Back To Prabhupada, Issue 55, Spring 2017
n the last issue, we exposed GBC-elected diksa guru HG Mahatma Dasa ("MAD"). He gave a new definition of illicit sex and preached the ‘benefits' of illicit sex, claiming how it can be "service" and help "bonding" between married couples (please see BTP 54: "Changing the Regulative Principles – 1"). In keeping with his tendency to preach nonsensical deviation in the name of Krishna consciousness, it is not surprising that he has also attacked this magazine and our promotion of Srila Prabhupada's teachings regarding guru-tattva (the truth about guru). The quotes in the shaded boxes are taken from an article titled "Ritvikism Hardens the Heart" on MAD's website. ("Ritvikism" and "Ritviks" are the terms used by the guru hoaxers to refer to those who accept that Srila Prabhupada is the diksa guru of ISKCON and that the hoaxers should only be representatives or "ritviks", acting on his behalf.)
"The Back To Prabhupada magazine, the main preaching arm of the ritvik movement, is grounded in criticism. Vaisnava philosophy is grounded in appreciation. The hypocrisy is obvious. A doctrine which needs to gather its power and authenticity from criticism of Prabhupada's disciples has nothing to do with the standards of Vaisnavism."
The article from which this quote is taken is full of criticism, from the very title which criticises the acceptance of Srila Prabhupada's diksa guru status as something which "hardens the heart", to the conclusion, which criticises it as being "poisonous". The article contains non-stop criticism of all those, including Srila Prabhupada's disciples, who support the fact that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON's diksa guru. Some examples are that such persons:
Have a "lack of faith"; "suppress the essence of bhakti"; "despise the essence of Krishna consciousness"; engage in a "criminal act"; are "permanently blinded"; "blind others"; "break faith in Prabhupada's instruction"; engage in "gross manipulation of Prabhupada's words and intentions" and "undermining the very core of bhakti"; "destroy faith", and have "characteristic attitudes of non-Vaisnavas."
And he claims that our belief is: "poison disguised as nectar", "travesty to our sampradaya", and "a complete misunderstanding of dynamics at the heart of Bhakti".
Thus, the whole article is "grounded in criticism". Hence, the hypocrisy of the article is obvious. By being full of criticism, but simultaneously claiming that such criticism "has nothing do with the standards of Vaisnavism", it has actually defeated itself.
In any case, MAD's numerous criticisms are not even correct. For example, he claims:
"The ritviks therefore, to be successful, must break faith. They teach that no devotee in Iskcon has the qualifications and abilities to be diksa guru. They also break faith in Prabhupada's instruction that he wanted his disciples to be diksa gurus."
1) We do not teach that no devotee in ISKCON could ever become qualified to be a diksa guru. In fact, we state the opposite:
"In any case, the implementation of a rtvik system does not rule out, a priori, the possible existence of pure devotees. [...] Such persons would be delighted to work within the rtvik system if that was their guru's order."
(The Final Order)
2) Srila Prabhupada never instructed his disciples to replace him as ISKCON's diksa guru. It is highly significant to note that MAD does not make any attempt to present this supposed instruction from Srila Prabhupada. For no such order exists. MAD also claims (emphasis added):
"To preach in a way that does not allow love to develop for a potential living diksa guru is a criminal act."
Not only did Srila Prabhupada not order any "living" diksa gurus, he also stated that a guru does not require to be living, meaning "physically present":
"So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the Spiritual Master, vibration. What we have heard from the Spiritual Master, that is living."
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 13/1/69)
Rather, the only time Srila Prabhupada even directly references the concept of a "living" spiritual master, he condemns the idea, stating that even Jesus is such a "living" spiritual master:
Madhudvisa: "I was referring to a living spiritual master."
Srila Prabhupada: "Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. [...] when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ."
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 2/10/68)
In addition, MAD's criticisms are contradictory. He states:
"A devotee's faith in an advanced devotee is the most important proof of the qualification of his prospective guru."
He claims the "most important proof" of the "qualification" of a guru is the devotee's faith. But a guru's qualification is independent of whether or not a devotee has faith in him, because his qualification does not appear and disappear depending on the faith others may or may not have in him. He is either qualified or he is not. A point MAD himself agrees with later in the article, contradicting his earlier point:
"It may be inconceivable for one devotee that another devotee takes full shelter in their guru because that guru's effulgence is not seen equally by all. Just look at how many godbrothers did not see Prabhupada's effulgence, yet his effulgence was obvious to us."
MAD also claims in the article:
"Krsna chooses who will be guru and for whom. It is not a matter of voting a man to the post of guru".
But, in direct contradiction to his claim, MAD himself only became a guru when he:
"was approved to initiate in April of 2013."
(MAD website)
An "approval" that was dependent on getting the votes of those doing the approving.
Like his lecture about illicit sex which we covered in the previous issue, MAD does not offer a single referenced quote from Srila Prabhupada in his article. Nor does he even offer any quotes from the "ritviks" he is criticising. Hence, he ends up offering a mass of self-contradictory, fabricated nonsense about guru-tattva, just as he did about illicit sex.
Return to Mahatma Das Index
Return to IRM Homepage
