Is It Good to Be a Blind Follower?
Pratyatosa Dasa (Howard Charles Best)
Is It Good to Be a Blind Follower?
By Pratyatosa Dasa (ACBSP)
Regarding the Sampradaya Sun article, Srila Prabhupada: the Perfect Person and the Infallible Master, I'm not saying that the author necessarily falls into this category, but it sounds like another example of the kind of rhetoric that I have been hearing for years: "Look at me. I'm superior because I accept whatever Srila Prabhupada says. I'm superior because I am a blind follower of Srila Prabhupada." But Srila Prabhupada doesn't want blind followers. He made this point in a letter to Atreya Rsi. Therefore, these blind followers are actually disobeying Srila Prabhupada's own instructions on the matter.
Constantly trying to puff themselves up by putting others down are very often symptoms of a feeling of insecurity in their own Krishna Consciousness. This may be because they are guilty of one or more of the following:
1. They are not chanting 16 rounds a day without fail.
2. They are not strictly following the 4 regulative principles, especially the one which states: "No illicit sex." which means "No sex outside of marriage, and within marriage only for procreation."
3. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his instruction to "Never bathe naked, even when alone." (paraphrased)
4. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his example and to always wear Brahmin underwear.
5. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his instruction to give their children a 100% gurukula/home schooled education.
6. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his instruction to stop all sex life, leave home, and take to vanaprastha (retired) life at age 50.
7. They don't even come up to karmi standards of morality in that they have gotten divorced. Some of them have even re-married. Some of them have even re-married after age 50!
8. They have failed to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to give their wife one, or preferable more than one, son to protect her in her old age.
"Let he who is sinless cast the first stone."
This, "Let's be blind followers" mentality might also be motivated by the GBC's failure to follow the July 9th, 1977 letter: Written, signed, legally viable documents containing Srila Prabhupada’s management decisions for ISKCON, such as the 7/9/77 letter to all GBCs and temple presidents, we follow blindly. This is our duty as disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada. ... However, to blindly follow everything that Srila Prabhupada says in casual conversations is not what Srila Prabhupada intends for us to do. Srila Prabhupada didn’t want blind followers. He wanted followers who use their God-given intelligence in the service of God (Krishna). We have to learn to use some common sense discrimination.
Do they think that by making propaganda to follow everything Srila Prabhupada has ever said, blindly, with no discrimination, they are strengthening their case that Srila Prabhupada's ritvik system of initiations should be re-implemented? The answer is an emphatic, no! They are actually weakening their case by giving equal weight to statements Srila Prabhupada made in casual conversations before and even after the July 9th letter which seem to contradict the letter.
Maybe some of these "blind follower advocates" are actually just pretending to be ritviks. Maybe they, either knowingly or unknowingly, have "made a pact with the Devil." A pact with the criminal elements of ISKCON. We all know who they are, don't we? Perhaps they are trying to discredit the ritviks by making it appear that the ritviks are a bunch of mindless fanatics who have no ability to discriminate! Perhaps they are trying to minimize the July 9th letter by claiming that everything Srila Prabhupada said, no matter the circumstance, has equal weight!
Your servant, Pratyatosa Dasa
july9th
>Prabhupada made in casual conversations before and even after the July 9th
>letter which seem to contradict the letter."
I am wondering what these statements are?
btw: The July 9th letter is not just a letter but a DOCUMENT:
“ ... am enclosing herein two *documents*:
1) Srila Prabhupada’s final version of his last will, and
2) Srila Prabhupada’s initial list of disciples appointed to perform
initiations for His Divine Grace.”
(Letter from Ramesvara to all GBC’s) [emphasis added]
Please note how Ramesvara regards the July 9th directive as a document
on par with the will.
Also Srila Prabhupada specifically countersigned it, giving two
signatures, which again is what is expected in a document as opposed
to just a personal letter. This is significant because other letters
that H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja sent out which Srila Prabhupada had
even dictated (see July 31st letter to Hamsaduta), Srila Prabhupada
saw no need to authorise through his signature. Yet the July 9th
directive he made a special point of ‘approving’.
On Dec 31, 8:46 pm, "Pratyatosa Dasa (Howard Charles Best)"
<pratyat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK to publish or to forward
>
> Is It Good to Be a Blind Follower?
> By Pratyatosa Dasa (ACBSP)
>
> Regarding the Sampradaya Sun article, Srila Prabhupada: the Perfect Person
> and the Infallible
> Master<http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/12-09/editorials5507.htm>,
> I'm not saying that the author necessarily falls into this category,
> but itsounds like another example of the kind of rhetoric that I have
> been hearing
> for years: "Look at me. I'm superior because I accept whatever Srila
> Prabhupada says. I'm superior because I am a blind follower of Srila
> Prabhupada." But Srila Prabhupada doesn't want blind followers. He made this
> point in a letter to Atreya
> Rsi<http://prabhupadabooks.com/search.php?CB=&inputString=%22So+we+shall+...>.
> Therefore, these blind followers are actually disobeying Srila Prabhupada's
> own instructions on the matter.
> Constantly trying to puff themselves up by putting others down are very
> often symptoms of a feeling of insecurity in their own Krishna
> