from other systems of thought. It is in fact the metaphysic of a sampradaya that is its single most important defining characteristic. In addition to the metaphysic, the founder establishes the mantras to be chanted, the rules and regulations to be followed, and creates a distinct tilaka mark to distinguish the sampradaya from others.
Sankaracarya established Kevaladvaitavada, Madhva established Dvaitavada, Ramanuja established Visistadvaita, Nimbarka established Dvaita-dvaitavada, and Vallabha established Suddhadvaita. According to Sri Jiva Goswami’s Sarva-samvadini tika on Sat-sandarbha the founder of the Gaudiya sampradaya is—surprise!—Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It was Sri Jiva who articulated the philosophy underlying Mahaprabhu’s ecstasy and gave it the name acintya-bhedabheda. By the time of Srila Prabhupada all of the elements that define a sampradya had been in place for centuries. The metaphysic was already established in a highly refined form by Sri Jiva and subsequently commented on for generations by acaryas following him. Srila Prabhupada did not establish his own metaphysic; on the contrary, he said many times that his virtue lay in the fact that he faithfully represented Mahaprabhu’s teachings as he received them from the guru-parampara.
Point four--that Srila Prabhupada established the rules, regulations, and siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya—is simply not true. As I’ve mentioned, the siddhanta was already long established. The tilaka was established. The mantras were established. And the rules and regulations were already spelled out by the Goswamis themselves in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa roughly four hundred years before Srila Prabhupada.
Assertion number five--that only a person in the position of “founder-acarya” has the right to adjust the details of the teachings to facilitate the dissemination of the overall message—has some serious problems. If it were true that only the founder was competent to adjust the details then any sampradaya would very quickly become obsolete after the disappearance of the founder. It is true that not just anyone can adjust the details. To do so successfully requires realization, sastric knowledge, and the ability to think dynamically and strategically about the tradition and about how to best present the tradition. But this is what guru-parampara is all about, i.e., remaining true to the essential spirit of the teachings (the substance) while adjusting the details (the external forms) according to circumstance. Swami B. V. Tripurari addresses this point succinctly in his Bhagavad-gita commentary to verse 4.2:
“The mystery of guru-parampara is that while it suggests conformity to a lineage dating into antiquity, at the same time its spirit is that of nonconformity. Becoming a member, one conforms with the Absolute, the supreme nonconformist, who is absolutely independent. To be in the guru-parampara, one must sometimes leave what appears to be the lineage. One must distinguish between the form and the substance of the tradition. Thus we find the most prominent members of the lineage are involved in renovation of the tradition, revealing its truth in a way relevant to time and circumstance, such that often those who are members in form only cannot appreciate them. To recognize reformers of the mission, practitioners themselves must also become essence seekers on a deeper level and thus remain vital in their practice. Failure to do so involves a break from the tradition despite superficial adherence to its external symbols.”
The next point, that there can be only one “founder-acarya” is true only if we reject the commonsense definition of the term. There can be only one founder of a lineage, obviously. But if we take the term founder-acarya the way Srila Prabhupada used it as I have explained earlier then clearly there can be any number of “founder-acaryas.” If a Vaisnava founds an institution for the dissemination of Mahaprabhu’s teachings it follows that he or she is the acarya of that institution and so he or she is the “founder-acarya.” Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was the founder-acarya of the first Gaudiya Vaisnava institution, the Gaudiya Matha. Following him, Srila Prabhupada, Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva, Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami, Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, etc. were all founder-acaryas of their respective missions. The fact that Srila Prabhupada did extraordinary outreach through the medium of his institution does not change the fact that there were, and are, other Vaisnavas qualified to head their own institutions.
I believe that the idea of Srila Prabhupada being considered the founder-acarya of a sampradaya has arisen out of a genuine desire to glorify him. I do not think the people who hold this view are ill-intentioned, rather only misguided. But we have all heard the maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intensions, and unfortunately I think this has direct application in this case. How so? Because if our glorification is to really be so it must be not just well-intentioned but accurate also. Inaccurate glorification is no glorification at all, just useless sentiment. Such so-called glorification is nothing new among Srila Prabhupada’s followers, with one of the most well known examples being Srila Prabhupada’s expulsion of four of his leading disciples, all sannyasis, who sought to glorify him by teaching that he is Krsna. Their intended glorification had the opposite effect because it was simply not true.
Unfortunately this is exactly what the proponents of Srila Prabhupada’s status as the “sampradaya acarya” have done: in their effort to glorify him they make claims that are clearly untrue and that run counter to historical record. Did he establish a metaphysic? No. Did he establish the mantras we chant? No. Did he invent a new tilaka mark? No. Did he codify the rules we follow? No. Clearly, then, even the most creative thinking will not allow us to consider Srila Prabhupada as the founder of a sampradaya. His genius was not in formulating a new metaphysic or in any of the other items involved in founding a sampradaya. Rather his genius lay in taking Mahaprabhu’s teachings and dynamically adjusting the details so that his audience could best take up the practices of Krsnanusilanam. This he did out of his profound love and surrender for his own Gurudeva and for his ista-devata, in his own inimitable style all over the world. Is that not glorious enough?
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - May 20, 2009 6:19 am
That was brilliant Citta Hari.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 2:26 pm
That was brilliant Citta Hari.
Thanks for that. I'm still hoping to get some critical feedback to trim the fat, weed out any bad logic, fuzzy thinking and so forth. Are there any points that need to be made that I've left out? Any that don't need to be there? In essence I'd like to tear it apart here so that when it's published the opposition has already been dealt with exhaustively.
Prahlad Das - May 20, 2009 4:59 pm
Dandavats all,
I'm writing an article for the Harmonist dealing with the "founder-acarya" misconception. Below is a first draft. I'm putting it up here for discussion--have I missed any points, does it all make sense, how can the arguments be improved, etc.
The "Founder-acarya" Misconception
Citta Hari dasa
In this article I will address the idea that has arisen among a sector of followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada that he is the “founder-acarya” (or “sampradaya-acarya”) of the Gaudiya sampradaya, or even the founder of his own sampradaya. This idea is derived in part from Srila Prabhupada’s usage of the term “founder-acarya,” a term that first came to be used during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. In the years since his disappearance the term founder-acarya has taken on a broader definition than its original use by either Saraswati Thakura or Srila Prabhupada. According to this broader definition its adherents put forth the idea that Srila Prabhupada holds a position in Gaudiya history that does not square with reality, a position analogous to that of acaryas like Sri Madhva or Sri Ramanuja. A few examples should suffice to illustrate what the term “founder-acarya” has come to mean for those who wish to place Srila Prabhupada in this position:
”Srila Prabhupada is not just an acharya; not just the founder of a society; he is the Founder-Acharya of the Krishna Consciousness Movement, which is a dynamic spiritual reality - the Yuga Dharma. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada is to be appreciated not merely as the acharya of a few intimate servants or even the acharya of a single generation of disciples. Rather, as the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, he established the standard of Krishna consciousness to be practiced by all sincere followers for ten thousand years to come.”
Atmatattva das [http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/50/1/AC-Bhaktivedanta-Swami-Prabhupada-Founder-Acharya-of-the-Golden-Age/Page1.html]
“Srila Prabhupada is our samsthapaka-acharya. It is the duty of the samsthapaka-acharya to establish the rules, regulations and siddhanta of a sampradaya. He has the right and obligation to adjust external principles to suit time, place and circumstance. Others are only acharya in as much as they follow his standard. Let's not have another Kirtanananda, who claimed he was the "samsthapaka-acharya of New Vrindavana". There are no two samsthapaka-acharyas. The founder-acharya is one, and for our line it is Srila Prabhupada. Others who think they can adjust the teachings of the samsthapaka-acharya are nothing but pretenders; their authority is lost.”
Jahnava-Nitai dasa [http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28243-third-sex-gay-vaisnavas-8.html]
“It is the desire of Mahaprabhu Himself that Srila Prabhupada should be accorded special, almost unprecedented honor in the Gaudiya-sampradaya. Bhaktivinoda Thakura predicted Prabhupada’s appearance, and as far as we know no other great acarya is scheduled to appear in the near future. So, it is obvious that Srila Prabhupada is destined to be prominent in the Brahma-sampradaya in this yuga in the same way that Srila Madhvacarya is prominent in the sampradaya and Sri Ramanujacarya is prominent in the Sri-sampradaya.
“Never will anyone be single-handedly glorious and successful, and thus no one will ever attain a position like Prabhupada’s. As Dhruva Maharaja’s position is unique in this universe, Prabhupada’s position is unique in our sampradaya. Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya – now and always. It is a simple thing to understand: Lord Caitanya’s ecstatic love of Godhead will always be distributed by Srila Prabhupada. As all avatars in this yuga prepared the field for Lord Caitanya’s advent, we can also say that all gurus and acaryas in our line have assisted in laying the foundations of Srila Prabhupada’s mission, the destined main branch of Lord Caitanya’s movement.” Sriman Nrsingha Prabhu [http://www.krishnaconsciousnessmovement.com/jagatguru.html]
There are a number of assertions made by the adherents of this idea. I’ll list the main ones and address each one in turn. They are:
1) That the term “founder-acarya” (or if we render it into Sanskrit the “samsthapaka-acarya” ((perhaps do this sooner?))) refers not only to the founder and acarya of a specific institution but also means “sampradaya acarya,” i.e., the acarya of the Gaudiya sampradaya.
