I would like to announce to all readers of this blog that I am starting my own spiritual movement and that you are all invited to join me.
As you all know, I am an English disciple of Srila Prabhupada who lives in my spiritual master’s favourite city, London, the capital of England. We are divinely blessed with Srila Prabhupada’s favourite deities: Sri Sri Radha Londonishvara. And England, as everybody knows, has a unique and ancient relationship with India, the land in which Lord Krishna personally chose to appear.
Srila Prabhupada was asked by his beloved guru to take the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to all speakers of the English language and therefore the founder-acarya of the Hare Krishna movement translated his books from Sanskrit into English and gave all his classes in English.
His spiritual master very much wanted a branch of the Gaudiya mission in London and even sent his disciples to the city in 1932. Although Srila Prabhupada spent some time in preparation in America, the real purpose of his mission was to come to England and start the movement here. Even the ship that brought Srila Prabhupada to America was originally built in England and was named the Shadwell. Only later on was it sold to India and renamed the Jaladuta.
So I hope that you’ll agree that because of my Englishness, I am uniquely qualified to understand what Srila Prabhupada really wanted, and that I am actually capable of helping others understand Srila Prabhupada in truth.
My Hare Krishna Movement will be known by a very English name: The Trinity Church. In this case the trinity is guru, sadhu and shastra, and when devotees come to my church they will understand the true Prabhupada. Please write to me if you would like to join.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Of course, much of the above is complete nonsense. I’m not actually starting my own movement and neither do I consider myself uniquely qualified to do so, not least because of my atttachment to the land of my birth. And if you ever catch me speaking like that you should beat me with a shoe, lock me in my wooden cabin at the bottom of the garden, and only let me out when I am normal.
Unfortunately, in the rapidly growing Hare Krishna movement, such claims to privileged insight into Srila Prabhupada’s theology, intentions, governance or mission are all too common.
I think I’ve lost count of the number of people who have lectured me – always uninvited – on their personal understanding of: ‘what Srila Prabhupada really wanted’ and hence their comprehension of the direction in which the Hare Krishna movement should now move. I always try to be a good listener but I’m afraid even my eyes tend to glaze over after the 200th such urgent lecture (which is when I stopped counting, years ago)
While I can’t claim to have any more exclusive insights to Srila Prabhupada than the next man, it does seem to me that those who claim to have them are getting younger, more strident, and sometimes downright menacing. They are also, albeit inadvertently, repeating the journey of religious history with all its theological meanderings, political machinations and splinters and schisms.
If they’d only cool down for a few minutes they might be able to understand that what we all have to deal with is our opinion. Like a belly button, we’ve all got one, and its born – like us – from two parents: one is knowledge and the other conditioning. We see the world not exactly as it is – but as we are. That means we mentally project onto the world and the people in it our own conditioning born of unlimited material desires, painful and pleasurable experiences, and a good few past lives. Our vision is defective to the degree that we’re affected by the modes of material nature.
So what happens when we come to Krishna consciousness is that we do exactly the same thing. We project onto the teachings, the devotees, and yes, even the guru, Srila Prabhupada, our own limited, wish-fulfilling conceptions. And so it turns out that what Srila Prabhupada really wants is what we ourselves want. What a surprise.
Srila Prabhupada’s international mission, his vehicle of delivering the teachings and practises of bhakti, is thus subjected to as many interpretations as there are members. Such is the human tendency to reformulate eternal religion in its own likeness, we are somehow extremely fortunate that the million or so people involved in ISKCON has not resulted in a million Hare Krishna movements.
Yet ISKCON is certainly no monolith. It is, as the Christians say, a ‘broad church,’ successfully accommodating a wide diversity of theological nuances, social affiliations, and worship styles. Within ISKCON’s more than six hundred locations worldwide you’ll find Vaishnavism in its orthodox, ultra-orthodox, conservative, reformed, liberal and reconstructionist forms. We don’t use those terms ourselves, but the elements that cause other religions to be classified as such are all there. And to a certain extent we all get on, unified by powerful, essential principles and practises.
Yet that’s not enough for some.
