Back to Prabhupada, Issue 20, Summer 2008
By Krishnakant
We just saw on page 5 how the guru hoaxers deliberately pose a false question to reach a false conclusion. Another example of this technique at work is in regards to the issue of the disciplic succession or parampara. This time “ritvik” is set up to fail by claiming it is an alternative to the disciplic succession or parampara. And if one is offered a choice between following the parampara or this “new-fangled ‘ritvik’ “, one of course will choose parampara. And again the choice offered is incorrect. It’s not that we must choose between the disciplic succession or ritvik, but rather between who can be a member of the disciplic succession, and for how long, and under what circumstances. The GBC would have us believe that their guru hoax program faithfully follows a “traditional” disciplic succession model, whereas Srila Prabhupada remaining the Guru of ISKCON somehow stops the parampara. The reality is the opposite as it is the guru hoax program which goes against the principles of the parampara.
Not normal system
The guru hoax argues that the disciplic “succession” must only take place after the departure of the spiritual master:
“That a spiritual master initiates until his departure and then his disciples initiate next is the normal system. On this we are all in agreement. This is what Srila Prabhupada taught the entire time he was with us.”
(HH Jayadvaita Swami, Where the Ritvik People are Wrong, 1996)Yet, in order to keep their followers happy, there are now a number of disciples of ISKCON guru hoaxers who have begun initiating before their own spiritual master has departed, chief amongst them being HH Jayadvaita Swami and his disciple HH Kadamba Kanana Swami!
Disciplic supplementation, not succession
In addition to having argued that the succession must only take place after the departure of the spiritual master, the guru hoaxers also argue that the disciplic succession mandates that one successor must strictly always follow another, in sequence. However, their current guru system does not always follow this, since we have a number of gurus and their disciples both initiating at the same time. Therefore, there is no disciplic succession, since there is no successor, but rather all we have is disciplic supplementation!
Stopping the parampara -1
Srila Prabhupada states that successor links to himself in the parampara must first be authorized by him:
“A Guru can be Guru when he is ordered by his Guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become Guru.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, October 28th, 1975)Yet as just seen in the article “How we all became gurus”, this never happened, and thus the current guru hoaxers have stopped the parampara by replacing a bona fide guru in the parampara, Srila Prabhupada, with themselves, who are unauthorised.
Stopping the parampara -2
The guru hoaxers argue that as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed, they had to succeed him immediately to “continue the parampara”, lest it would be stopped. Yet in the last 12 years, at least 5 ISKCON gurus have already departed, with no “successor” in sight, and so by their own argument they are stopping the parampara.
Not traditional parampara
By arguing that we must follow the “traditional” parampara system, and that “ritvik” is not traditional, the guru hoaxers have shot themselves in the foot, since as we just saw in ISKCON’s “Ritvik Tree” on page 5, for probably the first time ever in history, parampara guru successors were supposedly authorised by being appointed as ritviks! So if ritvik is not “traditional parampara”, then neither are they!
So as well as presenting a false dichotomy between “parampara” and “ritvik”, we can also ask ourselves which is more absurd:
The IRM claiming that ritviks authorised as ritviks are ritviks; or the GBC claiming that those authorised as ritviks are actually diksa gurus! Either way, it’s a ritvik-dependent system, with the parampara continuing via ritviks becoming gurus (guru hoax) OR ritviks representing a guru for the initiation ceremony (Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik system).
Srila Prabhupada is the current link - 1
Whilst the guru hoaxers deviate from their own self-declared parampara principles, Srila Prabhupada continues as the current representative of the parampara, since the current link is defined as the person from whom we receive the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam:
“.... and in order to receive the real message of Srimad- Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.”(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 2.9.7, purport)
Srila Prabhupada has not stated here, or elsewhere, that the current link faces either a time-limit for how long he may remain current, or a physical body limitation to remaining current. The latter restriction would be particularly absurd since then we would be speaking of the material spiritual master! And most importantly, Srila Prabhupada set ISKCON up so that as long as it exists the message of the Bhagavatam would always be received from him via his Bhagavatam translations and purports, which everyone has to read and discuss in every ISKCON centre every morning.
Srila Prabhupada is the current link - 2
In addition, according to the definition of the parampara given by Srila Prabhupada:
“Parampara means to hear the truth from the spiritual master”.
(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, December 20th, 1976)It’s clear that continuing to accept Srila Prabhupada as the current link fulfils this definition since we are continuing to hear the truth from Srila Prabhupada. Again, there is no mention of parampara needing some “physical body” in order to be effective.
On the contrary, Srila Prabhupada assures us:“Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 7.7.1, purport)
Conclusion
So whilst Srila Prabhupada is the bona fide current link representing the parampara, the GBC guru hoax system is unauthorised, un-paramparic, and riddled with contradictions.
We therefore need to return to the parampara Guru, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