2) That Srila Prabhupada is the founder and acarya of the yuga-dharma, and the standards he set are to be followed by sincere followers for 10,000 years.
3) That Srila Prabhupada occupies a unique position in the Gaudiya sampradaya and that this position is analogous to the positions of acaryas like Madhva and Ramanuja.
4) That, in keeping with the duties of a “founder-acarya,” Srila Prabhupada established the rules, regulations, and siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya.
5) That only a person in the position of “founder-acarya” has the right to adjust the details of the teachings to facilitate the dissemination of the overall message.
6) That there can be only one “founder-acarya.”
I’ll begin an analysis and refutation of these assertions with the definition of the term “founder-acarya.” Like those of his Godbrothers who also referred to themselves as founder-acaryas of their respective missions, Srila Prabhupada used the phrase founder-acarya to denote his position within ISKCON as just that: its founder and acarya, nothing more, and nothing less. “Founder-acarya” meant that Srila Prabhupada was the founder of an institution—in this case ISKCON—and the acarya of that institution. I have not found anything Srila Prabhupada said or wrote that would suggest that he considered himself anything other than this. And a VedaBase search for the term “sampradaya-acarya” yields only statements about personalities like Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, etc. The term clearly had--and according to ISKCON’s GBC still has--a very specific, commonsense definition:
ISKCON GBC definition of Founder-Acarya:
Srila Prabhupada, the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON
2.1 Definition
To fulfill the previous acarya's desire for a united worldwide preaching organization to expand Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, Srila Prabhupada founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as a distinct branch of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaisnava-sampradaya. Therefore he is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. (http://vyasapuja.net/iskcongbc/iskcon_law_book_ch2.html)
This is an accurate definition of the term founder-acarya. It is clearly spelled out that ISKCON is a distinct branch of the Gaudiya sampradaya, and this is ISKCON’s true historical position relative to the sampradaya. (Some make the claim that ISKCON is synonymous with the Gaudiya sampradaya, but this claim is so ludicrous that I won’t even address it here.) Since ISKCON is a branch on a much larger tree, how then can the founder and acarya of the branch be considered the founder and acarya of the tree when the tree was already in existence for hundreds of years before the branch? This conclusion makes no sense, while to say that Srila Prabhupada is the founder-acarya of ISKCON makes perfect sense. I cannot therefore agree with any definition of “founder-acarya” that broadens it so far beyond its intended meaning in defiance of all logic and the facts of history.
Point number two—that Srila Prabhupada is the founder and acarya of the yuga-dharma, and the standards he set are to be followed by sincere followers for 10,000 years—is a ludicrous claim ((may not be necessary for public distribution)), unsupported by any reasonable evidence. The founders of the “Krsna consciousness movement” are Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu, as we see from the Caitanya-bhagavata:
(give reference(s) from Caitanya Bhagavata and/or Cc.).
The yuga-dharma is the dharma for a given epoch of the world (which in Kali-yuga is nama-sankirtana, or nama-dharma) and is established by Bhagavan himself. The yuga-dharma was being practiced by Vaisnavas and with Saraswati Thakura the large scale dissemination of it began. Srila Prabhupada furthered this dissemination, but he most definitely did not start it. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts. As for the 10,000 year idea, Sriman Bhrigupada dasa has addressed this in his article on the topic (cite reference).
With assertion number three--that Srila Prabhupada occupies a unique position in the Gaudiya sampradaya and that this position is analogous to the positions of acaryas like Madhva and Ramanuja--I partially agree. I agree wholeheartedly that Srila Prabhupada is unique in the history of the Gaudiya sampradaya in that he disseminated Mahaprabhu’s teachings on a scale and magnitude never before seen. Yet despite this glorious fact I cannot agree with the idea that he did anything even remotely analogous to Madhva or Ramanuja. In a Sanga (cite reference) Swami B. V. Tripurari writes:
In Sri Caitanya's religion there are many lineages. Srila Prabhupada is a member and prominent guru in one of them, one that in modern times follows the vision of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada identified his movement as the movement of Thakura Bhaktivinoda. This statement is merely factual. It does not minimize Srila Prabhupada and would not need to be made if it were not for those who have tried to identify the title "Founder Acarya," with founders of sampradayas, such as Madhva, Ramanuja, and Sri Caitanya.
(From Sanga: Adi-Guru and Founder-Acarya
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2004/2004_19.php)
If we examine the history of previous acaryas who founded their own sampradayas we will see that their roles as founders are defined by a number of specific functions. In every case the acaryas who founded sampradayas espoused complete, coherent systems of thought—what I will refer to as a metaphysic-- with distinct characteristics from other systems of thought. It is in fact the metaphysic of a sampradaya that is its single most important defining characteristic. In addition to the metaphysic, the founder establishes the mantras to be chanted, the rules and regulations to be followed, and creates a distinct tilaka mark to distinguish the sampradaya from others.
Sankaracarya established Kevaladvaitavada, Madhva established Dvaitavada, Ramanuja established Visistadvaita, Nimbarka established Dvaita-dvaitavada, and Vallabha established Suddhadvaita. According to Sri Jiva Goswami’s Sarva-samvadini tika on Sat-sandarbha the founder of the Gaudiya sampradaya is—surprise!—((publicly distributed sarcasm? :Big Grin: ))Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It was Sri Jiva who articulated the philosophy underlying Mahaprabhu’s ecstasy and gave it the name acintya-bhedabheda. By the time of Srila Prabhupada all of the elements that define a sampradya had been in place for centuries. The metaphysic was already established in a highly refined form by Sri Jiva and subsequently commented on for generations by acaryas following him. Srila Prabhupada did not establish his own metaphysic; on the contrary, he said many times that his virtue lay in the fact that he faithfully represented Mahaprabhu’s teachings as he received them from the guru-parampara.
Point four--that Srila Prabhupada established the rules, regulations, and siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya—is simply not true. As I’ve mentioned, the siddhanta was already long established. The tilaka was established. The mantras were established. And the rules and regulations were already spelled out by the Goswamis themselves in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa roughly four hundred years before Srila Prabhupada.
Assertion number five--that only a person in the position of “founder-acarya” has the right to adjust the details of the teachings to facilitate the dissemination of the overall message—has some serious problems. If it were true that only the founder was competent to adjust the details then any sampradaya would very quickly become obsolete after the disappearance of the founder. It is true that not just anyone can adjust the details. To do so successfully requires realization, sastric knowledge, and the ability to think dynamically and strategically about the tradition and about how to best present the tradition. But this is what guru-parampara is all about, i.e., remaining true to the essential spirit of the teachings (the substance) while adjusting the details (the external forms) according to circumstance. Swami B. V. Tripurari addresses this point succinctly in his Bhagavad-gita commentary to verse 4.2:
“The mystery of guru-parampara is that while it suggests conformity to a lineage dating into antiquity, at the same time its spirit is that of nonconformity. Becoming a member, one conforms with the Absolute, the supreme nonconformist, who is absolutely independent. To be in the guru-parampara, one must sometimes leave what appears to be the lineage. One must distinguish between the form and the substance of the tradition. Thus we find the most prominent members of the lineage are involved in renovation of the tradition, revealing its truth in a way relevant to time and circumstance, such that often those who are members in form only cannot appreciate them. To recognize reformers of the mission, practitioners themselves must also become essence seekers on a deeper level and thus remain vital in their practice. Failure to do so involves a break from the tradition despite superficial adherence to its external symbols.”
The next point, that there can be only one “founder-acarya” is true only if we reject the commonsense definition of the term. There can be only one founder of a lineage, obviously. But if we take the term founder-acarya the way Srila Prabhupada used it as I have explained earlier then clearly there can be any number of “founder-acaryas.” If a Vaisnava founds an institution for the dissemination of Mahaprabhu’s teachings it follows that he or she is the acarya of that institution and so he or she is the “founder-acarya.” Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was the founder-acarya of the first Gaudiya Vaisnava institution, the Gaudiya Matha. Following him, Srila Prabhupada, Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva, Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami, Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, etc. were all founder-acaryas of their respective missions. The fact that Srila Prabhupada did extraordinary outreach through the medium of his institution does not change the fact that there were, and are, other Vaisnavas qualified to head their own institutions.
