 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Dull-Witted Must Be Cheated |
|
First
of a Two-Part Series It has been reported from a
reliable and trusted source, who directly heard from the woman who made the queries
detailed herein, that the following exchange took place on We find similar remarks: Reporter: When you say that lots of people want to be cheated,
do you mean that lots of people want to carry on with their worldly pleasures,
and, at the same time, by chanting a mantra or by holding a flower, achieve
spiritual life as well? Is this what you mean by ‘wanting to be cheated?’ These two replies by Srila
Prabhupada demonstrate his detachment.
They may even appear superficially harsh. We should be reminded,
however, that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Renouncer. Lord Sri Krishna is not
benefited by devotional service; it is for the benefit of the practitioner of
that service. The Lord may want everyone to become his devotee, but, if almost
everyone ends up being misled due to lack of seriousness, He has no difficulty allowing
them to remain in the ignorance they want.
They will thus act according to predestined karma. One must engage in devotional service if he
wants complete self-realization: “In Vedic literatures,
sometimes fruitive activities, mystic yoga and the
speculative search for knowledge are praised as different ways to
self-realization. Yet despite such praise, in all literatures the path of
devotional service is accepted as the foremost. In other words, devotional
service to Lord Krishna is the highest perfectional path to self-realization,
and it is recommended that it be performed directly. Fruitive
activity, mystic meditation, and philosophical speculation are not direct
methods of self-realization. They are indirect, because, without devotional
service, they cannot lead to the highest perfection of self-realization.
Indeed, all paths to self-realization ultimately depend upon the path of
devotional service.” Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, Chapter Ten, “The
Beauty of Realization (vijnana) entails going beyond the stage of education
to that of experienced, scientific learning. Our vasudeve bhagavati “By rendering devotional
service unto the Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, one immediately acquires causeless
knowledge and detachment from the world.” Srimad Bhagavatam Canto One, Chapter
Two, Verse Seven “The Krsna consciousness
movement means to understand Although the process is somewhat
easy, the realized knowledge to be attained from it is anything but. That
vijnana is transcendental, unlimited, absolute, infinitely subtle, and
esoteric. It is ever-expanding and cannot be fully attained by anyone with even
a tinge of material desire or consciousness: Disciple: He
fails to understand transcendental knowledge by applying the techniques of
material knowledge. At the current time, most
devotees unfortunately put little emphasis on even putting the pieces of the
puzzle together (jnana), what to speak of thoroughly understanding Why is this? If we read Srila Prabhupada’s letters,
we cannot fail to notice that the Governing Body Commission (GBC) was
responsible for seeing that the temple presidents were properly training and educating
the rank-and-file devotees: “The GBC must be vigilant by
following the regulative principles and teach, by ideal character, the
presidents of the centers. And the presidents, by their ideal character, must
teach the others. Then, automatically, all members of the whole institution
will be ideal to the human society.” Letter to Rupanuga, In November, 1977, after the
departure of His Divine Grace from manifest presence, the governing body should
have had every temple president emphasize, especially to the uninitiated people,
the qualities of an authorized spiritual master. In this way, the new devotees
could have, and would have, made intelligent, good decisions regarding Lord
Krishna’s injunction in the Bhagavad-gita (4.34) to accept only a bona
fide guru. Of course, the history of what the so-called GBC actually did is now
well known by all but the completely blind. In this sordid, history we find the root
reason for practically universal confusion about who is a bona fide spiritual
master--and what constitutes genuine initiation. Back in 1978, a book of
quotes entitled The Spiritual Master and the Disciple was printed and
widely distributed throughout the movement. It very nicely compiled the many
quotations from Srila Prabhupada’s written works that dealt with the
abovementioned topic. Unfortunately, the book was presented within the overall
context of the GBC’s deception that Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven of
his leading secretaries and managers to the post of fully enlightened spiritual
master. Therefore, The Spiritual Master and the Disciple did little more
than harden the false faith of new disciples which had been wrongly placed in some
designated imposter. A threadbare, frank, and all-important discussion of
whether these eleven were real gurus on any level was strictly prohibited in
the Society. Those who had doubts were run out of a completely transformed
