Back To Prabhupada, Issue 13, Autumn 2006
n the previous issue of BTP, we reported on the historic debate between the IRM and ISKCON's Governing Body Commission (GBC). The debate was commissioned by the famous Martin Luther University in Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, and published this year in the form of an academic paperback, titled The Rival Positions in the IRM-GBC Controversy within ISKCON. Since the GBC state in their submission that "This paper has been endorsed on December 24, 2004 by the Governing Body Commission (GBC) for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)", it will be of particular interest to scholars, devotees and the religious media. Thus we have decided to place the book online, and it can be accessed, along with our rebuttal to the GBC's submission, from our website at this weblink. It can be purchased from the University by contacting Ms. Petra Ruthenberg, at: ruthenberg@bibliothek.uni-halle.de, and also from Amazon online at www.amazon.de.
Unfortunately for the GBC, while attempting to defeat the IRM's position that Srila Prabhupada established a "ritvik" system whereby officiating priests would continue to initiate new disciples on his behalf for the lifetime of ISKCON, thereby keeping Srila Prabhupada as the only Guru, their submission turned out to be the academic equivalent of a major car accident, as we now highlight. Extracts from the GBC paper are quoted first, followed by the IRM's response. Due to the limited space accorded by this short article, we have necessarily only selected certain parts of the GBC's submission. The IRM's full rebuttal to the GBC's paper can be read online at the IRM website, at the same place where we have placed the book, at www.iskconirm.com/krishnakirti.pdf.
In the following extracts from the debate, "TFO" is an abbreviation for the IRM's foundational paper, The Final Order.
GBC: "There is no doubt that both ISKCON's leadership and the IRM have acted and are acting to establish what each considers the correct theological conclusion with regard to the affairs of gurus and disciples."
IRM: This is an interesting statement from the GBC, since it is putting the motivation of the IRM on par with the GBC, in that it is admitted that both are acting only with sincere theological considerations. This is a departure from the normal demonisation of the IRM as a movement which exists only to either destroy or take over ISKCON etc.
GBC: "At the same time, TFO has denied that it is relevant to their interpretation of the July 9, 1977 letter (KRISHNAKANT 2002: 4):
"Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - 'henceforward' - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed."
The above statement seems to be more of an afterthought rather than an original part of the TFO. One reason for its existence could be that not long after TFO was first published, opposing arguments demonstrated that the word "henceforward", as Srila Prabhupada has used it, can be implicitly limited by other circumstances or instructions previously given."
IRM: This argument is illogical since the statement from TFO referred to was IN TFO when it was "first published", so how can opposing arguments which emerged after TFO was published have any relevance? In addition, this is an implied straw-man argument (a straw-man argument refers to an argument which we have not actually made, and therefore the paper defeating such an argument is irrelevant to the debate at hand), since TFO does not state anywhere that the word "henceforward" can NOT be "implicitly limited by other circumstances or instructions previously given. [ ...]". The whole of TFO after the first few pages is actually devoted to considering the possibility of such other instructions. TFO does, however, find that such other instructions which would lead to the termination of the directive do not exist.
 |
GBC: "Remarks such as
"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next."
continue to be problematic for the hard ritviks."
IRM: There is nothing problematic about this remark, since such a remark has been demonstrated as being applicable to ALL Srila Prabhupada's disciples becoming siksa not diksa gurus. The paper's argument (given in an earlier section) that why would Srila Prabhupada request his disciples to do something they were already doing (acting as siksa gurus) is negated by the fact that in the same remark above, not quoted by the paper, Srila Prabhupada also states:
"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become the spiritual master."
Clearly the same disciples were also ALREADY distributing what they were learning - as this is the definition of "preaching". Thus we see that Srila Prabhupada is indeed asking his disciples to continue doing what they were already doing in his presence - which was acting as siksa gurus.
GBC: "Discussion about ritvik (for and against) among ISKCON's rank-and-file can hardly be found either in public forums or smaller discussion groups - either online or off the internet. These facts seem to indicate that the IRM's influence on ISKCON is waning."
IRM: The GBC author, however, has himself stated the exact opposite in his own online journal, regarding the influence of ritvik on ISKCON today:
"For ISKCON's incumbent leaders, they need to be more introspective about the reasons for the rise of the ritvik ideology and, more importantly, why it continues to persist [...] Even though the IRM and other non-IRM ritvikists have arrived at an incorrect explanation for the pervasive problem of fallen leaders, it is still an explanation. The IRM has one, ISKCON doesn't. Ritvikist explanations thus continue to fill ISKCON's explanatory vacuum. That is why ritvikism still persists within ISKCON and not simply outside of it in organizations like the IRM."