I believe that the idea of Srila Prabhupada being considered the founder-acarya of a sampradaya has arisen out of a genuine desire to glorify him. I do not think the people who hold this view are ill-intentioned, rather only misguided. But we have all heard the maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intensions, and unfortunately I think this has direct application in this case. How so? Because if our glorification is to really be so it must be not just well-intentioned but accurate also. Inaccurate glorification is no glorification at all, just useless sentiment. Such so-called glorification is nothing new among Srila Prabhupada’s followers, with one of the most well known examples being Srila Prabhupada’s expulsion of four of his leading disciples, all sannyasis, who sought to glorify him by teaching that he is Krsna. Their intended glorification had the opposite effect because it was simply not true.
Unfortunately this is exactly what the proponents of Srila Prabhupada’s status as the “sampradaya acarya” have done: in their effort to glorify him they make claims that are clearly untrue and that run counter to historical record. Did he establish a metaphysic? No. Did he establish the mantras we chant? No. Did he invent a new tilaka mark? No. Did he codify the rules we follow? No. Clearly, then, even the most creative thinking will not allow us to consider Srila Prabhupada as the founder of a sampradaya. His genius was not in formulating a new metaphysic or in any of the other items involved in founding a sampradaya. Rather his genius lay in taking Mahaprabhu’s teachings and dynamically adjusting the details so that his audience could best take up the practices of Krsnanusilanam. This he did out of his profound love and surrender for his own Gurudeva and for his ista-devata, in his own inimitable style all over the world. Is that not glorious enough?
This is great! I'm glad you are addressing this. Perhaps you can go into the cons of calling isolating Prabhupada as the axis acharya of the Gaudiya Krsna Conscious movement and the pros of not isolating him, [cons] such as inhibiting dynamics to time place and circumstance to further the preaching, [pros] such as the opposite of what I mentioned (which Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta, and Bhaktivinode were known to have done), being increased sensitivity towards the dynamics of the divine flow, all under the umbrella of Sri Caitanya's achintya bhedabhed founded philosophical foundation.
The difficulties caused by this "Founder-Acarya" misconception are numerous. It seems adherents find themselves at a dam or bulk head or sediment filter (what have you) when trying to explain certain considerations of Srila Prabhupada which may not fit with the Gaudiya tradition (such as women and Gayatri mantra) or modern understandings (such as women and small brains, blacks and jews of a certain nature etc...) They are left with the hope that Prabhupada is the yuga dharma acharya so what he says must be right in all circumstances and while everyone else is moving with the flow (well, maybe not everyone, but I can certainly think of a few 
) they are left like sticks in the mud. On one hand women receiving Gayatri sets a new precedent and indicates dynamic inclusion, and on the other hand there is exclusion. By eliminating Prabhupada as the axis (which as you said is true glorification, especially warranted by Prabhupada, himself) one can see the grander picture of the movement and momentum initiated by Mahaprabhu, and detailed by the Goswamis and our other Gaudiya acharyas.
Please excuse the imagery.
While I could not see needed improvement I tried to find something, as you requested. It may make a larger essay but I think it will help if more reasons for undercutting this notion of "yuga-dharma, precident setting for 10,000 years (a laughable notion seeing as how time is relative 10,000 years being but a relative moment for Brahma what to speak of Vishnu) founder of Krsna Consciousness" are highlighted.
Nitaisundara Das - May 20, 2009 5:18 pm
I think the article is really nice. Clear and authoritative.
One thing you might want to add is to emphasize the point that the purpose of being a founder acharya is to enable others to become Acharyas!. So not only is it wrong that Prabhupada is the only one, but if he is as glorious as the fanatics think that they know he is, then there should be some acharyas who have emerged under his influence. He was founder acharya and he wanted to "found" (defined in one sense from oxford dictionary "serve as a basis for") — more acharyas.
The article stands strong regardless, but perhaps this would add to it.
Babhru Das - May 20, 2009 5:36 pm
I like this. The issue is important enough, and the resistance will predictably be strong enough (we've all seen Rocana's Sampradaya Acharya stuff, as well as Bhakticharu Maharaja's exhortations that we keep Srila Prabhupada in the center), that we need to strike just the right tone. I'll make time to read it more carefully to see if I can come up with any suggestions.
Audarya-lila Dasa - May 20, 2009 6:15 pm
One problem in writing such an article is that there is no one consistent argument - this is bore out in your article by the quotes from various sources which are saying different things. I'm not sure how best to deal with this - you have done a good job but you will have arguments immediately because you can't 'lump' all these ideas together and holders of some aspect of 'the idea' will object to being lumped in with ideas they don't espouse.
The other problem is with nomenclature. Founder Acharya is one thing and you did a good job defining that. The concept of Sampradaya Acharya that is being used to define Srila Prabhupada by some is another term and is, of course, problematic as well since there is no consensus amongst those who use that term as to what exactly it means.
I think it would be a good idea to make it a little clearer in your article that there is no one consistent voice or idea regarding these terms and that you are addressing ideas expressed by the individuals you have quoted and may not be covering all the conceptions floating around about these terms and how/if they apply to Srila Prabhupada.
Syamasundara - May 20, 2009 6:26 pm
Nice article. I had no idea that misconception got so much out of control that an article is needed.
Not too much time for internet (more tomorrow), but just two things as far as the form:
I would start a separate paragraph for each point you address, and change Sriman, which is only for nouns beginning with N, M and I believe L, to Srimad Bhrigupada.
I also had a bit of reaction when I read: "Did he invent a tilaka?" Maybe design or any other verb with a neutral or positive connotation would be better; but these are all minor points. Good job!
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:24 pm
I think the article is really nice. Clear and authoritative.
One thing you might want to add is to emphasize the point that the purpose of being a founder acharya is to enable others to become Acharyas!. So not only is it wrong that Prabhupada is the only one, but if he is as glorious as the fanatics think that they know he is, then there should be some acharyas who have emerged under his influence. He was founder acharya and he wanted to "found" (defined in one sense from oxford dictionary "serve as a basis for") — more acharyas.
The article stands strong regardless, but perhaps this would add to it.
This is a good point and I'll add it in, probably in the section where I discuss parampara.
Gopala Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:28 pm
I believe that the idea of Srila Prabhupada being considered the founder-acarya of a sampradaya has arisen out of a genuine desire to glorify him.
You might consider (although possibly in a separate article) the other factors that contributed to or fostered these distortions.
Although it would be difficult to establish a direct causal connection between the following realities and the specific misconceptions enumerated in your piece, l think in general we can say that insulation from other bona fide branches of the Gaudiya Matha, a policy of Vaisnava aparadha, widespread disappointment in ISKCON’s post-samadhi leadership, a poor understanding of guru-tattva, etc. certainly helped eclipse the commonsense definition of “founder acarya.”
While a “genuine desire to glorify” Srila Prabhupada may be a component of the positions you debunk in the article, the trend to inappropriately or over-glorify Prabhuapda is also attributable to a particular institutional climate that has fostered (or, at least, very seldom discouraged) creative re-imagining of the founder-acarya and his position within Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:29 pm
One problem in writing such an article is that there is no one consistent argument - this is bore out in your article by the quotes from various sources which are saying different things. I'm not sure how best to deal with this - you have done a good job but you will have arguments immediately because you can't 'lump' all these ideas together and holders of some aspect of 'the idea' will object to being lumped in with ideas they don't espouse.
The other problem is with nomenclature. Founder Acharya is one thing and you did a good job defining that. The concept of Sampradaya Acharya that is being used to define Srila Prabhupada by some is another term and is, of course, problematic as well since there is no consensus amongst those who use that term as to what exactly it means.
I think it would be a good idea to make it a little clearer in your article that there is no one consistent voice or idea regarding these terms and that you are addressing ideas expressed by the individuals you have quoted and may not be covering all the conceptions floating around about these terms and how/if they apply to Srila Prabhupada.
I did consider the fact of inconsistency of arguments and definitions of terms among the adherents of the idea, and so I just attempted to address the common arguments distilled from the various sources I've read. It is definitely difficult to address a moving target like this, but my thinking is that we'll address it according to what we've seen, and further objections can be dealt with as they come, whether in the comments or as separate articles. That said I do think your suggestion in your last paragraph is a good one and I'll work that in.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:32 pm
Nice article. I had no idea that misconception got so much out of control that an article is needed.
Not too much time for internet (more tomorrow), but just two things as far as the form:
I would start a separate paragraph for each point you address, and change Sriman, which is only for nouns beginning with N, M and I believe L, to Srimad Bhrigupada.
I also had a bit of reaction when I read: "Did he invent a tilaka?" Maybe design or any other verb with a neutral or positive connotation would be better; but these are all minor points. Good job!
Thanks for the input, Syamu. I did start a separate paragraph for each point, but the formatting gets all wonky when translating from Word to Tattva-viveka. As for the usage of "invent", I thought it rather demonstrated his creativity! I see your point though, and will consider something more neutral, as you say.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:34 pm
While I could not see needed improvement I tried to find something, as you requested. It may make a larger essay but I think it will help if more reasons for undercutting this notion of "yuga-dharma, precident setting for 10,000 years (a laughable notion seeing as how time is relative 10,000 years being but a relative moment for Brahma what to speak of Vishnu) founder of Krsna Consciousness" are highlighted.
