Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

This is a response to a comment from Seeker to the Fiesta Forever post. In Seeker’s comment a link is given to an article on the Hare Krishna community’s main web outlet for revolt and angry diatribes against ISKCON’s leaders—and anything they see as against Prabhupada or his ideals—the Sampradaya Sun. The article was written by it’s owner and editor Rocana (Rochaan) Das.

The comment by Seeker goes into some valid complaints, and philosophical points being overlooked in the reaction to the current guru scandal going on in ISKCON with Prabhavishnu Swami. For those who don’t know: he was a major ISKCON guru and GBC (governing board) member who just resigned, writing a letter saying he’s going off to live with a lady in Thailand. This was after he had been seen a number of times with her, or other women in Thailand. For sannyasis, who are supposed to be celibate and single, that’s a big no-no in the more fervently conservative or fundamentalist Hindu society, where things like that can end with riots and violence against the guru and his followers. That’s generally due to their belief that the celibate monk has some special mystic power, and that their devotion to him is predicated upon his remaining celibate so he can confer upon them his mystic potency and favor from God. If he is found to be deceptive about his celibacy, they feel cheated about worshiping him and giving him money. In ISKCON it’s more personal, the disciples are expected to give their lives over to the guru, the guru is seen as the one whom you worship and serve, not because he’s able to confer mystic potency because he’s celibate, but because he’s “pure” in his devotion to Krishna. Your spiritual advancement is taught as being predicated upon your worship and servile devotion to him.

Since many feel it’s too difficult to give up their lives and submit to the guru as a servant and slave, as ISKCON would like, they end up seeing their worship and devotion as being satisfactory if they can give money, or property. Of course ISKCON gurus subtly and not so subtly promote this conception. Like I’ve said in the past, I believe they prefer less surrendered ashram devotees, for more outside householders making money to donate. This may be the cause of the change in ISKCON over the years in making it currently difficult to join the ashram if you are without funds or coming from a promising past, whereas it used to be very easy for almost anyone to walk in and be accepted.

Due to Prabhavishnu’s zone of activities being in places with many Hindus, and in Eastern Europe, where ISKCON is more popular than elsewhere, over the years he has amassed many disciples and (supposedly) a lot of wealth and influence. One number I heard was 1500 initiated disciples, but due to where he worked, that could be a very low estimate. On the one hand, for Hindu gurus (he’s Irish BTW) that’s not an especially large number of disciples, but on the other hand many of those were westerners, with more wealth and influence than an average Indian—and it’s common in ISKCON that a large percentage of the Indians taking initiation are quite well off, financially speaking. And as is common practice for disciples of ISKCON gurus, they tend to be devoted and give them lot’s of money, property, work for them for free, etc. So we’re hearing the usual bitter complaints about a guru in ISKCON being a fake and amassing wealth and worship for himself, which we hear whenever this type of thing has happened in the past.

Whenever some guru from ISKCON has a public scandal which involves sex or some other sensual gratification, you can rely on Rocana das to wheel out his “Sampradaya Acharya” ideology as the cure-all for the inevitable fall-out and handwringing by, and over, “hurt disciples,” of whichever guru was caught not living up to the demands to follow strictly their vaidhi-bhakti rules and regulations they impose on others. ISKCON leaders and followers parrot Prabhupada’s representation of an über-strict vaidhi mentality and path as singularly defining bhakti-yoga and Vedic culture in their teachings.

To their vision the only truly authentic spiritual path or lifestyle is in strictly following, for life, the 4 regulative principles (no sex except for procreation, no intoxication, vegetarianism, no speculative gambling), as well as strictly following the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti sadhana that Prabhupada demanded to be followed every day for the rest of your life: chanting at least 16 rounds of japa meditation (2-3 hours) every day; submissively serving as part of Prabhupada’s proselytizing mission (and no other, unless it’s in service to an ISKCON guru) as your reason for being; rising in the morning early enough to attend kirtan, japa, and satsang by no later than 4:30 a.m. etc.