(Krishna Kirti Das, Hare Krishna Cultural Journal, April 9th, 2006)
GBC: "The following excerpts from the paper known as The Final Order (TFO) summarise the position of the ritviks - specifically that of the IRM:
On July 9th 1977, four months before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiations employing the use of ritviks, or representatives of the acarya. Srila Prabhupada instructed that this 'officiating acarya' system was to be instituted immediately, and run from that time onwards, or 'henceforward' - (please see Appendices, p. 108). [...] Without such a counter instruction, this letter must be seen as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation and should therefore be followed.52
To summarise the ritvik position, they consider that (1) no one was qualified at the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure to accept disciples, (2) Srila Prabhupada was aware of this fact and therefore set up a managerial system whereby he would continue to accept disciples even after his passing away".
IRM: Points (1) and (2) are amazing 'straw man' arguments since the paper even quotes a passage from TFO, but this does not state anything even remotely like what the paper claims TFO states! Hence since the paper takes as its base this completely false summary of TFO, it is not surprising the GBC paper misrepresents TFO's position all the way through.
GBC: "This (ritvik) doctrine can be subdivided into arguments that establish Srila Prabhupada's physical presence [...]But if we accept the ritvik line of thought, then we could not say that Srila Prabhupada passed away. There couldn't be any disappearance day ceremonies (since there was never any disappearance)."
IRM: Another one of a miasma of straw-man arguments to be found in the GBC's submission. The IRM does not argue that Srila Prabhupada is physically present. In TFO we actually state that Srila Prabhupada is physically ABSENT, not physically present:
"It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been physically absent for nearly two decades)."
(TFO, page 54, emphasis added)
This is the conclusion to a section which again tries to argue that we are denying that Srila Prabhupada is physically absent, but as we stated earlier, TFO does accept that Srila Prabhupada is physically absent, and this section of the paper is therefore just one big straw-man argument. Rather, in TFO we actually quote Srila Prabhupada stating that physical presence is immaterial, and not that Srila Prabhupada himself has not left the planet:
"Physical presence is not important."
(Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)
"Physical presence is immaterial."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 19/1/67)
GBC: "ISKCON's leaders in dealing with the crisis of spiritual masters falling down consulted the writings of previous acaryas wherein it is explicitly described what one should do if his or her spiritual master deviates. The ritviks, however, believe it is wrong to consult the writings of previous acaryas wherever these writings cannot be corroborated with something Srila Prabhupada himself has said".
IRM: The GBC state the same in one of their publications:
"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas."
(Our Original Position, p. 163, GBC Press)
The paper then devotes considerable time to trying to demonstrate that we should consult the works of the previous acaryas, which is an irrelevant subject since the debate is about whether or not Srila Prabhupada gave instructions for the termination of the ritvik system in ISKCON. This undue emphasis on writings other than those of Srila Prabhupada, is another sign that the GBC actually have no evidence from Srila Prabhupada to put forward to terminate the ritvik system as set up by Srila Prabhupada.
GBC: "There are currently many of Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples having deep and meaningful relationships with their spiritual masters, who are disciples of Srila Prabhupada."
IRM: It is ironic to note, therefore, that the very author of this paper is not one of these persons, since he claims his own spiritual master, HH Hridyananda Das Goswami, does not even understand such a basic point as what constitutes 'illicit sex', the prohibition of which is one of the fundamental regulative principles of Krishna consciousness; and furthermore has something of a dysfunctional relationship with both himself and the GBC:
"(HH Hridyananda Goswami) gives a decidedly different definition of illicit sex than what can reasonably be considered Srila Prabhupada's view of illicit sex [...] Certainly, Maharaja's essay greatly augments the confusion that the GBC attempted to dispel [...] H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami Acaryadeva is the spiritual master of the author of this article. While on the vast majority of issues in Krishna Consciousness we are in complete agreement, the author of this article, Krishna-kirti das, is nevertheless opposed to some of the ideas he expresses in his essay referred to herein. The author of this article offers his obeisances at the feet of Srila Acaryadeva and hopes that one day their disagreement on these issues will be amicably settled."
(Krishna Kirti Das, Hare Krishna Cultural Journal, June 16th, 2006)
If this constitutes a "deep and meaningful relationship" with his guru, we'd hate to think what a discordant relationship would look like!
The whole book, and the full rebuttal to the GBC's submission can be viewed at: www.iskconirm.com/krishnakirti.pdf
Return to "Academia" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