movement. Corporate
ISKCON Guru, Version 2.0 (and Beyond) Although topmost level of
worship for these eleven (initially both demanded and imposed throughout the
Society) was eventually downsized and then abandoned in the mid-Eighties, they
still continued to exert veto power over the official policies of corporate
ISKCON. After they failed to produce any proof that they had been recognized as
guru by Prabhupada, their original lie (of appointment by him) was also
downsized to “selection by the GBC.” Since they constituted the dominant
faction of that twenty-three man board, they had essentially selected
themselves as full-blown acharyas in 1978. What has devolved since these
“growing pains” of the late Seventies and early Eighties might best be called Corporate
ISKCON Guru 2.0, eventually followed by versions 2.1, 2.2, etc. The
more recent versions include many working functions from previous versions, but
with inevitable, semi-pragmatic, time-and-place alterations inserted. Corporate
ISKCON Guru (Special 2010 Revision) opens up the inexorable prospect of
female “gurus.” Because the newer versions push most of the deceptions of
previous ones, all these products fall flat in clearing up the base
misunderstanding of who is, and who is not, a genuine spiritual master. Version 2.0 included the concoction of
the GBC selecting “gurus,” and it remains the institutional criterion. Srila
Prabhupada and our previous Acaryas condemn this: “It is imperative that a
serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the sastric
injunctions. Sri Jiva Goswami
advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or
customary social and ECCLESIASTICAL
CONVENTIONS. One should simply try to find a genuinely
qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.” Chaitanya
Charitamrita, Adi 1.35, purport (emphasis added) The GBC very much remains an
ecclesiastical entity, despite a thick mystique draped over it by corporate
ISKCON’s leaders, who take substantial personal benefit from its arrangements. Neither
Srila Prabhupada nor our scriptures make any allowance for such a group of
conditioned souls to be invested with absolute authority. The very idea is an
anartha. Absolute authority is reserved for liberated spiritual masters only,
who have no need to submit to such boards. As indicated above, they defy such
material arrangements. Let us employ the analogy of
a vehicle. Their model (what corporate ISKCON has been marketing since the
departure of Srila Prabhupada) has a very bad design flaw: It keeps throwing devotees.
As a result (outside of It is now over thirty years
since Srila Prabhupada was physically present to provide a real example of what
is guru. Thousands of devotees have come and gone from corporate ISKCON, after
having imbibed the misconception that an institutional governing body has spiritual
authority to select who is guru. This wrong idea has long ago become the “standard.”
For all practical purposes, the original parampara conception presented by
Srila Prabhupada has become lost in the haze of time and subject to all variety
of loose interpretations. This favors
whatever raft of corporate ISKCON post-holder “gurus” is now current. The
original mis-education of the Zonal Acharya GBC was easily adapted to versions 2.0 and beyond.
It is as if the scriptures have themselves been edited. This is the norm in Kali
Yuga (Iron Age of quarrel), especially among devotees from the mleccha (meat eater) West. “In the parampara system, the
instructions taken from the bona fide spiritual master must also be based on
revealed Vedic scriptures. One who is in the line of disciplic succession
cannot manufacture his own way of behavior. There are many so-called followers
of the Vaishnava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions
of the sastras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradaya,
which means ‘outside of the
sampradaya.’" Chaitanya
Charitamrita, Adi 7.48, purport (emphasis added) What
is Rittvik? In the Nineties, blowback
from many GBC abuses crystallized into the rittvik movement. By then, many of
the institution’s “gurus” had become disgraced, removed from the list (approved
by the Commission) to conduct initiations on behalf of the confederation. Rittvik
became an amalgam for many one-time disciples of these fallen “new gurus,”
along with initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada who had a political axe to
grind with the GBC. Since then, rittvikvada has devolved
into a catchall for many who leave corporate ISKCON, regardless of their
so-called gurus’ status. There are also rittvik temples which recruit new
people, competing with corporate ISKCON for “results.” Formal rittvik entails an
initiation fire sacrifice where the new person supposedly becomes the disciple
of a departed spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada. In this practice, a
physically manifest person, usually an older devotee, acts as a stand-in for
Srila Prabhupada during the ceremony; he is called the rittvik or priest. This
follows Srila Prabhupada’s method of initiating large numbers of disciples in
the Seventies during his manifest presence.