Like I’ve pointed out in many posts here, they completely disregard the tenets of raganuga-bhakti, which doesn’t require the strict adherence to the rules and regulations Prabhupada put forth, and is considered the higher path in traditional Gaudiya teachings (pre-Prabhupada). And as I’ve pointed out, this puts the Prabhupada community in the unusual position of demonizing any guru who eventually is exposed for not strictly following their vaidhi mentality and path, even though he may be a spiritually advanced raganuga bhakta. Even Prabhupada said on a few occasions that raganuga-bhaktas shouldn’t be judged for not following rules and regulations because they’re not bound to the same rules and regulations that vaidhi bhaktas are. The harsh critics of the ISKCON gurus who get exposed for not strictly following vaidhi-bhakti and all the rest of what Prabhupada demanded, either don’t know or don’t care about the nature of raganuga bhakti being without the need or dependence on all the rules, regulations, and renunciative lifestyle Prabhhupada demanded—or if they do know, they’re are out to settle scores and don’t care if they ignore and pervert the authentic teachings in doing so.

That doesn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t follow what Prabhupada demanded is a raganuga-bhakta, but the critics don’t even take that into consideration as a possibility. I’ve seen recent demands that all the gurus in ISKCON should have to appear to follow all the demands of Prabhupada, or be demoted from their position. If they don’t show up for the early morning sadhana all the time, and if they don’t make it obvious to everyone that they’re doing nothing but working for ISKCON and Prabhupada all the time, always appearing to follow all the rules and regulations Prabhupada and ISKCON demands of it’s members, then they shouldn’t be accepted as spiritual masters. I’ve previously talked about that conundrum of the demonization in the Prabhupada community of the lifestyle of the more advanced path or person as being fallen from a state of grace, and symptomatic of a neophyte, or of an insincere exploiter, as if there is no other possible alternative for a spiritually advanced person but to submit to all the rules and regulations Prabhupada demanded—see Backasswards.

To someone like Rocana who sees Prabhupada’s instructions and attitudes towards any and all things as the descent of the divine revelation of God, any deviation from those instructions by a guru in ISKCON is seen as a really big deal. They get their panties in a twist because they’ve bought into the guru-as-savior paradigm that Prabhupada (and others) created in his teachings, and to them a guru is only qualified if he is “pure.” Which to them means free from the desire to do anything but follow the above mentioned rules and regulations for life. Raganuga-bhakti is not allowed into the equation, being as that it’s essentially verboten to them as that-which-must-not-be-named.

It’s not the lack of “purity” in and of itself which is the problem for them, it’s the betrayal, by their savior, by the person whom they’ve devoted themselves towards and worked for; whom they’ve worshiped and served as God’s human representative in the promise of their ability to free them from their past sins and gain them entrance into God’s good graces. They believe a guru is supposed to be self-realized and thisclose to God—which is supposed to manifest outwardly in being 100% pure in their lack of desire to do anything but live the already mentioned submissive strict vaidhi lifestyle.

Whenever an ISKCON guru shows himself to have some desire other than fanatical devotion to vaidhi-bhakti and Prabhupada’s demands, which then causes all the usual anguish and finger pointing among his disciples and the rest of ISKCON, that inspires all of the regular critics of ISKCON’s guru policy to put on their demagogue hat and wag their fingers with their well practiced “I told you so” speeches they’ve been incessantly boring us all with for years and years. Rocana stands out from the ritviks (ritvikism=no other gurus after Prabhupada are needed or wanted) with his ritvik-lite “Sampradaya Acharya” thesis. I never heard of it until Rocana began teaching it some years ago, it wasn’t taught in ISKCON when I was there, although some lesser form of it has always been taught in ISKCON without any official name for it. The Prabhupada-is-special-like-some-other-past-special-gurus mood has always been present in ISKCON, but until Rocana codified it into a [semi] coherent philosophy, I had never heard of “Sampradaya Acharya.”