I made a reference in the article to Bhrigupada's article which deals in detail with the 10,000 year concept.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 7:41 pm
You might consider (although possibly in a separate article) the other factors that contributed to or fostered these distortions.
Although it would be difficult to establish a direct causal connection between the following realities and the specific misconceptions enumerated in your piece, l think in general we can say that insulation from other bona fide branches of the Gaudiya Matha, a policy of Vaisnava aparadha, widespread disappointment in ISKCON’s post-samadhi leadership, a poor understanding of guru-tattva, etc. certainly helped eclipse the commonsense definition of “founder acarya.”
While a “genuine desire to glorify” Srila Prabhupada may be a component of the positions you debunk in the article, the trend to inappropriately or over-glorify Prabhuapda is also attributable to a particular institutional climate that has fostered (or, at least, very seldom discouraged) creative re-imagining of the founder-acarya and his position within Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
I did stay away from what the possible causes for the misconception might be since as you said it would be difficult to establish them as causes, and the nature of such arguments might appear speculative and thus reduce the overall impact of the article. To do it right I think would require considerable length and would distract the reader from this particular article's main thrust. So I would say a separate article would be called for, and would perhaps need to be written by someone who is more familiar with ISKCON than I am.
Nitaisundara Das - May 20, 2009 8:22 pm
I made a reference in the article to Bhrigupada's article which deals in detail with the 10,000 year concept.
GM has expressed a desire to re-publish this at some point on the Harmonist.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 9:56 pm
GM has expressed a desire to re-publish this at some point on the Harmonist.
That's what I was hoping. A link could be placed in my article to it.
Prahlad Das - May 20, 2009 10:36 pm
One problem in writing such an article is that there is no one consistent argument - this is bore out in your article by the quotes from various sources which are saying different things. I'm not sure how best to deal with this - you have done a good job but you will have arguments immediately because you can't 'lump' all these ideas together and holders of some aspect of 'the idea' will object to being lumped in with ideas they don't espouse.
The other problem is with nomenclature. Founder Acharya is one thing and you did a good job defining that. The concept of Sampradaya Acharya that is being used to define Srila Prabhupada by some is another term and is, of course, problematic as well since there is no consensus amongst those who use that term as to what exactly it means.
I think it would be a good idea to make it a little clearer in your article that there is no one consistent voice or idea regarding these terms and that you are addressing ideas expressed by the individuals you have quoted and may not be covering all the conceptions floating around about these terms and how/if they apply to Srila Prabhupada.
I was just thinking about it along these lines. Nowadays, there is not a whole lot of agreement as to how to best partake in Prabhupada's movement. The rtviks, GBCs, etc are at heads even using Prabhupada as their axis.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 11:06 pm
You might consider (although possibly in a separate article) the other factors that contributed to or fostered these distortions.
Although it would be difficult to establish a direct causal connection between the following realities and the specific misconceptions enumerated in your piece, l think in general we can say that insulation from other bona fide branches of the Gaudiya Matha, a policy of Vaisnava aparadha, widespread disappointment in ISKCON’s post-samadhi leadership, a poor understanding of guru-tattva, etc. certainly helped eclipse the commonsense definition of “founder acarya.”
While a “genuine desire to glorify” Srila Prabhupada may be a component of the positions you debunk in the article, the trend to inappropriately or over-glorify Prabhuapda is also attributable to a particular institutional climate that has fostered (or, at least, very seldom discouraged) creative re-imagining of the founder-acarya and his position within Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
In addition to what you wrote about the causes that could be addressed in another article I had the following ideas:
Factors that helped eclipse the commonsense definition of “founder acarya.”
1) failure to distinguish between relative and absolute
2) failure to distinguish between form and substance
3) a poor understanding of guru-tattva
4) a policy of Vaisnava aparadha
5) widespread disappointment in ISKCON’s post-samadhi leadership
6) insulation from other bona fide branches of the Gaudiya Matha
etc.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2009 11:09 pm
I was just thinking about it along these lines. Nowadays, there is not a whole lot of agreement as to how to best partake in Prabhupada's movement. The rtviks, GBCs, etc are at heads even using Prabhupada as their axis.
Different conceptions of Prabhupada will always be there. Some will be based on the truth and some won't. I think all we can do is present the truth in a strong (but palatable, of course) way and let the cards fall where they may.
Vrindavandas - May 21, 2009 1:14 am
Since I live very close to the Los Angeles temple, and go there at least 3 times per week, I thought maybe I should add some input here. L.A. temple is considered on the more conservative side and I cannot think of really anyone who has this idea of Prabhupada being the Sampradaya Acharya. I think a lot of arguments that I see these days in posts on this site are really no longer relevant to the times. Most temples are congregational at best and attended mostly by Indians. The young people that I know who serve at the temple do not have this concept at all, nor do the Indians for that matter. I think this concept is pretty much old news and people like Rocana and the ritviks are the barking dogs Prabhupada had repeatedly warned about to ignore. I think the best way to help and enlighten would be to write an article that glorified Prabhupada and his contributions nicely, while showing how other founder acaryas of their missions can be complimentary inspiration as well. For the most part, this whole idea of Prabhupada being the only vessel of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is pretty much outdated. I don't hear anyone around town speaking in this manner. More complaints are how to get devotees to respect one another and the various project managers. That is an internal issue though, that an article won't solve. It would be more encouraging to see waves of articles of how everyone can work together nicely and contribute according to their capacity.
haribol
Citta Hari Dasa - May 21, 2009 2:19 am
Since I live very close to the Los Angeles temple, and go there at least 3 times per week, I thought maybe I should add some input here. L.A. temple is considered on the more conservative side and I cannot think of really anyone who has this idea of Prabhupada being the Sampradaya Acharya. I think a lot of arguments that I see these days in posts on this site are really no longer relevant to the times. Most temples are congregational at best and attended mostly by Indians. The young people that I know who serve at the temple do not have this concept at all, nor do the Indians for that matter. I think this concept is pretty much old news and people like Rocana and the ritviks are the barking dogs Prabhupada had repeatedly warned about to ignore. I think the best way to help and enlighten would be to write an article that glorified Prabhupada and his contributions nicely, while showing how other founder acaryas of their missions can be complimentary inspiration as well. For the most part, this whole idea of Prabhupada being the only vessel of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is pretty much outdated. I don't hear anyone around town speaking in this manner. More complaints are how to get devotees to respect one another and the various project managers. That is an internal issue though, that an article won't solve. It would be more encouraging to see waves of articles of how everyone can work together nicely and contribute according to their capacity.
haribol
The Gaudiya world is as you know more than just ISKCON temples, it includes the Word Wide Web. The idea may be outdated to some but there are those who still have this conception and I think there needs to be definitive articles that deal with it so at least the counter arguments are out and about for the record. And we will find out once the article is posted whether it's a dead issue or not by how much opposition it stirs up.
Swami - May 21, 2009 3:34 am
I think the topic is relevant today. But there is also some truth to Vrindavana dasa's observation. But with regard to that observation he used the word conservative to describe the temple. Conservative means that the leadership shares the misconceptions Citta Hari is addressing. Indeed, I know the leadership of New Dvaraka and the president and others have been more or less covert ritviks for decades, even while opposing ritvikvada. That said the references Citta Hari cited are dated. One is undated the other two are dated 2001 and 2005. At least two of them are not from mainstream Iskcon. Quotes from the center will be more effective. Perhaps you could look in the most recent Vyasa puja book glorifying SP. You will probably find something there, if not last year's, recent years. Perhaps there are some GBC resolutions establishing the preeminent position of the founding acarya. Or search dandavats.com
Swami - May 21, 2009 3:58 am
I think that Iskcon is driven by a distorted idea of "founder acarya" but the loudest proponents of this and the most distorted conceptions tend to be out of the mainstream of Iskcon. However they continue to have a life because they are believed by the Iskcon leadership to a large degree. So the trick is to show that these misconceptions play a significant role in mainstream Iskcon, if that is, you want them to listen to what you have to say. Take a good look at Sivarama Swami's book on the Siksa Guru. I am quite sure you will find this misconception there, detailed by an esteemed guru and GBC in Iskcon. It is perhaps a book intended to be the guiding light within Iskcon on the idea of the siksa guru. Try to find out the status of this book in Iskcon and how much it determines policy.
