O my Prabhus and all servants of Mahaprabhu’s Lotus Feet.
My obeisance.
I have tried to focus my comments about FDG to both precedents set by our own Founder Acharya and his parampara predecessors and the adhikar of a group of managers (Ultimate Managers, not Acharyas) to hold a vote to approve a change in this tradition.
Knowing these GBC godbrothers to be very sincere, I have risked being further disliked by writing a few comments.
It recently occurred to me that the decision of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivinode Thakur (not sure which one made the decision) to insert Gaura Kishore Das Babaji between them is very relevant in this FDG discussion and someone should unpack this a bit further.
That even an extraordinarily, unlimitedly qualified Uttama Adhikari, called the “Seventh Goswami” by some (Bhaktivinode Thakur) was not considered appropriate to directly give diksha to Saraswati Goswami, because the physical body he resided in was considered by both tradition and shastra, as inappropriate to do so, being his ‘father’.
This could also be criticized with the same arguments being given in favor of FDGs, but obviously no one would dare to do that.
There are few puranic references when a father did give diksha to a son, but generally it is considered inappropriate by both shastra and tradition, so our very recent predecessor acharyas chose to follow it. We ignore this and all other such examples at our own peril.
And should our group of GBC ‘managers’ (not acharyas) ignore this and many other precedents simply by a vote? Do we have so much faith in the adhikar of majority vote to guide us correctly?
Democracy was not only scoffed at by Srila Prabhupada, but by wise men throughout history.
Socrates was known to ‘hate the idea of democracy’, and the word ‘democracy’ does not even occur once in all of the founding documents of the USA. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, private writings of the founders or the Constitution of the USA. Not because it was not a well known terminology, but because they intended to create a Republic and decidedly NOT a democracy, because they feared: abandonment of rationality. When, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision “which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence”.
Please consider, in light of the doubts about the wisdom of democracy, as well as the extreme lack of shastric examples of FDGs and even the recent choice of the two great Thakurs avoiding exchanging diksha, in order to honor the ‘bodily’ issue of father to son.
If you keep to the right process of considering the minuscule evidence supporting the concept of FDG and are informed rather by the massive traditional examples against it, one can only conclude that it is extremely unwise to begin a new tradition based on the vote of 16 to 14 of “Ultimate MANAGERS” (not acharyas).
Please don’t yield to the popular. We are already on a very slippery slope, since the departure of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. Let us hold the treasures he gave us close to our hearts and soldier on without any change of course. He was the captain, the navigator and the example. Let us proudly be called his sold out slaves, no matter if it pleases the vox populi.
With sincere regards
Abhiram Das (ACBSP)
P.S.: When and how did the GBC become ‘the ultimate management AND Ecclesiastical authority”??? Did Srila Prabhupada bestow this high honor of being the successor acharya (ultimate ecclesiastic authority), or did they vote it upon themselves on? Can somebody answer this please?
Dear Devotees,We hope you are well and progressing in your spiritual journey. We areexcited to…
Dear devotees, Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada! Gopal Krishna Maharaj ki jaya! The ISKCON India Governing…
IISB members Basu Ghosh Das (ACBSP) and Krishna Kirti Das (Convenor, IISB) discuss Srila Prabhupada’s…
The proof of how dishonest the Poison allegations are is those who endorse this horrible…
Abstract In Kṛṣṇa’s Vedic civilization, upanayana — the investiture with the sacred thread and brahma-gāyatrī…
View Comments
Dear Abhiram Prabhu,PAMHO,AGTSP.Thank you very much for wise text.On end you wrote
P.S.: When and how did the GBC become ‘the ultimate management AND Ecclesiastical authority”??? Did Srila Prabhupada bestow this high honor of being the successor acharya (ultimate ecclesiastic authority),or did they vote it upon themselves on? Can somebody answer this please?
