Akruranath and Hansadutta on Facebook

Posted by Hansadutta das on July 30, 2010

 Print This Post

An exchange between myself and Akruranath das over on Facebook. I addressed Akruranath:

You can read over the conversation that unfolded around the formation
of the “Oath of Allegiance to Prabhupada”, 1975

I am pasting in the relevant exchange for your convenient reading. The whole exchange between leading devotees and Srila Prabhupada can be seen at the link above.

RUPANUGA: It’s a legal document. This is a legal document.

ATREYA RSI: “And chanting sixteen rounds very seriously.”

MADHUDVISA: Daily.

ATREYA RSI: “Daily.”

MADHUDVISA: At least.

BRAHMANANDA: And free from the offenses.

HANSADUTTA: We have to take some…

JAYATIRTHA: Who’s chanting free from the offenses?

PRABHUPADA: No, no, don’t…

ATREYA RSI: “Very seriously” is all I can say.

PRABHUPADA: Yes, yes, do that.

ATREYA RSI: I cannot say “free of offenses.” Because…

PRABHUPADA: “Seriously” means without offense.

ATREYA RSI: …I am degraded. “Very seriously, or may be given to me
from time to time directly, these directions, by my aforesaid Guru
Maharaja, or through his books, or…” In other words, direction
given, instruction given, directly by him or through his…

PRABHUPADA: Better directly.

ATREYA RSI: No “His books”?

PRABHUPADA: No.

ATREYA RSI: Not necessary.

PRABHUPADA: Because I may give direction according to the time.

ATREYA RSI: “Or” means both.

PRABHUPADA: Hm?

ATREYA RSI: “Or” can mean… All right. “Or through his commissioners…”

PRABHUPADA: Direct, direct instruction is important. Just like
Krishna. In the books He has given many instructions, but then He
says, sarva-dharman parityaja. If one says that “You gave me
instruction before like this. How can I give up this?” so that is not
important. The direct instruction is important.

ATREYA RSI: “To me from time to time directly by my aforesaid Guru
Maharaja, or through his commissioner…”

PRABHUPADA: Yes.

ATREYA RSI: “Or through his authorized person or persons, and I shall
obey faithfully all such instructions and directions which shall be,
which shall be binding on me, and that I will uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of my Guru Maharaja, His Divine Grace A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and the managing body commission and,
or, any other body appointed by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada working under the said International Society for
Krishna Consciousness. And I shall faithfully discharge the duty upon
which I am about to enter or I have already appointed to that
effect.” Now this is an addition. “I further pledge that His Divine
Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is the only source of authority,
represented by his instructions and books, and I shall follow his
instructions, I shall follow the instructions of the books…”

MADHUDVISA: Only these books.

ATREYA RSI: “Only these books” Rather than “I will not follow any other book.”

PRABHUPADA: No, why you’ll put? [laughs] This is…?

ATREYA RSI: It’s not…?

PRABHUPADA: This is required?

RUPANUGA: You mean the part about the books, Srila Prabhupada?

PRABHUPADA: Hm?

RUPANUGA: You mean the part about the books?

HANSADUTTA: It’s already said that you’re his direct instructions.

ATREYA RSI: This is to protect, like, if somebody chanting sixteen rounds…

HANSADUTTA: It’s redundant.

MADHUDVISA: Well, I thought if someone was chanting sixteen rounds
and following the principles and reading someone else’s books, like
Siddha-svarupa’s people…

HANSADUTTA: Yeah, but we’ve just already read one portion where it
says that we will follow direct instructions of Prabhupada.

PRABHUPADA: That’s it.

HANSADUTTA: So again he’s repeating it.

PRABHUPADA: Instruction, follow that.

ATREYA RSI: So then it’s not necessary about this “only” sort part of…

PRABHUPADA: Yes.

MADHUDVISA: What if there is no direct instruction?

PRABHUPADA: Yes. I don’t think that part is anymore important.”

The conclusion from this important conversation is: direct, verbal or otherwise, instructions are more important, relevant and take precedence over previous instructions. Like a doctor giving the patient a prescription for some medical condition, a military commander giving a new battle strategy, or Prabhupada giving a unique order for continuing the process of initiation. Srila Bhaktisddhanta Prabhupada writes in one essay “What are the scriptures? They are nothing but the words of the pure devotees.” If the acharya sets a precedent by making an arrangement that appears to be nontraditional, then so be it. Just as sometimes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes a ruling, and it becomes a precedent in law. It becomes law. Since you are a lawyer, this should make sense to you. I am interested how you will understand this point.

That was a few days back. Since then, Akruranath has replied (below). I take the liberty to interject my comments:

Akruranath: In our United States system of jurisprudence anyway, the Chief Justice does not claim the authority to make laws. The majority (or plurality) of the Supreme Court purports to be divining the actual meaning of the Constitution or legislation or other legal rules derived from prior precedents, and applying that meaning to the facts at hard.