Nitaisundara Das - May 21, 2009 4:33 am
I think the topic is relevant today. But there is also some truth to Vrindavana dasa's observation. But with regard to that observation he used the word conservative to describe the temple. Conservative means that the leadership shares the misconceptions Citta Hari is addressing. Indeed, I know the leadership of New Dvaraka and the president and others have been more or less covert ritviks for decades, even while opposing ritvikvada. That said the references Citta Hari cited are dated. One is undated the other two are dated 2001 and 2005. At least two of them are not from mainstream Iskcon. Quotes from the center will be more effective. Perhaps you could look in the most recent Vyasa puja book glorifying SP. You will probably find something there, if not last year's, recent years. Perhaps there are some GBC resolutions establishing the preeminent position of the founding acarya. Or search dandavats.com
I think these kind of statements are a dime-a-dozen, or close to it, especially if you consider non-published statements. The sampradaya sun certainly has them a lot. Of course many of the Sun contributors are not ISKCON, but some are... I was shocked once to realize some disciples of SP I knew, while not being ritvik themselves, seemed to admire and respect Rocana for his—whatever it is.
Vrindavandas - May 21, 2009 4:52 am
The Siksa Guru book was intended as a punishment for SRS due to his affiliation with Narayan Maharaja. According to 2 former disciples of his who are friends of mine, he said to them "If it wasn't for Giriraja Swami and Tamal Krsna Maharaja going around trying to convince everyone in ISKCON that Naryana Maharaja should be the acharya of ISKCON, we would be in Mathura with him right now." The relationship was abandoned due to him losing his position in ISKCON if he did not follow orders. Both Tamal Krishna Goswami and Giriraja Swami were suspended for a length of time due to their previous assertions. The Siksa Guru Book does not hold any weight amongst the general ISKCON population. I remember when it first came out 8 years ago, it wasn't even publicised that much. It was being sold at deep discount for a while on Krishna.com. The only person that ever brought the book up to me was Devamrita Swami, and after both reading it we had a 3 hour discussion, where he admitted its flaws. I think it is important to recognize that every founder acarya is the primary siksa guru for that particular institution. I do not think ISKCON is wrong for making this policy a priority. Considering the mishaps of the 80s and 90s, I think it is important for them to in some way regroup to what is important. There is no doubt that Srila Prabhupada brought inspiration to so many. Like I said before, I think the main consideration should be how to incorporate complimentary acharyas into the basic framework without minimizing Prabhupada. In SCS Math, Sridhar Maharaja is the primary siksa for those disciples, Gopinatha Gaudiya Matha, Puri Maharaja is primary siksa guru, etc. I think ISKCON is getting more heat because the ritvik camp is really stemming from Prabhupada disciples and not really any place else.
Bhrigu - May 21, 2009 10:21 am
I tend to agree with Vrindavan Prabhu. For ISKCON to remain one united institution, they must focus on Srila Prabhupada. That is what every movement within modern Hinduism does after the death of its founder. There is not much of a choice here. Personally, I think ISKCON is leaning too much to the institutional side today, but that is understandable when viewed in the context of ISKCON's history. The important question to me is how to harmonise the idea of an institution with the idea of a dynamic guru parampara. Is it possible? And if not, why did Srila Prabhupada so clearly wish for ISKCON to remain united?
Swami - May 21, 2009 1:23 pm
I tend to agree with Vrindavan Prabhu. For ISKCON to remain one united institution, they must focus on Srila Prabhupada. That is what every movement within modern Hinduism does after the death of its founder. There is not much of a choice here. Personally, I think ISKCON is leaning too much to the institutional side today, but that is understandable when viewed in the context of ISKCON's history. The important question to me is how to harmonise the idea of an institution with the idea of a dynamic guru parampara. Is it possible? And if not, why did Srila Prabhupada so clearly wish for ISKCON to remain united?
I agree with this statement. Atmananda posted a GBC resolution about how to deal with a future "self effulgent acarya." Perhaps you could point out how their error is an excess in the name of unity and fidelity that leads to doing away with the potential for dynamic leadership. Perhaps contrast their policy with that of Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, which has a similar idea about unity, GBC governance, a founding acarya, etc. but has not erred to the same extent in terms of castrating the guru (s) in succession.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 21, 2009 3:07 pm
I agree with this statement. Atmananda posted a GBC resolution about how to deal with a future "self effulgent acarya." Perhaps you could point out how their error is an excess in the name of unity and fidelity that leads to doing away with the potential for dynamic leadership. Perhaps contrast their policy with that of Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, which has a similar idea about unity, GBC governance, a founding acarya, etc. but has not erred to the same extent in terms of castrating the guru (s) in succession.
I'll check the web for more up to date references, and I'll work on this point as well.
Atmananda Dasa - May 21, 2009 3:15 pm
Haribol Citta Hari,
Looks like you have a good start on the paper. Get a copy of the SRS's Siks Outside Iskcon booklet. As far as I remember the idea that Founder Acarya is synonymous with acarys like Madhva and Ramanuja is given there. If you are looking for a source that reveals how much this idea is close to mainstream ISKCON, I think that this is a good one as Swami has suggested. I think your explaination of this point is good.
Overall I think the paper is good. I do have one suggestion for you. In my eyes the paper looses credibility if the words that you use carry some emotion with them. For instance: (Some make the claim that ISKCON is synonymous with the Gaudiya sampradaya, but this claim is so ludicrous that I won’t even address it here.) This betrays some emotional attachment to the issue that may lead your audience to doubt your credibility. Another example is According to Sri Jiva Goswami’s Sarva-samvadini tika on Sat-sandarbha the founder of the Gaudiya sampradaya is—surprise!—Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I would say, leave out the Suprise! remark and the statement will be taken more seriously.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 21, 2009 4:02 pm
I think that Iskcon is driven by a distorted idea of "founder acarya" but the loudest proponents of this and the most distorted conceptions tend to be out of the mainstream of Iskcon. However they continue to have a life because they are believed by the Iskcon leadership to a large degree. So the trick is to show that these misconceptions play a significant role in mainstream Iskcon, if that is, you want them to listen to what you have to say. Take a good look at Sivarama Swami's book on the Siksa Guru. I am quite sure you will find this misconception there, detailed by an esteemed guru and GBC in Iskcon. It is perhaps a book intended to be the guiding light within Iskcon on the idea of the siksa guru. Try to find out the status of this book in Iskcon and how much it determines policy.
Sivarama Swami's book has a preface and contribution by Jayaadvaita Swami surprisingly!
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 21, 2009 4:06 pm
I think the topic is relevant today. But there is also some truth to Vrindavana dasa's observation. But with regard to that observation he used the word conservative to describe the temple. Conservative means that the leadership shares the misconceptions Citta Hari is addressing. Indeed, I know the leadership of New Dvaraka and the president and others have been more or less covert ritviks for decades, even while opposing ritvikvada. That said the references Citta Hari cited are dated. One is undated the other two are dated 2001 and 2005. At least two of them are not from mainstream Iskcon. Quotes from the center will be more effective. Perhaps you could look in the most recent Vyasa puja book glorifying SP. You will probably find something there, if not last year's, recent years. Perhaps there are some GBC resolutions establishing the preeminent position of the founding acarya. Or search dandavats.com
I think BCS and Trivikrama swami provide a lot of material as do people who are mainstream SP disciples like Hari Sauri Prabhu.
Babhru Das - May 21, 2009 5:53 pm
Citta, I may have a copy of SRS's smaller siksa-guru booklet on my computer somewhere, unless I deleted it. One of his followers sent it to me about 3 years ago so I could respond to it. I'll do some looking later this afternoon to see if it's still there.
Madan Gopal Das - May 21, 2009 6:27 pm
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 21, 2009 6:45 pm
Now here is what SRS does subtly trying to discredit SSM.
Thus, ¼r¦la Prabhup§da “built a wall”7 around
ISKCON; he forbade his disciples to take instruction outside
the Society.8 Though Prabhup§da considered some
Vai¢£avas outside to be faultless,9 toward others he expressed
affection,10 and still another he called his ªik¢§-
guru,11
This is referring to a letter below:
But
on my proposing this scheme, S.M. in his letter of 24 January,
1969 writes as follows: “On hearing the news of
Golden Jubilee of Caitanya Math, many people are coming
daily to see the place. We can imagine even now how much
big crowd will assemble when the actual fair will take
place. Although we are constructing many temporary sheds
under the circumstances, I do not think we will be able to
give accommodations to your American and European students.
Even after the ceremony I do not think it will be advisable
to call for the American and European students
here in Mayapura. Even though we make special arrangements
for them, that will not be for many days. Even
though you make payment for your students, the other students
will feel inferiority complex. You know very well our
standard of living, and therefore it will not be possible for
us to accommodate your European and American students
here in Mayapura. The best suggestion which I can give
you is that you better rent one house in Vrndavana and accommodate
them there for their education in Sanskrit and
Appendix 81
Bengali. Srila Prabhupada is so kind upon you that he is
causing you to act in such wonderful way, and by seeing
your activities I am feeling very much proud of you.”
This is most discouraging and against the will of Srila
Bhaktivinode Thakura and Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura.
Some devotees use SRS's point where he uses the example of jiva goswami and syamananda to show how diksha guru always has to be the primary influence on the life of disciple. These devotees subtly criticize NM and GM for taking disciples away from their diksha guru like Trivikrama Swami even though the guru is in good standing. How do we answer these people?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 21, 2009 7:09 pm
Here he clarifies the term founder acarya which is a position of Citta.