For those unwilling to modify their personal interpretation of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings – even when to do so might result in their factually understanding more about him – there is always the temptation to create their own personal church. And just as it is an act of self-deception to elevate one’s own opinion to the level of axiomatic truth, so it is equally deceitful to make those personal beliefs concrete in the form of a church in which one is the sole director.
ISKCON has unwillingly given birth to several such churches, and more develop as the years proceed. Some of them are based on spurious claims and interpretations, some on the innate tendency toward exclusivity. Thus we now have a Mathura Movement for Latter Day Saints, The Temple of the Truncated Parampara, as well as The Very Loose Collective for Vaishnavas who don’t like Institutions.
There are, sadly, various branches of The Gaudiya Church of the Poisoned Mind, linked only by their founders predilection for dreaming of Srila Prabhupada, having daytime visions of him, interpreting hitherto undiscovered meanings from his commentaries, or discerning his directions by playing his taped lectures backwards.
It is a politically free western world, of course, and people can, to a certain extent, believe as they wish. But the material world in which the ‘free world’ sits is itself not free, since captivity is the nature of material existence. To get out of the repeated captivity of embodiment, we must follow the directions of someone who has himself broke free. If one of the temptations is to interpret the teachings of such a free soul according to our restricted vision, should we not be extremely cautious in placing our own truth above others? And should we not be gravely aware that the temptation to live in a ‘church’ of our own imagination is one of the last snares of illusion?
The Vaishnava Voice 
Ohh that’s a shame. I was looking forward to witness the rise of another ‘ism’….not!
I was really getting worried for a mo. You’re one of my favourite teachers. I feel very small…
I’ve pressed a few buttons recently…mostly
websites like Krishna Art and Prasadam. Like I read today on ‘Krishna’s Mercy’ website,
“In the material world there is keen competition
between animal and animal, man and man,
community and community, nation and nation.
But the devotees of the Lord rise above such competitions.” (Srila Prabhupada).
We should not deviate from Prabhupada’s teachings.
Bhakta Chris Gunn
Really brilliant writing Krpamoya Prabhu. Please keep it up. I am a big fan!
Very well said!
I found the first bit serious and second to be a joke. I am not sure, but it seems that Srila Prabhupada did not mind each and every disciple of his going out and opening new temples. So if you want your own ‘church’ go and get one. Now question why can’t we keep all the churches together? Where is the difficulty?
You are right, of course, Wikidasi. Srila Prabhupada wanted many branches of the ISKCON movement – one in every town and village – so there will be many churches. What keeps all those churches together? Cooperation, mutual assistance, common standards, as well as standard theology, liturgy and governance, the things which often separate people into different groupings.
What a wonderfully written commentary on a subject that affects a great many other bonafide Sampradayas of our Vaisnava Dharma.
This Bhedabheda really is Acintya!
Jay Jay Shri Radhe Shyam!
I really appreciate your balanced perspective. Thank you for sharing.
This fine piece of writing shows why ‘The Vaishnava Voice’ is my favorite devotee blog.
Your servant,
Pancha Tattva dasa
Interesting perspective, you had me worried for a second.
However we see many outside stating that they are the true voice, or the true disciplic successor to Srila Prabhupada; this can be bewildering for many young devotees who may be persuaded by such arguments.
So how do we address this?
Also do you think that the readily available material from Srila Prabhupada is also adding to this, with many quoting “Prabhupada said this” and then interpreting it in there own way; with little understanding; confusing things?
It appears that the use of quotes and word play that many young devotees are being pulled this way and that, many leaving ISKCON which is always sad to see; so what can we practically do to stop this?
Interesting perspective, you had me worried for a second.
However we see many outside stating that they are the true voice, or the true disciplic successor to Srila Prabhupada; this can be bewildering for many young devotees who may be persuaded by such arguments.
So how do we address this?
Srila Prabhupada has done something so great that it is quite understandable that many, many vaishnavas want to be able to say: “I understand this great man; I share his values and will gladly carry his teachings and great mission forward in the world.” Of course we welcome anyone who wishes to continue his teachings and mission. We need as much help as possible, and Kali Yuga is advancing in leaps and bounds. The only thing the direct followers of Srila Prabhupada would ask is that the teachings be his teachings, and the mission be his. That we can understand by referencing his written and recorded words on the philosophical teaching of Vaishnavism, together with the body of instruction he gave regarding governance of his missionary organisation. To implement both of those we take advantage of the wealth of good company and support offered by his existing followers.
