Back To Prabhupada, Issue 71, Vol 4, 2021
GBC member and voted-in guru HH Badrinarayan Swami ("BAD") made the following argument:
"Sometimes we'll all take a swipe at them, the rtvik people. [...] what they're actually saying is that Prabhupada was so impotent spiritually, he couldn't make one single pure devotee who could then carry on the sampradaya?"
(BAD Presentation, 8/11/21)
He uses the term "rtvik" here to refer to the IRM's position. His argument that if Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON's diksa guru it would mean Srila Prabhupada is spiritually "impotent" is offensive to Srila Prabhupada, and we therefore answer it here in detail. Emphases added.
To understand the consequences of BAD's argument that a lack of diksa guru successors must mean a guru is spiritually impotent, one can consider the example of Srila Prabhupada's guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura ("SBST").
1) Regarding SBST, Srila Prabhupada states:
"He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math. [...] If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 28/4/74, emphasis added)
Thus, applying BAD's "logic" to this quote, he would have to offensively argue that SBST "was so impotent spiritually, he couldn't make one single pure devotee who could then carry on as the Acarya".
2) And even 40 years after SBST's physical departure, Srila Prabhupada stated:
"Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 28/4/74)
Thus, again, by BAD's "logic", he would have to offensively argue that SBST "was so impotent spiritually, he couldn't make more than one single pure devotee (Srila Prabhupada) who could then carry on as the Acarya".
If one argues that the mere absence of any act which would entail requiring spiritual potency – such as having diksa guru successors – must automatically mean that one is spiritually impotent, then BAD's proposal would be self-defeating. Because then BAD's argument could be turned on its head as follows. Since the GBC is claiming that Srila Prabhupada ordered successor gurus, BAD's argument can be re-phrased: "what the GBC is actually saying is that Prabhupada was so impotent spiritually, he couldn't continue taking more than a few thousand disciples and carry on the sampradaya himself?"
Thus, BAD's same "logic" is at work here: Srila Prabhupada requiring to carry on the sampradaya himself for many thousands of years and initiating millions of disciples would also require spiritual potency – and if this is not done, then it ‘must' mean he is somehow spiritually impotent. Indeed, BAD himself alludes to this argument by claiming we state that:
"the initiation stops at Srila Prabhupada because he was so powerful".
BAD's argument is a logical fallacy. Just because producing diksa guru successors requires spiritual potency, the absence of diksa guru successors does not mean spiritual potency is also absent. Because this would only be the case if the only way that spiritual potency could exist would be through having successor diksa gurus. In that case, their absence would mean the absence of spiritual potency. But this can easily be disproven by the fact that it is possible for Srila Prabhupada to produce pure devotees through his spiritual potency who are not diksa guru successors, but rather can co-exist with Srila Prabhupada being the diksa guru of ISKCON. This is possible because there is no spiritual principle which states that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru successor.
Thus, the non-existence of diksa guru successors is not proof that Srila Prabhupada is spiritually impotent.
Hence, what actually determines the existence of diksa guru successors is not Srila Prabhupada's "potency" but whether or not Srila Prabhupada actually ordered diksa guru successors. Srila Prabhupada is just as free and spiritually potent to remain the Acarya, and thus diksa guru, of ISKCON, as he is to hand over his position of Acarya and diksa guru of ISKCON to a successor disciple or disciples. We therefore simply need to examine the order he gave and follow it. And when we examine Srila Prabhupada's order, we find that he remained ISKCON's Acarya and diksa guru, as proven by our many publications such as Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON – Presenting the Conclusions of the GBC Foundational Document; The Final Order; and so on.
BAD's argument also fails for a much simpler reason. What he presents is not the IRM's position anyway, and BAD therefore attributes an argument to us which we do not make; that is, he presents a false "straw man" argument:
1) The Final Order, the "rtvik Bible" (as named by GBC gurus HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami), does not state that "initiation stops at Srila Prabhupada because he was so powerful". Rather, it states that Srila Prabhupada remains the sole diksa guru for his ISKCON Society because that is what he ordered.
2) Neither does The Final Order state that Srila Prabhupada "couldn't make one single pure devotee". Rather, it states the opposite:
"all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the rtvik system to allow initiations to continue. Whether or not Srila Prabhupada created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal final order. [...] Srila Prabhupada may have created many pure devotees [...] It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru. Such persons would be delighted to work within the rtvik system if that was their guru's order."
1) That Srila Prabhupada did not appoint any successors for ISKCON is not evidence of Srila Prabhupada's "impotence".
2) Nor does the IRM claim that no disciples of Srila Prabhupada were, or ever will be, qualified to become pure devotees.
BAD needs to stop his offensive speculations and instead just follow Srila Prabhupada's actual orders.
Return to Badrinarayan Swami Index
Return to "Succession" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