My definition of founder-§c§rya is restricted in this paper. It will not
include the concept of the founder of a samprad§ya like Lord Brahm§,
or even one who revives a lost tradition as K¥¢£a mentions in Bg. 4.2. I shall deal strictly within the modern realm of Gau¨¦ya Vai¢£avism, beginning
with Bhaktisiddh§nta Sarasvat¦ çh§kura
Some more interesting things:
Doubt 8: It appears that ¼r¦la Prabhup§da instructed at
least some senior Vai¢£avas to help his disciples after his
departure. Does this not indicate that they would be ªik¢§-
gurus for ISKCON’s members?
Also, is it not possible that one of them may be ¼r¦la
Prabhup§da’s self-effulgent successor, as Prabhup§da was
the self-effulgent successor to Bhaktisiddh§nta çh§kura?
Answer: First-hand sources testify that Prabhup§da requested
at least one senior Vai¢£ava to care for his followers.
38 Those same sources, however, confirm that the request
was brief and clearly not an invitation to be a
ªik¢§-guru, rather, a well-wisher.
That explanation is consistent with other evidence;
¼r¦la Prabhup§da gave no instruction that he had empowered
any Vai¢£ava from outside ISKCON to be a ªik¢§-
guru —what to speak of his successor.
the very idea of a successor is contrary to Prabhup
§da’s set-up of the Society.39 Nor is there any written or
verbal instruction indicating a successor; in fact, ¼r¦la
Prabhup§da opined that among the Vai¢£avas he knew,
none was qualified to be §c§rya.40
Those suggesting that a Vai¢£ava from outside ISKCON
could be its §c§rya are obliged to provide irrefutable evidence
of their claim. And that evidence must be of a superlative
quality, as referred to in the previous answer (to
Doubt 7). It is not the burden of ISKCON to disprove the
successor theory. Until irrefutable evidence is provided in
its favour, we will have to assume there is no successor
ªik¢§-guru to ¼r¦la Prabhup§da.
I would like to voice a note of caution about Vai¢£avas
outside who pose themselves as ªik¢§-gurus of ISKCON.
Their followers contrast them to ISKCON gurus, promoting
them as spiritual luminaries and panaceas for
ISKCON’s ills. Yet these Vai¢£avas and their followers
seem to do little else than canvas ISKCON’s already converted
members. Why do they concentrate on ISKCON
alone, neglecting the unlimited conditioned souls who
have not heard of K¥¢£a?48 After all, ¼r¦la Prabhup§da described
the external sign of spiritual advancement as the
ability to convert the fallen to Vai¢£avism.49
Together, these two provide a unique shelter under
which devotees can work in harmony, accepting one another’s
differences64 and ultimately resolving them. This is
what ¼r¦la Prabhup§da called “unity in diversity,”65 an
ethos unknown to Vai¢£avas outside ISKCON. They accommodate
individual diversity at the expense of unity,
while completely missing the wonder of unity in diversity.
Such Vai¢£avas, when diverging on points of philosophy
(which they do), stand only on the strength of their individuality,
failing to see answers that unify, seeing only answers
that divide. They identify and criticise each other’s
(and ISKCON’s) philosophical differences, further straining
relationships already strained.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 21, 2009 9:10 pm
Haribol Citta Hari,
Looks like you have a good start on the paper. Get a copy of the SRS's Siks Outside Iskcon booklet. As far as I remember the idea that Founder Acarya is synonymous with acarys like Madhva and Ramanuja is given there. If you are looking for a source that reveals how much this idea is close to mainstream ISKCON, I think that this is a good one as Swami has suggested. I think your explaination of this point is good.
Overall I think the paper is good. I do have one suggestion for you. In my eyes the paper looses credibility if the words that you use carry some emotion with them. For instance: (Some make the claim that ISKCON is synonymous with the Gaudiya sampradaya, but this claim is so ludicrous that I won’t even address it here.) This betrays some emotional attachment to the issue that may lead your audience to doubt your credibility. Another example is According to Sri Jiva Goswami’s Sarva-samvadini tika on Sat-sandarbha the founder of the Gaudiya sampradaya is—surprise!—Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I would say, leave out the Suprise! remark and the statement will be taken more seriously.
I'll take those out then. Thanks for the input.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 21, 2009 9:54 pm
Atmananda Dasa - May 22, 2009 2:29 am
This is the section I was thinking of
The founder-§c§rya
Though ª§stra repeatedly mentions siksa-guru, it says
little of the founder-§c§rya; though the tradition of siksa-
guru is abundant, that of the founder-§c§rya is not.
Yet there is a glorious culture of the worship of, and
obedience to, leaders of samprad§yas, such as Brahm§,41
Vy§sadeva, Madhv§c§rya, Caitanya Mah§prabhu, and R¡pa
Gosv§m¦,42 as well as other §c§ryas prominent by the recognition
of their followers.43 This traditional respect for
§c§ryas appears to be the basis upon which we now revere
¼r¦la Prabhup§da. Although tradition sometimes did
define the §c§rya within an institutional framework, that
was rare.44 And never did the framework parallel the
sophisticated modern institutional structures of the
Gau¨¦ya Ma±ha and ISKCON.45
39 Prabhup§da says, “Sometimes a d¦k¢§-guru is not present always.
Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee.
That is called the ªik¢§-guru.” (Bg. lecture, Honolulu, July 4, 1974)
40 See K¥¢£a-bhajan§m¥ta 46–61.
41 See Harin§ma-cint§ma£i, chapter 6.
42 “This is the process of the perfect way. One must take lessons from
authorities like N§rada, Vy§sa and Asita, and follow their principles.”
(Bh§g. 6.16.45, purport)
43 ¼r¦la Prabhup§da often quotes Ch§ndogya Upani¢ad 6.14.2, referring
to §c§ryas as particularly “great” spiritual teachers rather than
spiritual masters, e.g., “great §c§ryas like … ¼a¯kar§c§rya, Madhv§c§-
rya, R§manuj§c§rya, Vi¢£u Sv§m¦ — so many other §c§ryas — Lord
Caitanya.” (Bg. lecture, Bombay, April 1, 1971)
44 R§manuj§c§rya, ¼a¯kar§c§rya, Madhv§c§rya and J¦va Gosv§m¦ all organised
their followers and established systematic rules for Deity worship,
preaching, and administration of ma±has.
45 My definition of founder-§c§rya is restricted in this paper. It will not
include the concept of the founder of a samprad§ya like Lord Brahm§,
or even one who revives a lost tradition as K¥¢£a mentions in Bg. 4.2. I
Citta Hari Dasa - June 4, 2009 5:46 pm
I was checking out Trivikrama Maharaja's site for his views on SP being "The Acarya" and came across this:
http://trivikramaswami.com/tripurari-swami.html
He tells it quite a bit differently than I've heard it from GM himself, esp. his point that SP never said to go to SSM.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 4, 2009 8:18 pm
I was checking out Trivikrama Maharaja's site for his views on SP being "The Acarya" and came across this:
Yes he has had this for about 5 years on his website. This is the site which GM's godbrother directed me to visit in order to break my faith in GM about two years back,
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 4, 2009 11:15 pm
I thought it would have good to write a response to his charges on GM. Is his answer completely accurate?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 5, 2009 9:46 pm
I mention this because we have heard that he has said that he was present when Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have said that, “You my disciples should follow B R Sridhar Swami after I disappear”. Of course Srila Prabhupada never said that
How is he confident that SP never said that.
Swami - June 5, 2009 10:17 pm
I mention this because we have heard that he has said that he was present when Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have said that, “You my disciples should follow B R Sridhar Swami after I disappear”. Of course Srila Prabhupada never said that
How is he confident that SP never said that.
After along time of deviating one starts to think one has not and thus one's mind changes facts to support one's deviation. His denial of what SP said so central to his statement should make clear the color of the rest of his story.
Vrindavandas - June 6, 2009 1:16 am
I think the misunderstanding comes from how some people decided to take Srila Prabhupada's words. From my understanding a disciple in the room asked about 2 things: funeral arrangements, and questions about philosophy. With regard to the funeral arrangements, he suggested Narayana Maharaja, and with regards to philosophy questions, he suggested Sridhar Maharaja. Since I was not there I cannot validate in one way or the other how these statements were made, but here is what I do know. There is no record of Srila Prabhupada, in writing instructing all of ISKCON to take on Sridhar Maharaja as their compulsory siksa guru after his departure. Also, there is no place written or spoken where Prabhupada instructed disciples to ask Sridhar Maharaja for management advice. Sridhar Maharaja's style of management and running an institution was clearly different from Prabhupada's method. I think much of the issues that came out of the late 70s and early 80s stemmed from disciples asking Sridhar Maharaja for institutional management advice rather than philosophy, like for example, can you further explain guru tattva. I think had the ISKCON members, followed the instruction of going to Sridhar Maharaja when a question about philosophy came up, things probably would have turned out differently. This subject matter though, has not really been discussed from every angle in a more objective way. It seems to me that after 25 years, there are still many hurt feelings and confusion on both sides. What can be done? Maybe coming together with a moderator at the Mayapur meetings would be a good start. Historical revisionism on either side is detrimental to everyones spiritual growth.