Whether the Court has actually done so successfully is of course a great topic for debate and discussion by legal scholars and students and politicians and so on. No judge or office holder in our system is ever “above the law”. It is “a government of laws, not of men.”

A person makes the law, the law does not make the person.

Some theories of jurisprudence, like “legal realism”, argue that in fact the judges are really making the law, whereas “natural law” theorists argue that the task of the judge (and of the legislatures and drafters of constitutions) is to divine the real principles of universal justice that govern laws.

Krsna is the original person, and the Acharyas re-present Krsna’s laws according to time place and circumstances.

Srila Prabhupada always presented himself as presenting exactly what he received in parampara, without adding or subtracting anything. He could apply it like an expert judge to make it relevant to time, place and circumstance (that is the test of true realization), but he was not inventing anything new.

I never suggested that Srila Prabhupada “invented anything”; rather, he adjusted things to suit the “time, place and circumstances” in which he found us to be spiritually evolved.

He often stressed that point. “Krishna consciousness is authorized.” It is not like mundane scholars who have to come up with some new theory or interpretation that no one ever conceived of before.

Many devotees understand Srila Prabhupada as having arrived with a blueprint for ISKCON dictated by Krishna down to the last detail, which he simply imposed on his disciples.

Actually, Srila Prabhupada was pragmatic. He was expert in understanding what was going on inside us, on what the goal was and how to direct us there (and seeing that we would get their eventually in spite of our present immaturity). He was expert in getting guidance directly from Krishna in different situations. But as the movement unfolded in different ways Srila Prabhupada was seeing what was working, what wasn’t working, and made adjustments. Often he even asked disciples what they thought about doing things one way or another, taking their perspectives and opinions into account.

You are simply speculating on Srila Prabhupada’s motives. The fact stands that he issued a direct instruction, named names and delegated authority to act as “ritvik representative of the Acharya” in the July 9th letter.

Initially he appointed grhasthas to the GBC, but then he saw the sannyasis were somehow better qualified to organize and command respect and he went with that. Or, for example, he authorized polygamy for a short time and then reversed himself. We could think of many examples. It was not a cookie cutter thing he did. The reality was more dynamic and glorious than that.

Prabhupada clearly says, “Direct instructions are more important.” In support of this point he refers to KRSNA, who directs Arjuna in the last chapter of Bhagavad Gita to disregard evereything and just surrender to him and “Do what I say”. And this remains the aim of the entire Gita to this day.

So my point is simply that we should do what Prabhupada has finally prescribed for us to do and stop trying to squeeze Srila Prabhupada into our limited, mundane, material conception of what he should or would or could or meant to do. Just do what he ordered everyone to do in his last personal prescription of the July 9th letter.

Siddhanta’s interview with B.V. Puri Maharaja was interesting to me because B.V. Puri Maharaja recalled telling Srila Prabhupada [paraphrasing] “You have to appoint a single acarya or the leaders will fight and everything will fall apart,” and Srila Prabhupada replied, “What to do? It’s in Krishna’s hands.”

But Prabhupada did not appoint a single Acharya. Neither did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, and Prabhupada mentioned this many times over the years. In the last instance Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 ritvik representatives of the Acharya. You are a lawyer, so you know the last written will and testament is the material evidence upon which the conclusion must be drawn.

Srila Prabhupada had faith that Krishna would take charge and give the proper intelligence at the proper time to those who would do the right thing.

No! Prabhupada was not sentimental and irresponsible that he would simply pass the responsibility of appointing a successor to continue initiations to Krsna. Just as Arjuna does not expect Krsna to do the fighting for him while he simply sits in the chariot and watches the fun. Neither Krsna suggests,”Arjuna, you just sit and relax, I shall do everything for you – don’t worry.”

Hansadutta, I think your legalistic, forensic style approach is the wrong approach. Krishna Kant’s paper to me seems like a poor debating society document, without heart or wisdom or real understanding of Srila Prabhupada. I would expect you to see that because of your personal relationship with Srila Prabhupada that KK appears to be missing.

I am not a ritvik camp follower, neither a follower of Krsna Kant, nor am I a legal – forensic investigator or scientist. I was appointed as a ritvik representative by Prabhupada, I made the greatest offense in assuming the profile of “Guru”. I came to my senses by falling fast and hard, and have come to realize by hard, painful and humiliating experience what my position and relationship with Srila Prabhupada is meant to be: namely, to represent him and bring new recruits (like an Army recruiting officer) to Srila Prabhupada, encourage and assist such persons to understand and accept Srila Prabhupada as the Great Acharya for the next 10,000 years. Prabhupada is the Commander in Chief. We, ritvik representatives of the Acharya, are like recruiting agents for signing up new devotees to fill out the great army of Prabhupada’s mission. How can you compare a recruiting officer with the Commander in Chief? … Napoleon, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Hitler, Mao Ze Tung, Kennedy, etc.??? There’s no comparison.