Despite its claim of being what Srila Prabhupada actually wanted after
his departure, rittvik has any number of contradictory philosophies and sects.
The original New Jaipur version claimed that the
rittviks had to be selected by the GBC, but, after the GBC rejected the
proposal (around 1990), it became an untenable proposition. The real momentum of the
rittvik movement began after this initial setback, however. Karmically,
this was an idea whose time had come. There are hard rittvik advocates and soft
rittvik advocates. Hard rittviks claim that there will be no more gurus after
Srila Prabhupada for the next ten thousand years. Soft rittviks avoid
restricting the Supreme Lord in this offensive manner and maintain that Srila
Prabhupada must remain the initiating guru until the appearance of the next
pure devotee. Other versions crop up all the time; one of the latest opines
that only the initial eleven “Zonal Acaryas” were authorized to perform initiations. In the rittvik faction,
viewed as a conglomerate, we find all sorts of infighting and put-downs by one group
against another. They are all united, however, when it comes to attacking their
critics, and certain among them are renowned for truth-twisting, along with ad
hominem character assassination. These qualities serve to provide further
evidence of the intrinsically political nature of this group as a whole. Not
too long ago, they were challenged to provide scriptural evidence for
authorization of their departed guru “initiation” hypothesis. They have been
widely acknowledged as having failed to provide real evidence. Despite Prabhupada’s
self-evident teaching about guru and initiation, the fact that so many devotees
took the rittvik philosophy seriously indicates the muddled misconception of
guru instilled in them previously; this includes many disciples of Srila
Prabhupada. Since it affected so great a number, the confusion could only have
had its source in those who originally failed to maintain the clarity, who muddied the teachings with their omissions and
self-interested spin. In particular, this would be the GBC and the Zonal Acaryas.
It did not originate with His
Divine Grace. The practice of accepting a departed
devotee as diksa guru, be he even a mahabhagavat, has only been accepted by
sahajiya groups (cheap devotees) such as the kartabhajas. What is provisionally good about the rittvik
movement was its attempt to return the original focus to the recognized pure
devotee, Srila Prabhupada. This bona fide focus originally dominated his
movement while he was here. Unfortunately, the misconception of his being a
departed diksa guru was then interwoven with this emphasis from the very
beginning of rittvk. As such, that renders the entire
dispensation also useless and “outside of the sampradaya.” Although there is precious
little solid evidence in Srila Prabhupada’s books, lectures, letters, or
informal talks for instituting its “initiation” practice, rittvik advocates use
the abovementioned emphasis (on worship of Prabhupada) to offensively minimize
his statements on the topic of guru and initiation. Srila Prabhupada taught
repeatedly that the sampradaya is continued by one guru-disciple after another.
Since there is no instance of such an initiation proxy process or system in the
history of real Vaishnavism, the rittviks instead make the claim that Srila
Prabhupada was such an empowered devotee that he could essentially rewrite the
scriptures. This time-place-and-circumstance concoction is why the deviant rittvik
idea has earned the term “guruvada.” “Nobody can be accepted as
guru or spiritual master if he does not follow the principles of scripture.
This is the test: tad-vijnanartham
sa gurum
eva abhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham. Srotriyam.