Also do you think that the readily available material from Srila Prabhupada is also adding to this, with many quoting “Prabhupada said this” and then interpreting it in there own way; with little understanding; confusing things?
Well, it is said by the wise that: ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing’ and this is particulary true in regard to religion. The solution is, as always, to make repeated submissive enquiries in order to learn deeply, to serve someone who has realised deeply, and to live in such a way as to reduce the mountain of pride we were born with. Otherwise conceit will form within the mind and our higher purpose will be defeated.
It appears that the use of quotes and word play that many young devotees are being pulled this way and that, many leaving ISKCON which is always sad to see; so what can we practically do to stop this?
Everyone needs an affectionate guru, either in the form of the initiator or the instructor – and usually both. Otherwise it is very easy to be drawn to something cheap.
When someone in the audience enquired from the Dalai Lama as to whether buddhi could be gained in a relatively short time he was moved to tears. He had not understood how cheaply the western mind takes spiritual life.
I got really worried on this one. Because I have clients booked in for interviews I often just get to read bits and have to leave the rest for later. I read the first bit and then had to log out because I had a client in and the whole time I was conducting the interview I was thinking, oh my goodness what’s happened to Kripamoya!!! What a relief when I was able to read the rest of it!!
Ah Lynne, at least it got you reading the rest of it, if only to discover where I’d lost my marbles! Thank you for reading it!
Dear Kripamoya Prabhuji,
Jaya!
Very nice article – well written with a nice mix of humour, knowledge and realizations.
One question I did have though – as you have mentioned, nowadays there are various ‘churches’ (Mathura Movement for Latter Day Saints, The Temple of the Truncated Parampara, as well as The Very Loose Collective for Vaishnavas who don’t like Institutions) However, some devotees who are disciples of Srila Prabhupada who have their own missions outside of ISKCON (such as Tripurari Maharaja, Nrsingha Maharaja or Paramadvaiti Maharaja) originally had no intention to leave ISKCON but were basically thrown out for associating with HH Sridhar Maharaj.
What category do they fit under? Is there no room to be a follower of Srila Prabhupada by trying to serve him outside of the official institution?
Ys
Pradeep
There will be different groups – history repeats itself – but I doubt if either ISKCON or those who’ve separated have been strengthened by such separation. How many such groups can there be without the entire enterprise becoming weakened? Those who serve Srila Prabhupada know that he was disappointed at the gradual break-up of his guru’s mission into more than 20 movements due to divergent interest. Our service to him demands, at least, that we always act to keep his mission unified.
Apparently, ISKCON’s GBC disagrees with you on this point. Remember, the first Western disciples of Swami B.R. Sridhar did not want to found a new movement, nor did they want to topple the GBC. All they wanted was for the disciples of Sridhar Maharaj to be allowed to serve within ISKCON alongside the disciples of the other gurus, not unlike how Srila Prabhupada had invited Brahmachari Mangalniloy and other Godbrothers and Godnephews to preach within ISKCON. Then, when that was refused, they hoped to be allowed to work cooperatively with ISKCON alongside the disciples of ISKCON gurus. But the GBC said “No” and forced these followers of Srila Prabhupada to leave ISKCON. Many went to Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, which was founded 25 years prior to ISKCON; others instead founded their own societies. Yes, the initial fracturing of ISKCON was in large measure a problem of the GBC’s own making.
But is a fractured ISKCON necessarily synonymous with “the entire enterprise becoming weakened”? One side-effect of the current circumstance is that sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada can almost certainly find a place where they can serve in good conscience. Do you think Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was disappointed that his most illustrious disciple came from an institution that had split off from the original society? Of course not! Similarly, in the current situation, it is up to each disciple to hold tight to the siksha of Srila Prabhupada, and not to assume that an institutional affiliation is adequate substitute for the substance of saranagati. The primary symptom of remaining unified with Srila Prabhupada’s mission is to be unified with Srila Prabhupada. It can only be up to each individual disciple to search his conscience to determine whether he can achieve such unity within ISKCON. Clearly, many do. Just as clearly, many do not. Let us not demonize either decision because of the mundane motives of a few.