Like you mention, traditionally that title has referred to the gurus who started a sampradaya (denomination)—like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc. Rocana took that title and re-invented a new definition based upon a list of gurus Prabhupada presented in his books. Those gurus were never mentioned by Prabhupada as anything special like “Sampradaya Acharyas,” I always took them to be prominent members of the [siksa, shiksha=philosophical] sampradaya. Although a sampradaya is usually defined by a line of disciplic succession where an unbroken chain of gurus and disciples lead back to the founder through a diksha connection [initiation of disciples into the tradition by a guru in a ritual ceremony], the gurus in Prabhupada’s list were not that, they included people who weren’t connected through diksha.

That conception was/is derided by many in India as inventing a bogus sampradaya, with the Gaudiya Matha being created by Prabhupada’s guru as a bogus sampradaya because the founder guru (Bhaktisiddhanta) himself wasn’t properly initiated in a diksha ceremony by a guru. They claim he lied about being initiated, and to this day many people see him and his disciplic succession as unauthorized and impotent due to that lack of a bona fide diksha connection by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. To many in Indian traditions, unless you are initiated properly in a diksha ceremony by a proper guru in an unbroken disciplic succession, you haven’t received the mystic potency which enables your mantras and sadhana to work properly, and thereby grant you entrance into the higher levels of self-realization and God consciousness.

Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples taught that the diksha sampradaya was of lesser importance, and that the higher potency was in the tattva lineage, the siddhanta sampradaya, the unchanged teachings being handed down. They called this the siksa (shiksha) sampradaya, the unbroken, unchanged, philosophical succession. The list of gurus Prabhupada presented in his books is supposedly representing the Gaudiya Vaishnava siksa sampradaya. Rocana das then created a dogma which has those mentioned in that list as “Sampradaya Acharyas,” distinct from the gurus not mentioned in that list by being especially empowered by God. In what way? According to Rocana, they set the tone and mood of the sampradaya for the times, they are the examples to be listened to and followed above all others, they should be accepted and promoted as the guru of all other gurus until another one appears. How do we know when a new Sampradaya Acharya appears? It will simply be apparent to one and all. This idea is based upon something Prabhupada said about a guru being chosen due to being “self-effulgent,” by his own godbrothers in the Gaudiya Math, after the departure of Bhaktisiddhanta due to his not choosing a successor guru.

To Rocana, Prabhupada is the Sampradaya Acharya of our times, he must be taught as the premier guru, which all other gurus must present and use as the source for their teachings. If you don’t do that, then you’re an egotist who’s looking to exploit and con people into worshiping and supporting you. For all of his criticism of the ritviks for lacking scriptural pramana (backing) for their belief that no one should be allowed to be diksha gurus, because Prabhupada never appointed any, and therefore having the sampradaya continue on with ritvik priests performing ritual initiations as surrogates for Prabhupada—Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya dogma also lacks any scriptural pramana. He made it up, yet still acts arrogant and demagogic towards the ritvik supporters and ISKCON leaders for not accepting his supposedly higher bona fide directives.

In fact, the list of gurus, the supposed siksa Sampradaya Acharyas according to Rocana, whom Prabhupada presented in his books, includes Madhva Acharya, and some other gurus who were followers of his— he being the founder of the Tattvavadi or Brahma Madhva sampradaya. While the Gaudiya Sampradaya (Hare Krishnas) is officially connected to the Brahma Madhva sampradaya through the diskha succession of it’s founder (Sri Chaitanya) to Madhva’s succession (disputed by some of Madhva’s followers), when it comes to the more important siksa sampradaya conception underpinning the Sampradaya Acharya dogma—i.e. the connection to an unbroken philosophical succession of teachings, Prabhupada and the entire succession of gurus following Sri Chaitanya are not connected to Madhvacharya or his followers. Of all the Vaishnava sampradayas, our Gaudiya sampradaya, while being officially connected to the Brahma Madhva sampradaya through a diksha connection, has the least in common with that sampradaya when it comes to the siksa, the teachings. We have much more in common with all the other major Vaishnava sampradayas, which we differ only a little from, whereas we differ in many fundamental ways from Madhva’s teachings, and of course from that of his followers. Which is why many in the Madhva or Tattvavadi community vehemently disregard the claim of our Gaudiya tradition as being part of their own.