From what I can tell of all the guru appointment instruction evidence I have seen (the May 28th conversation and various subsequent letters), it remains very ambiguous.

The July 9th letter is a document – legal document. It’s not ambiguous; it’s absolutely clear, nothing vague, fuzzy, or ambiguous.

Many devotees with diametrically different interpretations think it is all absolutely clear, but the only thing they have succeeded in proving to me is that Srila Prabhupada did not leave a detailed, unambiguous blueprint. I personally doubt that he wanted to.

So you think Prabhupada deliberately left the most important issue – the continuation of initiations in his absence for future generations – he left that untouched, so everyone could speculate, experiment and misappropriate the sacred office of Guru – Acarya? So a hundred neophyte, kanista adhikary disciples could play GURU MAHARAJA, fly around the world, get their feet washed, eat maha prasadam, stay one or two nights in an expensive hotel and perhaps initiate a few new Bhaktas? I don’t think so.

(Some devotees speculate that there must have been a crystal clear instruction that was suppressed, but that leaves them guessing and speculating as to what exactly that blueprint was.)

I believe that this question (about the details of the guru system) is something Srila Prabhupada did not want to give detailed down-to-the-fine-print instructions about, for some reason. I could offer some possible reasons, but for now I’ll leave it at that.

Who cares what you “believe”? Prabhupada never used this expression: “I believe” – “I think” – “Maybe” – “Perhaps” – “It could be”. The clear instructions, names and description of the authority invested in them are there in the July 9th letter. Why don’t you accept it? Accept it AS IT IS. Like Prabhupada insisted people accept Bhagavad git AS IT IS.

Srila Prabhupada understood that if we keep chanting our japa seriously and studying his books (including his many, many instructions about guru parampara and guru tattva), we would eventually come to understand and organize it intelligently. For those who are constantly devoted and worship Him with love, Krishna gives the understanding by which they can come to Him. That’s a fact.

This is nonsense speculation.

If we cannot become at least that much intelligent, enlightened to at least that degree, then the ISKCON Hare Krishna movement Srila Prabhupada founded will be a failure. It has to actually produce some enlightened, first-class devotees who are capable of guiding others. Simply following detailed blueprints without enlightenment and wisdom will not succeed.

One becomes enlightened by following the direct instructions of the enlightened – Srila Prabhupada.

As far as I am concerned, many devotees have come to the fore as very clear in their understanding and application of Srila Prabhupada’s books, capable of convincing others and explaining Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. They are chanting at least the prescribed number of rounds and following all the rules for decades, fixed in realization, and for the most part capable of working together to push on Srila Prabhupada’s mission. I do not have any trouble accepting that Srila Prabhupada has produced advanced devotees who are qualified to act as initiating and instructing spiritual masters.

But it is important to understand that a spiritual master does not have to be (and at this time in our history should not be) a big, famous, star, world acarya that our preachers steer everyone to get initiated from. Srila Prabhupada occupies that position as Founder-Acarya of ISKCON and no one can imitate that. Our spiritual masters in ISKCON are successful to the extent that they can lead people to deep appreciation and acceptance of Srila Prabhupada’s books. And they should be capable of working together in friendship and mutual respect under the GBC system that Srila Prabhupada did, unambiguously, establish.

I never said anything about a big star or famous individual. I am simply pointing out the last direct prescription, or instructions, given in writing, naming individuals to act as ritvik representatives of the ACHARYA Srila Prabhupada. This is the unambiguous evidence. It is irrefutable and clear. No interpretation is necessary.

“Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die.” —Rudyard Kipling.

Dear Akruranath Prabhu, you did not touch on the point in the conversation with Srila Prabhupada regarding DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS being more important. Please give me your perspective on this very important principle. Here it is again:

PRABHUPADA: Because I may give direction according to the time.

ATREYA RSI: “Or” means both.

PRABHUPADA: Hm?

ATREYA RSI: “Or” can mean… All right. “Or through his commissioners…”

PRABHUPADA: Direct, direct instruction is important. Just like Krishna. In the books He has given many instructions, but then He says, sarva-dharman parityaja. If one says that “You gave me
instruction before like this. How can I give up this?” so that is not important. The direct instruction is important.

THE DIRECT INSTRUCTION IS IMPORTANT. I think this is the qualifying and underlying principle we must consider. DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS take precedent over prior instructions. Simple.

Direct instructions supercede prior instructions. Even Krsna superceded his entire Bhagavad Gita, dismissed it in ordering Arjuna to just surrender to Him and do whatever He says, and if there is any problem, Krsna says, “I’ll take care of it – fogedda boudit, Arjuna – I got you covered.” How personal and intimate is that? Krsna says, “Fogedda boudit.” How cool!