Thank you, Tattva das prabhu, for your comments. I agree with you that everyone should search their conscience to carefully consider how to perform saranagati to the best of their ability. I have all good wishes for every person to find their own path of surrender to God according to their knowledge, faith, and subsequent choice of companionship along the path.
But if someone has already committed themselves to following Srila Prabhupada, it is incumbent upon them to also search their conscience to discern how they may better strengthen the sustainability of his missionary service to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, for which, as he said in 1977: “A Society has already been formed under the name and style of ‘ISKCON.'”
Serving the collective efforts of the Society he formed is also service to the founder-acarya. My question is whether those who have formed their own separate societies considered first their own needs or the needs of their spiritual master.
Western society has a leaning towards individualism, whereas eastern society has more of a tendency towards collectivisation. In our hunger to have our individual spiritual needs met, we mustn’t forget the needs of the collective.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, one who has made a commitment to ISKCON’s mission should strive to the fullest extent possible to adjust himself to remain in ISKCON. However, as you know, many devotees after 1977 were told, “unless you accept diksha from this Zonal Guru, and worship him as an uttama-adhikari, you will be banished from ISKCON.” Would you fault those devotees for being honest with themselves and others, and refusing to participate in something they couldn’t believe in (and in retrospect, something in which almost all who refused were proven correct)?
A modern example: There are some devotees who came to ISKCON after 1977 yet consider Srila Prabhupada their primary siksha-guru, and who — satisfied by their link to the bhagavata-parampara — choose not to seek diksha. Even though these siksha-disciples are not “fanatic Prabhupada-onlyites — they are happy to let others choose a diksha-guru according to their faith — some ISKCON leaders consider such attachment to Srila Prabhupada to be an affront against ISKCON, and try to push these devotees out when they can. That cannot be good for the unity of ISKCON as a society under Srila Prabhupada’s authority, can it be?
Obviously, if one’s primary spiritual relationship — diksha or siksha — is with Srila Prabhupada, one would naturally seek to serve in his ISKCON rather than in some other society established by a Godbrother or disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Sadly, at present, there are parts of ISKCON in which the concept of bhagavata-parampara is preached but not practiced.
ISKCON already allows certain gurus to present themselves (albeit quietly most of the time, to an intimate circle of sympathizers) as uttama-adhikari, while allowing others to present themselves as essentially nothing more than “monitor gurus” whose job is to formalize the disciple’s position in the society so he can serve Srila Prabhupada. With this variety already allowed, why not take just two more steps? (1) Accept that a siksha-disciple of Srila Prabhupada is “just as fully” his disciple as a diksha-disciple. Of course, without gayatri mantras there will be certain ceremonial and public functions off-limits to a devotee who makes that choice — which the humble siksha-disciple should accept, just as Srila Haridas Thakur didn’t press for greater status. (2) Accept that one can be fully a siksha-disciple of Srila Prabhupada even if diksha was given by some other Vaishnava. This would preserve ISKCON for all time as the singular institution dedicated to the pre-eminent position of Srila Prabhupada, and all devotees — be they initiates of anyone else – could find their service accepted within ISKCON so long as they sincerely upheld Srila Prabhupada as their primary guru.
In fact, if someone eventually wants to make a movement insisting on the presumed uttama-adhikari status of his guru, such a movement should be separate from ISKCON, despite the diksha-lineage from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada may have produced many uttama-adhikari disciples, but ISKCON should be the movement that can unite all those who accept Srila Prabhupada as their most prominent guru, siksha and/or diksha. Once that principle is established, diksha can retire to its deserved status as a private matter of conscience between gurus and disciples who are united in their purpose of serving Srila Prabhupada’s mission.
Does this make sense to you? I’ll look forward to your reply.
Thank you for your long and detailed comment, Tattva das prabhu. Although such discussions are best done in conversation I’ll respond with just a few immediate comments.
Firstly, you seem to be contracting and over-generalising the complex and challenging period of history after Srila Prabhupada’s passing in 1977. Its not that everyone, everywhere, was threatened with banishment, but certainly there were tensions as leaders sought to fill the vacuum of authority left by Srila Prabhupada’s physical absence.