This is the list of gurus that appears at the bottom of the introduction of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita. The names in bold are Madhva and his followers. The next two names are not accepted by many of his followers as being part of their tradition, the Puri suffix in their names denotes initiation into a Shankarite order, but Gaudiyas claim they were also initiated into the Madhva sampradaya, that it shouldn’t be held against someone if they first took initiation into some other tradition before joining their final one. But since the history is murky, no one can say with absolute proof one way or another.

1) Krsna, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada; 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhva, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrhari, 8) Madhava, 9) Aksobhya, 10) Jaya Tirtha, 11) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, 14) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purusottama, 17) Brahmanya Tirtha, 18) Vyasa Tirtha, 19) Laksmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, 21) Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita), 22) Lord Caitanya, 23) Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana), 24) Raghunatha, Jiva, 25) Krsnadasa, 26) Narottama, 27) Visvanatha, 28) (Baladeva) Jagannatha, 29) Bhaktivinoda, 30) Gaurakisora, 31) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, 32) His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

So, where did this list come from? Part of it came from Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a famous Gaudiya acharya who lived in the 18th century. He was a former disciple of the Madhva sampradaya who was tasked with giving credence to the bona fides of the Gaudiya sampradaya as being connected to one of the 4 scripturally authorized Vaishnava sampradayas, thereby giving them legitimacy in the eyes of people who took such things seriously. At the time the Gaudiya Vaishnavas were being criticized for not being connected to one of the 4 sampradayas, so he tried to change that. It had nothing to do with some Sampradaya Acharya mega-guru ideology. Besides the list he also famously wrote a Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta-sutra for the same reason. That was seen by the other sampradayas as a necessary task for a bona fide tradition, which until Baladeva Vidyabhusana hadn’t been done. It’s called Govinda Bhasya. This is the list he created in his Prameya Ratnavali:

tatra guru-parampara yatha

shri-krishna-brahma-devarshi-
badarayana-samjnakan
shri-madhva-shri-padmanabha-
shriman-nrihari-madhavan

akshobhya-jayatirtha-shri-
jnanasindhu-dayanidhin
shri-vidyanidhi-rajendra-
jayadharman kramad vayam

purushottama-brahmanya-
vyasatirthamsh ca samstumah
tato lakshmipatim shriman-
madhavendram ca bhaktitah

tac-chishyan shrishvaradvaita-
nityanandan jagad-gurun
devam ishvara-shishyam shri-
chaitanyam ca bhajamahe
shri-krishna-prema-danena
yena nistaritam jagat

tatra—in this connection; guru—of bona-fide spiritual masters; parampara—the disciplic succession; yatha—just as; shri-krishna—Lord Krishna; brahma—Brahma; devarshi—Narada; badarayana—Vyasa; samjnakan—named; shri-madhva—Madhvacarya; shri-padmanabha—Padmanabha; shrimat-nrihari—Nrihari; madhavan—Madhava; akshobhya—Akshobhya; jayatirtha—Jayatirtha; shri-jnanansindhu—Jnanasindhu; dayanidhin—Dayanidhi; shri-vidyanidhi—Vidyanidhi; rajendra—Rajendra; jayadharman—Jayadharma; kramat- one after another; vayam—we; purushottama—Purushottama; brahmanya—Brahmanya; vyasatirtha—Vyasatirtha; ca—and; samstumah—offer prayers; tatah—then; lakshmipatim—Lakshmipati; shrimat-madhavendram—Madhavendra Puri; ca—and; bhaktitah—with devotion; tat—his; shishyan—disciples; shri-ishvara—Ishvara Puri; Advaita- Advaita Prabhu; nityanandan—Nityananda Prabhu; jagat—of the entire universe; gurun—spiritual masters; devam—the disciple; shri-chaitanyam—Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu; ca—and; bhajamahe—we worship; shri-krishna—of Shri Krishna; prema—of pure love; danena—by the gift; yena—by whom; nistaritam—delivered; jagat—the universe.