Your question is actually root and core issue of all problems which followed after Srila Prabhupadas departure in Nov.1977.Any sincere sadhaka who took some time to study bit Srila Prabhupadas books,lectures,letters,conversations got to same conclusion. To my knowledge this unfortunate idea come from so called Kirtananda Swami on GBC meeting in 1978 in order to have empowerment for so called appointed 11 new Gurus,wich was another major tectonic catastrophy wich occured in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada departed.Logic was since Srila Prabhupada agreed that GBC is ultimate menagerial authority,they had empowerment to made such further arrangments since Srila Prabhupadas mercy flow trough them.But Srila Prabhupada never told that they are ultimate spiritual autority.That authority was and still is HDG ACBSP !!!!! This is core issue which must be cleared for good! And in shastra he made clear that spiritual authority always lay in shastra,Guru and sadhu.And sadhu,He also made pretty clear means devotee of the Lord in real sence.And Guru is bonafide Guru only if have needed adhikar and qualification which mean level above all anartas ie.nista as absolute minimum which is also brahman realisation minimum BG 18.54.Below that it is cheating only and Srila Prabhupadas main instruction was acctually Do not diviate from path established by him...or Do not be cheated and do not become cheaters!And as soon as top leaders diviated in 1978 by giving themselfes position of ultimate spiritual autority + appoint Gurus below needed level and who also missed second qualification which was order from their Guru,/“Try to understand. Don’t go very speedily. A GURU CAN BECOME GURU WHEN HE’S ORDERED BY HIS GURU. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become guru. (Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 7.2, Nairobi, October 28, 1975)/“One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is AUTHORIZED BY HIS PREDECESSOR SPIRITUAL MASTER. This is called diksa-vidhana.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 4.8.54, purport)/“Self-made guru cannot be guru. HE MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE BONA FIDE GURU. Then he’s guru. This is the fact. Similarly, bona fide guru means he must be authorized by the superior guru.” (Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Nectar of Devotion, October 31. 1972)/,as soon that deviation happened,ISKCON acctually become cut off from Srila Prabhupada and mercy from Lord Chaitanya!Only reflection was left from real thing and that is bitter pill to take,to recognize and admit this hard fact And Srila Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakura also warned regarding this -The bona-fide teacher of religion is neither any product of, nor the favourer of, any mechanical system. In his hands no system has likewise the chance of denigrating into a lifeless arrangement. The mere pursuit of fixed doctrines and fixed liturgies cannot hold a person to the true spirit of doctrine or liturgy. The idea of an organized church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and dams to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher..So this is few short notes on the prime topic.Thank you very much,daso smi,jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Follow us
My dandabat, old friends! Just a note regarding my remembrance of the formation of the GBC. In 1970 we were told that Srila Prabhupada directed that they would manage the society and the sannyasis would travel from temple to temple and maintain the spiritual standards. We were also told that the GBC would be changed every four years by election of the temple presidents. I never heard of any direction from Srila Prabhupada that changed this. In fact, when I was TP in Cleveland in 1971 a telegram was sent by His Divine Grace (to all TPs as far as I know) which stated that the GBC had attempted to institute sweeping management changes without His permission. We were instructed to no longer follow the directions of the GBC and to deal with His Divine Grace directly. I never received any direct instruction remanding that and often light-heartedly used it when the GBC power tripped on me in Chicago. Abhiram Prabhu, I also particularly appreciated your conveyance of Srila Prabhupada's comment about the society being big enough. So many times we heard from Him about the necessity of "boiling the milk", yeah? - BV Nyasi (Sri Govinda das)
YOU say: "That even an extraordinarily, unlimitedly qualified Uttama Adhikari, called the “Seventh Goswami” by some (Bhaktivinode Thakur) was not considered appropriate to directly give diksha to Saraswati Goswami, because the physical body he resided in was considered by both tradition and shastra, as inappropriate to do so, being his ‘father’."
I have not heard any evidence that his being his father had anything to do with directing BHaktisiddhanta Saraswati to Gaura KIshore das babaji. As far as I have heard, BHaktivinode Thakur did give mantra diksa to another son, Lalit Prasad Thakur.