I have heard this re-writing of our movement’s history many times as critics seek to prove one thing or the other, yet I know from my own experiences that the story deserves a more careful and compassionate telling.
I don’t think that anyone will take issue with your main point that Srila Prabhupada is everyone’s primary siksha-guru. He is the acarya and by definition that is what the word ‘acarya’ means. What gets discussed at length is the respective relationship of the devotee to the acarya and other devotees who fulfil other aspects of the guru. Some would have it that the guru plays no significant role and the acarya provides everything; while some argue that the guru provides everything and that the acarya is thereby relativised. Both of these views are incorrect. Balance, however, is always something that is harder to achieve – especially from the kanistha adhikari.
I would respectfully disagree with you that anyone in ISKCON is being ‘pushed out’ because they can find no faith within themselves to invest in any other senior figure. In my part of the world anyone can take as long as they like to develop their faith according to their personal needs, choices, and understanding.
You’ve compared the successions of disciples through initiation (diksha parampara) and that of divine instruction (siksha-parampara) and of course you are right: they are distinct in principle. However, they can be very much intertwined in actual practise.
The holy name of Krishna does not depend on initiation and anyone can chant and derive benefit. You cite Srila Haridas Thakur as an example of someone who was not initiated but achieved the height of realisation nevertheless. But Srila Prabhupada did not introduce to this and spoke regularly of ‘harinama-diksha.’ Of course it is not only the handing over of a mantra that takes place at diksha, whether harinama or gayatri, but many promises are made between guru and disciple. This relationship, bound by these promises, helps to sustain our spiritual growth. So too does the service of the disciple which cultivates the all-important humility; so too does the relevant enquiries; so too does the rebuke, correction, and ongoing guidance of the spiritual preceptor.
For these items on the path of bhakti the guru must be – in Srila Prabhupada’s own words: ‘concrete,’ ‘appearing before the physical senses of the disciple,’ and someone to whom the disciple can surrender in person.
On your next point I must fundamentally disagree. Is there anyone who is presenting themselves to their disciples as a topmost devotee? An ‘uttama-adhikari’? Again, I think this is a misunderstanding. Rather, it may be the disciples themselves who may regard their guru as such – and that is their prerogative. Disciples are meant to scrutinise their prospective guru for at least one year before accepting diksha, but after diksha they are not meant to speculate on his level of advancement. The guru is meant to only think of the spiritual welfare of the sisya, and the sisya is meant to only think of the physical welfare of the guru. It is incorrect for the disciple to think of the spiritual welfare of the guru or to imagine that he needs some spiritual help. Therefore it is not the disciple’s business to try to discern the level of advancement of the guru after diksha.
Now there may have been great disappointments on the path of bhakti for some western converts, but that doesn’t mean we have to re-invent the entire religious tradition to fit in with ISKCON’s disappointments.
You’ve written that the gayatri mantra is simply for some ceremonial functions, but you may, in your enthusiasm, be relegating the position of deity worship to an almost superfluous item of devotion. Srila Prabhupada called it his ‘unique gift to the western world.’
Diksha – whether harinama or gayatri – is not a question of social status; not an abstract or unimportant detail; nor irrelevant. It may be in your frustration or disappointment you would prefer it to be but I would recommend caution before you throw it to the wind. Sripad Jiva Goswami describes diksha as a sub-function of siksha but does not anywhere say that it is unimportant.
The principle that everyone is a follower of Srila Prabhupada, and, being disciplined by his instructions is therefore a disciple. But still there is something to be said for the guru-disciple relationship in addition to the acarya-disciple relationship. It is not a question of ‘either/or’. Those who suggest it is the case are reating an entirely false dilemma (Please see my other pieces on Guru-Disciple for more on this)
Also, you may like to consider that some preachers take on the role of teacher – guru – for others as a service to Srila Prabhupada. Its not that our founder-acarya said nothing about this role through the years; rather, he mentioned it consistently. Something he mentioned with such regularity must have an intrinsic value, otherwise he would not have included it in his regular teaching. Our job is now to discover how to achieve the balance and to thus restore the guru-disciple relationship to its classical level and thereby achieve the spiritual benefit.
Hare Krisna.