Srotriyam means one who has accepted the Vedic
literature, the sastra, scripture, as the guidance. He
can be. Not a extravagant upstart. He
makes some group and religious principle of his own and become a guru. No, no, he'll not be . . . ” Lecture on Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 20.353-354 New York,
December 26, 1966 (emphasis added) The political nature of
rittvik has been apparent to objective observers from its beginning. It has never elevated its adherents with
spiritual knowledge. Dull-witted people were easily overcome by rittvik zealots,
who accused them of seeing Srila Prabhupada as “dead.” They tagged them with
this stigma, because they doubted that Prabhupada could initiate after his departure.
Similarly, the word “henceforward,” used by Srila Prabhupada in a letter
authorizing rittvik initiations during his last months of manifest presence,
was cited. The latter-day rittvik zealots brand those who are unwilling to
unlimitedly extend this direction of “henceforward” with minimizing the
spiritual master, one of the ten offenses to the Holy Name. These and other
snapping techniques have enabled rittviks to accumulate a rather substantial and
even fanatical following. After the zonal acarya
debacle, if this movement had simply advocated taking shelter of Srila
Prabhupada as siksa-guru, it would have been completely authorized. This would
have given it no real political clout, however. Corporate ISKCON, with its
ecclesiastical “initiation” process, possessed the ring of power that could
truly bind new people to its deviant hierarchy. If rittvik was to be a
competitor, an alternative “initiation” process had to be part of its mandate. In order to be properly
understood, the rittvik movement must be examined in historical context. By the
late Eighties, there was already significant fallout from the zonal acarya
self-destruction, many Prabhupada initiates had been driven out during the “off
with their heads” heyday. Thousands had also been “initiated” by the defrocked.
After Sulocana dasa’s murder, Kirtanananda had left
with all his toys to assert his apostate claim of being Srila Prabhupada’s
successor. Doubt in the GBC’s ability to conduct the mission was palpable. Around 1981, near the beginning
of the zonal acarya scandals, Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers took hold of a
sizeable number of his disciples. However, there were many Prabhupada initiates
who rightly resisted this migration. In the mid-Eighties, Prabhupada initiates
still loyal to corporate ISKCON saw the necessity of restoring him to a more
prominent position. Unfortunately, the remaining zonals still had control of
the GBC through various power blocs, and they were able to rebuff the radical
reformers, mostly by breaking off moderates via compromises. The compromisers
agreed to allow the zonals to keep their disciples, acquired during their initial
years of extreme pretense, audacity, and ruthlessness. This also allowed the
GBC to maintain its façade of infallibility. The zonals then brought down their
profiles significantly and outwardly ceased trying to
overshadow Srila Prabhupada. They also agreed to open the floodgates for others
to become institutional “guru,” many of whom came from the aforementioned
moderate group of compromisers. Nevertheless, this “reform” effort
did not win over everyone: The politics and compromises made in order to
satisfy the most powerful was simply too egregious. The more radical and honest
got shut out of any power sharing arrangement, and many of them joined the
ranks of those who had left during the zonal acarya epoch. These devotees rightly concluded that Srila
Prabhupada’s original movement had become cheapened by the power politics of
the GBC. The zonals had indulged themselves in so many illicit imitations and
activities that many devotees concluded none of Srila Prabhupada’s direct
disciples could ever become bona fide spiritual masters. These were the ones
who later seized upon the rittvik dispensation. The zonals had, after all,
always hyped themselves as “the best disciples.” When they became disgraced, it
was concluded that any others would only be worse. Rittvik, therefore, was in
essence a sour grapes movement. The zonals were the bhogis,
the abusive enjoyers. The rittviks were the tyagis, or
the repulsed renouncers. This cycle of bhoga-tyaga is always found in mundane politics. The tragedy is that the
concept of genuine disciplic succession was literally thrown out by the
rittviks, and figuratively by any number of other malcontents. As stated in
Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and letters, his disciple is enjoined to become
pure like his guru and then, after personally receiving the order, initiate new
disciples into the parampara. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada gave this generic
directive to all his initiated disciples. It is not that corporate ISKCON and
the zonal acaryas had the wrong concept; it is that they misapplied it so very
grossly. They lied and deceived in so many ways regarding their qualifications
to even be “regular guru, that’s all.” One could expect low-born
meat-eating cultures to do what the zonal acaryas did (in the name of
Vaishnavism). And, as a reaction, people of the same birth will then throw out
the disciplic succession process in the way that the rittviks did. Jayadeva Goswami says in his Dasavatara
Stotra, nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam. Lord Buddha rejected the Vedic
sacrifices and directions, enjoined in the sruti or
scriptures: “ . . . because he rejected Vedic principles, Vedic
followers said that he, ‘You are nastika.’ Nastika means unbeliever. So, Caitanya
Mahaprabhu has explained this Buddha religion. Veda na maniya
bauddha haya ta' nastika. Because nastika means, atheist means, one who does not follow the
principles of Veda.” Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.24 in The rittviks are, therefore,
also ultimately nastika. Those who think such a
pronouncement unnecessarily harsh or political should consider a long exchange
during a morning walk conversation that Srila Prabhupada had with a Dr. Patel.
The good doctor had brought along an alleged Vaishnava catechism entitled Siksha-vadri. Srila Prabhupada took exception with the
first thing read from it, because it claimed that a Vaishnava should not eat
meat even if the Vedas say it can be done in certain circumstances. Srila
Prabhupada did not like hearing that the Vedas should be disregarded. His essential
remarks to Dr. Patel: Prabhupada: That is Buddhism. . . . That means
denying the authority of Vedas. Vedas say you can eat meat after yajna. . .You may not eat, that is
a different thing. But the Vedic authority. . . Just
like, suppose the law says, ‘This man should be hanged.’ If you say, ‘No, even
if he is criminal, he should not be hanged,’ that means denying the authority
of law. You cannot say this. . . He does not know what is the
scheme of Vedas. You cannot stop meat-eating all of a sudden, but you
can raise some restriction. . . Now my point is that Buddhism was rejected from
Just like Buddhism, the
rittviks are practicing something that denies the Vedic-cum-Vaishnava process
of approaching a physically manifest spiritual master. As such, the Vedic
scriptures have no authority for them. They take only what they like:
"This is good, this is bad." Of course, corporate ISKCON has shown them
the way for such covert atheism with their similarly concocted ecclesiastical
process. The root cause of all these deviations can be found in the zonal
acarya’s failure to follow Srila Prabhupada. Regarding how they usurped the
movement in 1978, one of Srila Prabhupada’s very first disciples, after leaving
the movement in disgust, remarked that it was hard to know if the big guns even
still believed in God. Since virtually
every post-modern devotee once surrendered to and served those eleven pretender
mahabhagavats, or served the down-line people who
served them, it is not surprising to see the current state of that movement. Srila Prabhupada had given
numerous instructions on how things should have been conducted after his
departure. Instead of determining and implementing them, the zonal acaryas, compelled
by extreme ambition and self-interest, concocted something else. Through the
agency of presidents, sycophants, and hatchet men, they mis-trained
everyone in that very wrong thing. Srila Prabhupada had created the GBC to police
the movement and protect the mass of devotees from deviant people and philosophies.
Instead of policing, the GBC created its own deviant philosophy and then used
their “ultimate managing authority” to impose it on the fearful and the innocent.
Instead of protecting the chickens, they
themselves became foxes. They rejected the instructions of their guru and the
parampara. This form of nastika is the thing they
have passed on to those who followed them. This is the real reason why the movement,
and later breakaway factions like rittvik, is deviant and atheistic. To
Be Continued Quotes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are copyright by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust |
