Back To Prabhupada, Issue 65, Vol 1, 2020, Interactive
"Dear Prabhu,
There are many nonsensical ideas propagated on social media and the internet generally about Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Many of them have become widely circulated and become popular because, in my experience, apart from the IRM, no one is able to defeat them soundly, even though many try. Here, is yet another nonsensical article I have come across like this, and I am sending it to you to please expose it and educate us. Thank you.
www.facebook.com/notes/jvalamukhi-kopecka/keeping-the-disciplic-succession-alive/10158056107572269
Your servant,"
- Mahesh Popat, London, UK
"Hare Krsna, Prabhu.
Wanted to bring the following to your attention. Same old misunderstandings. Srila Prabhupada did make it clear that he was deputizing his disciples to accept or reject formal initiations based on the same principles he had established, isn't it? Then why this rhetoric that rtvik initiations force Srila Prabhupada to accept disciples?
www.facebook.com/notes/jvalamukhi-kopecka/keeping-the-disciplic-succession-alive/10158056107572269"
- Jai Simman Das, Singapore
Other devotees had forwarded this article to us to answer as well! Henceforward, we will have a column called "Nonsense Corner" for answering nonsensical items whenever they have been sent to us by many of our readers for replying to.
In respect of the article sent to us here, we may note the following:
1) This almost 2,000-word article does not contain a single quote from Srila Prabhupada. Indeed, throughout the article the author quotes sources of "authority" such as:
"I am of the opinion";
"I was told by a devotee";
""witnessed" by several psychics and remote viewers";
i.e. anything and everything other than the directly-recorded words of Srila Prabhupada! Thus, even before we begin, we know that there is nothing of substance here – just someone giving their own personal opinion and speculations. This alone gives grounds for the article to be dismissed.
2) The next ground for dismissing the author's assertions is Srila Prabhupada's orders. The author claims:
"As far as Srila Prabhupada continuing to take disciples after his passing, it is not the fact. This misconception is actually impersonalism. Srila Prabhupada took the recommendations of his organizational authorities for accepting potential initiates. The last word was always his, whether the person was to be initiated or not."
No. According to Srila Prabhupada, it is the above false assertion which is "not the fact". In the July 9th, 1977 directive, which Srila Prabhupada signed, the system he gave is:
"Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. (1) After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. (2) The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad (3)"
a) Srila Prabhupada does not take "recommendations" and then accept a disciple. Rather, the rtvik representatives take the recommendation, as stated by sentence (1) above.
b) These rtvik representatives then may accept the disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf, and this happens immediately after they receive the recommendation, and without any involvement from Srila Prabhupada. This is proven by sentence (2) above.
c) Hence, Srila Prabhupada had given full authority to the rtvik representatives to accept disciples on his behalf, without requiring his "last word" at all, as proven by sentence (3)above, in conjunction with sentence (2).
Thus, this is what happens when one offers one's own speculative opinion. One ends up simply contradicting, rather than quoting, Srila Prabhupada.
3) Continuing with contradicting Srila Prabhupada, the author claims:
"Rtvik initiations override Srila Prabhupada's own independence in accepting or not accepting a disciple. He cannot be forced to accept anyone".
However, given the facts just presented, it is actually rejecting Srila Prabhupada's rtvik system that "overrides Srila Prabhupada's own independence". For, we are taking away his independence to accept disciples through his having permanently given full power to representatives to do so on his behalf. And we would therefore be forcing Srila Prabhupada to not accept disciples even though he ordered that he wanted to do this via the rtvik system.
4) Another ground for dismissing the author's assertions is the words of the author herself! The author claims:
"Srila Prabhupada's position is unique, [...] He had an unprecedented position [...] This unique position, this role, cannot be imitated"
The author makes it clear that Srila Prabhupada's position is without precedent. The author therefore obviously cannot claim precedent as being a basis for determining how Srila Prabhupada would act. Indeed, the author explicitly rejects historical precedent in the matter of initiation by claiming–
"the role of spiritual master was community oriented, that it was localized, that it was personal, that it was reciprocal. Historically, a person did not accept more disciples than he or she could properly sustain"
–and yet we know for a fact that Srila Prabhupada did not follow this "localized" model, initiating up to 10,000 disciples from countries all over the world, having never met many of these disciples.
Thus, when the author claims that Srila Prabhupada's rtvik initiations can be rejected because –
"nor is there any precedent in the vaisnava histories of this sort of initiation being valid"
– this precedent-based argument itself can be rejected as not being "valid" by the author's own arguments!
5) The author's assertions rejecting Srila Prabhupada as being the diksa guru of ISKCON found throughout the article, can again be rejected using the author's own words. When speaking of the diksa guru, the author claims:
"The spiritual master opens the door to the spiritual realm and serves his disciples by endeavoring to keep them on that path, and the disciple makes progress along that path by serving the instructions of the guru."
Thus, the author makes it clear that the diksa guru is he who opens the door to the spiritual realm and the disciple follows the instructions of the diksa guru. However, the author also makes it clear that in ISKCON, this will be the relationship between Srila Prabhupada and members of ISKCON, with Srila Prabhupada's instructions guiding and "shining light" for everyone:
"In our case, the books of Srila Prabhupada are to be the guiding light for the next 10,000 years, providing that they do not become adulterated. He is the shining light, and lives forever in his instructions."
The author's article can be demolished on multiple grounds:
a) It has no authority, having zero basis in Srila Prabhupada's recorded instructions.
b) Srila Prabhupada's orders contradict the article's key assertions.
c) The author's own statements contradict the article's key assertions.
Return to "Succession" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