The subject of Diksa,Initiation and the whys and wherefores has been the main controversy since 1977.The problem has been exactly what you said earlier in the article,down to interpretation.
Because of Srila Prabhupadas example of not having a guru-disciple relationship with his own diksa disciples when he was physically present, his unprecedented creation of ISKCON, his voluminous writings of books and letters, his documented July 9th letter and 28th May conversations concerning initiations ,1st and 2nd, appointing representatives of the Acharya,the Traditional Disciplic Succession and other component parts of the whole story have only helped disciples focus on the part that they like or think is what Srila Prabhupada REALLY wanted.
I could give a reasonable arguement for Continuing the Disciplic Succession through the Diksa disciple route or through the typical Shiksha-disciple route but only through an authorised way.
On the other hand I could give a reasonable argument that the representative of the Acharya route is what Srila Prabhupada wanted.
Again it could easily be shown by extracting various quotes from C.c, S Bhag,B Gita and NoI that the Guru can only be an Uttama-Adhikari – period.
And I am sure many other examples exist in the minds of devotees.
What are we to follow? Who actually knows?
And if someone does know since 1977 why have they kept quiet? The main problem with writing is it is there for eternity in print.
Recently I was looking through a Vyasa-Puja offering Book addressed to Srila Bhagavan Goswami from many senior devotees. It was quite alarming what they wrote as “realised” knowledge concerning Srila Bhagavan Goswami’s purity and advanced Krsna consciousness.
Thats why Srila Prabhupada wrote so much because He actually is Self -realised,no-one else has come up to His standard in realisation,there is no evidence the same as Srila Prabhupada’s.
This is the way the Hare Krishna movement is going and more specifically the way ISKCON is moving. Most of ISKCON’s members don’t live in temples and only a minority of devotees follow the gurus who operate within the Temple structure. The movement has moved. ISKCON exists multi-laterally not just in temples.
I live in the middle of nowhere, and there’s other devotees in the same situation. When I first came to Wales there was over 70 devotees in this area. Now with the exodus from the temples we have independent devotees around us in the middle of nowhere.The temple influence has waned and Srila Prabhupadas books are working to make devotees. I see His books all over the place from the days when devotees placed books far and wide.This is the result of Sankirtana, this is what is meant to happen.
As a point of infomation there is a great book entitled The Spiritual Master and the Disciple compiled by Subhananda dasa Brahmacari of all the key verses from Vedic and Vaisnava Literature concerning the guru-disciple, all from Srila Prabhupada. Part one is the absolute necessity for accepting a Bona Fide Spiritual Master. Part two describes the Spiritual Master Himself. Part three is the principle of Disciplic Succession. Part four is qualifications,duties and characteristics of the Disciple. Part five is Spiritual Initiation(Diksa) and at the end some other relevant instructions. Over four hundred pages long, its a must for reading for devotees who want to be initiated by a bona fide spiritual master.One of my favourite books. Its encyclopaedic. Published by the BBT in 1990 with only 2500 copies available from Dusyanta dasa.
Yes, we’ve been talking about this subject for a long time – since 1977 as you say. Now its 2010 and we’re still talking about it. And it will go on…and on…
Why? Scripture says that three subjects will get everyone talking – because everyone has different opinions about three subjects. What are they?
The first is the position of Lord Shiva, the second is the position of the Holy Dhama, the third is the guru. Why these three? Well, they are all within this material world, but simultaneously not within this world. Their reality – and hence their true position – is seen differently by different viewers, and so all viewers have a different opinion – and speak that opinion with others, too.
Even when we turn to Srila Prabhupada’s writings the discussion seems not to be brought to any conclusion, since what he wrote can be interpreted in different ways.
True religion is following in the footsteps of the greatest devotees of the Lord, then at least we know we’re on the right track if we’re overcoming our material attachments, developing affection for the Lord and his devotees, and steadily practising our daily sadhana. If we don’t notice these changes in ourselves, and if spiritual steadiness is not there, then we may need some help. When we take some help from someone, it can be regarded that the Lord has helped us by sending that person to us. Our relationship with that person should be one of respect and gratitude in order that we get the maximum benefit from the exchanges. But first we have to trust that person by letting him/her into our life just a little bit. If we’ve been disappointed by our first experiences with such a spiritual relationship, to the extent that we feel we can never really trust anyone again, then of course we will never meet such a person.