Brahma Dasa - June 6, 2009 1:47 am
[quote What can be done? Maybe coming together with a moderator at the Mayapur meetings would be a good start. Historical revisionism on either side is detrimental to everyones spiritual growth.
Vrndavandas, You are dreamin!
At this time there is no possibility of a consensus on this issue. That became abundantly clear during the the meeting that we had with Iskcon liberals in LA. Twenty five years have passed and I estimate it will take at least another 25 before Iskcon is ready to fully accept devotees with non-iskcon gurus or siksa gurus into their fold.
Otherwise I agree that Srila Prabhupada's final words on this issue: “For Philosophy, My Godbrother, B.R. Sridhara Maharaja of Navadwipa.” were not an edict or order that everyone must do so, but rather they were Srila Prabhupada’s authorization for disciples who were so inspired, to hear from Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Maharaja.
I wrote a sun editorial on this issue entitled:
“For Philosophy, My Godbrother B.R. Sridhara Maharaja of Navadwipa”
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/07...torials1813.htm
Vrindavandas - June 6, 2009 5:28 am
Thanks for the editorial link it was very nice. Since I was not at the Los Angeles meeting, I do not know what transpired, however, I was told that GM is very much desired company and they had requested some additions to his website in order to move forward. As far as accepting people with non Iskcon gurus and people who take siksa outside of Iskcon, my experience has been the opposite. I know more people that have siksa and/or significant relationships with non Iskcon gurus than not. Not only that, more than 15 years ago, Hridayananda Maharaja had a disciple of Sridhar Maharaja as a temple president in his zone, so in my opinion, that blanket rejection of anyone non Iskcon, is not so much a reality. Being a disciple of Guru Maharaja and a life member of Iskcon has never been a problem for me. I have had very good relationships with conservatives, moderates and liberals for the better part of 17 years, and not one rejected me or blacklisted me after I took initiation from Guru Maharaja. I think personal conduct has a lot to do with how one is treated. GBC may pass many rules and resolutions, but seeing as how Iskcon community is largely a congregational setting now, I can verify that at least in my neck of the woods, not to many people care. (unless your initials are b.n. das.)
Babhru Das - June 6, 2009 1:47 pm
not one rejected me or blacklisted me after I took initiation from Guru Maharaja. I think personal conduct has a lot to do with how one is treated. GBC may pass many rules and resolutions, but seeing as how Iskcon community is largely a congregational setting now, I can verify that at least in my neck of the woods, not to many people care. (unless your initials are b.n. das.)
:Four Leaf Clover: 
(I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Once, when he came over to our place in SD to see me about something, our cockatiel, Gaurangi, for whom I was the center of the universe, jumped spontaneously from my shoulder to his, the climbed onto his collar and started grooming his hair. She was not generally so friendly with people she didn't know. I thought, "Is she nuts, or does she know something the rest of us don't?")
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 6, 2009 2:09 pm
Thanks for the editorial link it was very nice. Since I was not at the Los Angeles meeting, I do not know what transpired, however, I was told that GM is very much desired company and they had requested some additions to his website in order to move forward. As far as accepting people with non Iskcon gurus and people who take siksa outside of Iskcon, my experience has been the opposite. I know more people that have siksa and/or significant relationships with non Iskcon gurus than not. Not only that, more than 15 years ago, Hridayananda Maharaja had a disciple of Sridhar Maharaja as a temple president in his zone, so in my opinion, that blanket rejection of anyone non Iskcon, is not so much a reality. Being a disciple of Guru Maharaja and a life member of Iskcon has never been a problem for me. I have had very good relationships with conservatives, moderates and liberals for the better part of 17 years, and not one rejected me or blacklisted me after I took initiation from Guru Maharaja. I think personal conduct has a lot to do with how one is treated. GBC may pass many rules and resolutions, but seeing as how Iskcon community is largely a congregational setting now, I can verify that at least in my neck of the woods, not to many people care. (unless your initials are b.n. das.)
That is a good sign Vrindavan, though Braja was not as lucky as you. she was treated pretty badly.
Atmananda Dasa - June 7, 2009 3:54 am
Excuse me for asking Babhru, but what does this story have to do with what is being discussed here and where is SD?
Babhru Das - June 7, 2009 4:03 am
Excuse me for asking Babhru, but what does this story have to do with what is being discussed here and where is SD?
Sorry. It's clearly a digression and is a personal response to Vrindavan's comment about b. n. das. SD is San Diego, which is Badrinaryana's (b. n. das) base. He's infamous for his diplomatic--often duplicitious--behavior. Most devotees tolerate him. I apologize for the distraction.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 9, 2009 7:21 am
Thanks for the editorial link it was very nice. Since I was not at the Los Angeles meeting, I do not know what transpired, however, I was told that GM is very much desired company and they had requested some additions to his website in order to move forward. As far as accepting people with non Iskcon gurus and people who take siksa outside of Iskcon, my experience has been the opposite. I know more people that have siksa and/or significant relationships with non Iskcon gurus than not. Not only that, more than 15 years ago, Hridayananda Maharaja had a disciple of Sridhar Maharaja as a temple president in his zone, so in my opinion, that blanket rejection of anyone non Iskcon, is not so much a reality. Being a disciple of Guru Maharaja and a life member of Iskcon has never been a problem for me. I have had very good relationships with conservatives, moderates and liberals for the better part of 17 years, and not one rejected me or blacklisted me after I took initiation from Guru Maharaja. I think personal conduct has a lot to do with how one is treated. GBC may pass many rules and resolutions, but seeing as how Iskcon community is largely a congregational setting now, I can verify that at least in my neck of the woods, not to many people care. (unless your initials are b.n. das.)
I agree in a lot of respects with all but the latter. b.n.das. has never been a problem for me and SD was where I first eat prashadam and have been very welcome there for over 36 years. I subscribe to his web site and recieve information from there all the time. I do not follow all the gossip but I do beleive he is favarable to GM.
His site is not that bad but it does not compare with Harmonist which I feel is leagues above in many respects.
Babhru Das - June 9, 2009 3:19 pm
I agree in a lot of respects with all but the latter. b.n.das. has never been a problem for me and SD was where I first eat prashadam and have been very welcome there for over 36 years. I subscribe to his web site and recieve information from there all the time. I do not follow all the gossip but I do beleive he is favarable to GM.
Belief is a wonderful thing.
His site is not that bad but it does not compare with Harmonist which I feel is leagues above in many respects.
He has a Web site? Could you email me the URL, please?
Vrindavandas - June 9, 2009 11:32 pm
Actually, Badrinarayan is the leading cause of problems for Guru Maharaja in Southern California. He threw a fit about GM and the ISKCON representatives meeting in his zone, and he forbid my friend who is temple president in Laguna Beach from having him do a program there, even after my friend and I had agreed upon it. Belief is one thing, fact is another.
Swami - June 10, 2009 12:49 am
Actually, Badrinarayan is the leading cause of problems for Guru Maharaja in Southern California. He threw a fit about GM and the ISKCON representatives meeting in his zone, and he forbid my friend who is temple president in Laguna Beach from having him do a program there, even after my friend and I had agreed upon it. Belief is one thing, fact is another.
"His zone" was someone's house in Los Angeles.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 21, 2009 4:16 pm
Belief is a wonderful thing.He has a Web site? Could you email me the URL, please?
Yes it is like a news letter http://www.krishnasd.com/ and they also have a magazine they put out to the public at news stands which has its own link which I can not find right now
Babhru Das - June 22, 2009 12:03 am
Actually, Badrinarayan is the leading cause of problems for Guru Maharaja in Southern California. He threw a fit about GM and the ISKCON representatives meeting in his zone, and he forbid my friend who is temple president in Laguna Beach from having him do a program there, even after my friend and I had agreed upon it. Belief is one thing, fact is another.
This is closer to my many years of experience with Bn than what Bijay Kumar suggests. I've told this story too many times: When GM was visiting the San Diego area in the summer of 1999, he came to the ISKCON center on Sunday morning. I had mentioned to him the day before that I always gave Srimad-Bhagavatam class on Sundays, and that I'd be inclined to defer to him. GM said, "Well, that might be interesting, but we'll see. I'm not going to the temple to start trouble, but to worship Srila Prabhupada and take Radha-Giridhari's darshan." When GM showed up Sunday morning with Agni, Vicaru, and Citta, someone ran to the back to call Bn to tell him that GM was at the temple and that he thought I might ask him to give class. Bn's response: "You tell Babhru that he had better give class, or else!" (Or else what, I'll never understand. I was always clear that, although I would cooperate with him and would not directly undermine him, I had no GBC member to whom I owed any allegiance.) When I told GM the score, he just shrugged and repeated what he had said the previous afternoon.