With great devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaishnava disciplic successions. A list of their names follows: 1) Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada, 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhvacarya, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrihari, 8) Madhava, 9) Akshobhya, 10) Jayatirtha, 11) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, 14) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purushottama, 17) Brahmanya, 18) Vyasatirtha, 19) Lakshmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, and 21) Ishvara Puri, Advaita Prabhu and Nityananda Prabhu (who were all disciples of Madhavendra Puri). We worship Ishvara Puri’s disciple, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delivered the entire universe by granting the gift of krishna-prema (pure love of Krishna).

How do we know his purpose was to give legitimacy to the Gaudiya sampradaya? The list ends with the founder, Sri Chaitanya. Baladeva lived a few hundred years later, if the list was supposed to be “Sampradaya Acharyas,” why did he leave out the famous gurus that followed Sri Chaitanya until his own time? Certainly they were qualified, e.g. Rupa Goswami, Jiva Goswami, etc. Later, the rest of the names were added, it appears in a poem by Bhaktisiddhanta. The early ones directly following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were the most famous gurus in the Gaudiya community, with the final few gurus directly connected to Bhaktisiddhanta and then Prabhupada.

According to Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya thesis, the names on the list Prabhupada presented are in fact a revelation of the Sampradaya Acharyas of the past, they are supposedly leaders of the higher siksa sampradaya, which gives us our true connection to God. Yet quite a few on that list would vehemently disagree with even being included in a sampradaya which disregards so much of what they taught and believed. Rocana disregards much of what they taught and believed, and so do all the followers of Prabhupada and the Gaudiya tradition he claims to represent. Sri Chaitanya himself disregarded much of what they taught, he actually spelled out his differences with them and severely chastised the followers of Madhva. He certainly wouldn’t agree with all the names on that list being “Sampradaya Acharyas.” Also, Gaurakisora das babaji was a recluse, he certainly wasn’t the type of person Rocana describes as the guru of gurus for his times.

So, although Rocana tries to present his thesis as some well thought out and shastrically well supported alternative to ISKCON’s guru dynamics, and the rival ritvik dogma, in fact it’s a poorly thought out concoction which in practice would be no different than the ritviks he argues with, or with ISKCON official law. In all three dogmas Prabhupada is the only guru that matters, the others giving initiation are basically surrogates—either officially so with the ritviks and ISKCON, or unofficially so with Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya dogma. ISKCON offically made it part of their by-laws that the sole role of the guru in ISKCON is to serve as a connector to Prabhupada, as his surrogate, they’re only allowed to teach what he taught, and disallowed to disagree with him on any topic or bring up any other teachings from another guru. Hilariously this leads to some funny stuff in ISKCON law about the origin of the jiva, due to Prabhupada’s tendency to contradict himself on that topic.

Rocana may disagree with that assessment, claiming he allows gurus unlike the ritviks, and that ISKCON gurus end up being the object of worship and devotion to their disciples regardless of ISKCON law, and he may be right—but still, when it comes down to what really matters in the life of the disciples, Prabhupada and his teachings are promoted as sacrosanct and infallible, which disagreeing with can get you ostracized or excommunicated as being the thoughts of a fool or a demon. In fact you don’t even have to disagree, all you have to do is not humbly submit to ISKCON, or the ritviks, or Rocana, and you’re considered on the wrong path and unworthy of respect—actually, actively disrespected. We see this all of the time. The ritviks are endlessly attacking ISKCON leaders on their websites or in person heckling them, Rocana and his followers are endlessly attacking ISKCON leaders and the ritviks on his website, ISKCON attacks the ritviks and people who speak like Rocana. And all of them attack those outside of ISKCON who have the temerity to think they have the right to act as gurus without being under the supreme controlling jurisdiction of Prabhupada or ISKCON, i.e. all the rest of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community.