Can we get everything we need for our spiritual life from Srila Prabhupada’s books? Yes, but in his books we will read about the extraordinary value of relationships with spiritual teachers. So if we value his teachings, we’ll also strive to find others we can trust.
Yes, the ISKCON movement is so much more than the confederation of temples that originally made it up. It is to the credit of its pioneers that it travelled so far in such a short time. Now the real strength of our movement – the element that will sustain it on into the future – will be when those members join together to help each other in true spiritual fellowship and together take Srila Prabhupada’s teachings to every town and village in Wales. (And other places, too!)
One who chants suddha-krsna-nama even once is indeed a Vaisnava & Diksa (initiation) is unnecessary in terms of the existential reality (tattva) of sri näma At this point, one more thing needs to be considered. Becoming a suddha Vaisnava does not depend on the process of taking diksa (ceremonial initiation). Diksa is the process whereby a person receives a mantra for the worship of Sri Hari’s deity form, and thus comes at least to the stage of vaisnava-praya. In terms of the existential reality of the holy name (nama-tattva), such diksa is unnecessary. As Sriman Mahaprabhu has said: prabhu kahe,—“yanra mukhe suni eka-bara krsna-nama, sei pujya,—srestha sabakara” Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu answered, “He from whose mouth krsna-nama is heard even once is worshipful and is the best among human beings.” eka krsna-name kare sarva-papa ksaya nava-vidha bhakti purna nama haite haya Even uttering Krsna’s name a single time destroys all of one’s sins. The nine-fold process of devotional service (navadha-bhakti) attains completeness only through nama. diksa-purascarya-vidhi apeksa na kare jihva-sparse a-candala sabare uddhare One is not required to undergo the process of receiving diksa or any preparatory regulative rites in order to chant krsna-nama. Simply by coming in contact with the tongue, krsna-nama delivers everyone, including even the most degraded class of men. anusanga-phale kare samsarera ksaya citta akarsiya karaya krsne premodaya Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila (15.106–109) As a secondary result of chanting krsna-nama, one’s material entanglement is terminated. The primary result is that the mind and heart of the chanter become uncontrollably drawn to Krsna and finally krsna-prema awakens in his heart. ataeva yanra mukhe eka krsna-nama sei ta’ vaisnava, kariha tanhara sammana Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila (15.111) One who even chants Krsna’s name a single time is described as a Vaisnava; therefore you should show him utmost respect. The Difference Between Sri Nama and Namabhasa & Those who Chant Namabhasa are not Vaisnavas The difference between nama and namabhasa is not the topic of our present deliberation. This shall be discussed specifically at another time. Herein, this much can be said: when krsna-nama is chanted with sastriya-sraddha (faith in scripture), that is, with unalloyed surrender, then it is nama. When nama is chanted with desires unrelated to making Krsna happy (anyabhilasita), or when it is eclipsed by jnana (dry, impersonal knowledge), karma (reward seeking action), vairagya (renunciation born of aversion) and so forth, it is namabhasa. Although the chanting of namabhasa can award any result, even up to emancipation from the material energy (mukti), the Vaisnava only chants suddha-nama and is never inclined to chant any form of namabhasa. When nama is chanted by one who has knowledge of His actual svarupa, who understands that nama and nami (the name and the named) are non-different, and who has realized that nama only makes His appearance upon the pure transcendental senses of the jiva, only then is it nama. When that nama appears on someone’s tongue, even once, he becomes a Vaisnava. By the time nama appears, all of one’s fructified (prarabdha) and unfructified (aprarabdha) sins are destroyed. And along with the awakening of such nama comes love of Godhead. -Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakar.
Nice extracts and comments, thank you Nrsingha.
Hare Krishna Kripamoya Prabhu,
Thanks for your enlightening articles.
I have done a fair bit of research and helped write various things on proxy-initiation theories, but I have never seen the quote given by you above, that Srila Prabhupada said the guru must be:
> ‘appearing before the physical senses of the disciple,’
This is a very powerful quote and I would be interested to know the origin.