I know Badri rather well; I worked with him, sometimes somewhat closely, during the years I lived in San Diego, and our daughters were friends. He has no tolerance for those he considers threats to his control, and he personally has thrown even sannyasis out of the SD temple because they were affiliated with someone outside ISKCON. And he has not softened a bit. Where Bijay got the idea that he might be favorable toward us is a mystery to me.
Braja-sundari Dasi - June 22, 2009 12:46 am
There is one thing connected with founder acarya misconception. I don`t know whether it fits in the topic of the article but would be nice to address somehow. I`m thinking about artificially presenting some things about Srila Prabhupada as "divine".
One instance- few years ago one well known Iskcon preacher, who had a lot of personal association of SP, came to Poland and was giving classes about Srila Prabhupada in different temples. I was translating his 3 hour seminar in Warsaw. The topic that shocked me greatly was: "Prabhupada`s mucus"! 
I was ambarassed to translate it and I even chose the word that sounded less disgusting than literal translation. But the very fact is that this devotee was for 3 hours describing with details all the instances when Srila Prabhupada had mucus problem. And the speaker was so natural that I think he is giving this "seminar" in many places. Thanks God there were no guests present! What was the "transcendental" conclusion of the class I don`t know...
I had similar experience (although fortunately it was not that bad) in Vrindavan, 2006, during Srila Prabhupada` dissapearence day. Some devotees seem to not see anything improper in saying stories like these considering them to be glorification of their spiritual master. "Everything is transcendental about pure devotee". I think it is rather offensive. Or maybe I am oversensitive about it?
Citta Hari Dasa - June 22, 2009 3:58 pm
There is one thing connected with founder acarya misconception. I don`t know whether it fits in the topic of the article but would be nice to address somehow. I`m thinking about artificially presenting some things about Srila Prabhupada as "divine".
One instance- few years ago one well known Iskcon preacher, who had a lot of personal association of SP, came to Poland and was giving classes about Srila Prabhupada in different temples. I was translating his 3 hour seminar in Warsaw. The topic that shocked me greatly was: "Prabhupada`s mucus"!
I had similar experience (although fortunately it was not that bad) in Vrindavan, 2006, during Srila Prabhupada` dissapearence day. Some devotees seem to not see anything improper in saying stories like these considering them to be glorification of their spiritual master. "Everything is transcendental about pure devotee". I think it is rather offensive. Or maybe I am oversensitive about it?
I don't think you're oversensitive. This kind of "glorification" is actually a disservice. Devotees who are fanatical about SP go way overboard with what they think is glorification of him, and that is often a major turn-off for people who are not in that same mind set. At least it is for me. Good thing guests were not there, indeed! The silly thing is that so many good things can be said about SP without having to get into the details of his bodily fluids. Apparently some devotees have a distorted idea of what "transcendental" means and wish to put every act, every word of the acarya in that category.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 24, 2009 6:13 am
This is closer to my many years of experience with Bn than what Bijay Kumar suggests. I've told this story too many times: When GM was visiting the San Diego area in the summer of 1999, he came to the ISKCON center on Sunday morning. I had mentioned to him the day before that I always gave Srimad-Bhagavatam class on Sundays, and that I'd be inclined to defer to him. GM said, "Well, that might be interesting, but we'll see. I'm not going to the temple to start trouble, but to worship Srila Prabhupada and take Radha-Giridhari's darshan." When GM showed up Sunday morning with Agni, Vicaru, and Citta, someone ran to the back to call Bn to tell him that GM was at the temple and that he thought I might ask him to give class. Bn's response: "You tell Babhru that he had better give class, or else!" (Or else what, I'll never understand. I was always clear that, although I would cooperate with him and would not directly undermine him, I had no GBC member to whom I owed any allegiance.) When I told GM the score, he just shrugged and repeated what he had said the previous afternoon.
I know Badri rather well; I worked with him, sometimes somewhat closely, during the years I lived in San Diego, and our daughters were friends. He has no tolerance for those he considers threats to his control, and he personally has thrown even sannyasis out of the SD temple because they were affiliated with someone outside ISKCON. And he has not softened a bit. Where Bijay got the idea that he might be favorable toward us is a mystery to me.
when we visited SD temple in 05 or 06 when we had went to LA rathayatra, he was very cordial and it was the 2nd time that weekend we ran into Sura and we all talked about Guru deva and there was no negative response from Bn and the first visit with Sura in LA, Vrindavandas may recall that Sura said he would love to help Guru Deva with the Temple Bhajan Band and we both called on him to contact Guru deva but that has not happened.
That next fall Guru Deva was asked to meet with GBC in LA
He may not even know who I am and just was being diplomatic.
Why would he feel that Guru Maharaja is a threat to his control that is rediculas on his part.
Babhru Das - July 13, 2009 2:00 pm
Dandavats has a new post from Bhakticharu Swami. He suggests that Srila Prabhupada is the head of ISKCON. I think there may be little controversy about that, given Prabhupada's insistence from 1970 on being presented as the institution's Founder-Acharya, although there may be room for discussion of what that means practically since his entering samadhi. He also asserts, however, that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON's proprietor. That raised my hackles. I believe Srila Prabhupada would insist that Krishna is ISKCON's proprietor and that seeing Prabhupada as such may cause ISKCON to trend toward a sort of kartabhaja-style sect.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 13, 2009 3:25 pm
Dandavats has a new post from Bhakticharu Swami. He suggests that Srila Prabhupada is the head of ISKCON. I think there may be little controversy about that, given Prabhupada's insistence from 1970 on being presented as the institution's Founder-Acharya, although there may be room for discussion of what that means practically since his entering samadhi. He also asserts, however, that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON's proprietor. That raised my hackles. I believe Srila Prabhupada would insist that Krishna is ISKCON's proprietor and that seeing Prabhupada as such may cause ISKCON to trend toward a sort of kartabhaja-style sect.
In 1987, about 10 years after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, this mistake was addressed by concerned leading devotees of ISKCON, but was not fully corrected. Just by adding more gurus and allowing them to initiate wherever they could attract disciples, that mistake was only diluted to some extent but was not really corrected.
Recently, the GBC body became painfully aware that through that mistake a parallel line of authority has been created in ISKCON which is causing a considerable amount of damage to the institution and is stifling the growth of the movement. It is very laudable of the GBC body that they have taken this issue very seriously and are working hard to rectify it.
Is he referring to Gurus as a parallel authority whose growth is stunting the growth of the organization. That is a really a very "dangerous" phenomenon.
Babhru Das - July 13, 2009 4:47 pm
I'm not perfectly clear what he means; perhaps he's referring to confusion caused by the conflicting "authority" of GBC/TP management issues and the authority of the guru. I'm a member of a pamho.net conference on defining ISKCON's guru issues, and the lack of clarity on this issue among experienced devotees is disturbing.
It turns out they they did post my response, which reads, in relevant part:
I’m not sure, though, that I’m with him in his assertion that Srila Prabhupada is the proprietor of ISKCON. I suggest that Srila Prabhupada intends that Krishna be ISKCON’s proprietor. After all, he called it the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. And a look at his statement of purposes shows that ISKCON is all about Krishna. While acknowledging our debt to Srila Prabhupada and his central position among ISKOCN’s devoteses, we should avoid trending toward a kartabhaja-like sect. I’m not suggesting this is Maharaja’s intention, or even an unintended consequence of his emphasis on Srila Prabhupada. It is, however, something we should keep in mind.
Vrindavandas - July 14, 2009 2:42 am
Fascinating article. He clearly is leaning on his ritvik tendencies and is obviously pushing for some type of ritvik establishment in the governing body. One thing I want to point out that any idiot can see, is that when the proprietor of a business dies, someone else takes over as the head. Example: CEO of company retires, board of directors typically appoints a new one. If the new CEO does not uphold the principles of the company, he is removed. If we look at it in terms of how the GBC is set up, every year, their is a new Chairman of the GBC, vice chairman, etc. Based on historical evidence, Bhakti Charu Swami has been a rather duplicitous individual in his dealings with ISKCON and others and is really one of the figureheads of the problems concerning the organization.
Bijaya Kumara Das - July 14, 2009 5:53 am
Dandavats has a new post from Bhakticharu Swami. He suggests that Srila Prabhupada is the head of ISKCON. I think there may be little controversy about that, given Prabhupada's insistence from 1970 on being presented as the institution's Founder-Acharya, although there may be room for discussion of what that means practically since his entering samadhi. He also asserts, however, that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON's proprietor. That raised my hackles. I believe Srila Prabhupada would insist that Krishna is ISKCON's proprietor and that seeing Prabhupada as such may cause ISKCON to trend toward a sort of kartabhaja-style sect.
i agree
Prabhupada was always so humble and would always defer to the Parampara, He would always say I am only doing what my Guru Maharaja asks.