Thanks.
your servant,
Deva Gaura Hari das
I don’t have that quote to hand this morning (I will look for it, though)but it is one of a number of quotes that define the concept of Paramatma with reference to that of guru, a definition that is glossed over by some who are interested in highlighting only the similarity. Consider this quote from Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.52:
“The Paramatma is always the caitya guru, the spiritual master within, and He comes before one externally as the instructor and initiator spiritual master…”
Thus Paramatma is hidden from view within yet comes out before a person to instruct him as the guru. Guru is therefore ‘before the physical senses’ – but I’ll still find that quote for you!
At this point I will admit to being unable to find the specific quote I wanted. Here though, is a selection of quotes wherein Srila Prabhupada mentions that the guru is ‘external’ or ‘outside’, and ‘physical spiritual master,’ thus making it an aberrant doctrine that insists that one accept a guru ‘within the heart.’
Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4
It is here recommended to Dhruva Mahārāja that he meditate on the supreme guru, or supreme spiritual master. The supreme spiritual master is Kṛṣṇa, who is therefore known as caitya-guru. This refers to the Supersoul, who is sitting in everyone’s heart. He helps from within as stated in Bhagavad-gītā, and He sends the spiritual master, who helps from without. The spiritual master is the external manifestation of the caitya-guru, or the spiritual master sitting in everyone’s heart. (4.8.44)
When we rightly take the direction of the Supersoul, our life becomes successful. He is directing from within and from without. From within He is directing as caitya-guru, or the spiritual master sitting within the heart. Indirectly He is also helping the living entity by manifesting Himself as the spiritual master outside. In both ways the Lord is giving directions to the living entity so that he may finish up his material activities and come back home, back to Godhead. (4.22.37)
One who is sincere and pure gets an opportunity to consult with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His Paramātmā feature sitting within everyone’s heart. The Paramātmā is always the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within, and He comes before one externally as the instructor and initiator spiritual master. The Lord can reside within the heart, and He can also come out before a person and give him instructions. Thus the spiritual master is not different from the Supersoul sitting within the heart. (4.28.52)
Caitanya Caritamrita Adi-lila
It is not possible for a conditioned soul to directly meet Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but if one becomes a sincere devotee and seriously engages in devotional service, Lord Kṛṣṇa sends an instructing spiritual master to show him favor and invoke his dormant propensity for serving the Supreme. The preceptor appears before the external senses of the fortunate conditioned soul, and at the same time the devotee is guided from within by the caittya-guru, Kṛṣṇa, who is seated as the spiritual master within the heart of the living entity. (Adi 1.58)
One should not take any responsibility on his own but should be a soul surrendered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who will then give him dictation as the caittya-guru, or the spiritual master within. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is pleased to guide a devotee from within and without. From within He guides him as the Supersoul, and from without He guides him as the spiritual master. (Adi 8.79)
So Kṛṣṇa is advising that “I am in everyone’s heart.” You can take advice from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is ready. Kṛṣṇa’s another name is caitya-guru. Caitya-guru means the guru who is situated within your heart. Kṛṣṇa comes out as instructor guru or initiator guru outside, and he is sitting within the heart as caitya-guru. Kṛṣṇa is ready to help you, help us, every one of us, in two ways: by the external guru and internal guru. Internal guru, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself, and external guru, His manifestation, the spiritual master. So we should take advantage of two gurus and make our life successful. (Lecture on BG 13.3, September 26, 1973)
We see, Kṛṣṇa was present before Arjuna, but nobody was present before Brahmā. Therefore it is said, tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye, hṛdā: “through the heart.” Because Kṛṣṇa is situated in everyone’s heart. Actually, He is the spiritual master, caitya-guru. So in order to help us, He comes out as physical spiritual master. (Lecture on SB 1.2.4)
So guru is also incarnation of God, mercy incarnation of God. Guru means that… God is within you, caitya-guru, the guru, or the spiritual master, within your heart. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe ‘rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). So this Paramātmā is also incarnation of God. And the same Paramātmā, when He comes before you, being very much merciful upon you, to teach you from outside, that is guru. (Lecture on SB 1.3.26 October 1, 1976)
Prabhupāda: Therefore God is called caittya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart. (Room conversation with Irish poet, Desmond O’Grady, May 23, 1974, Rome)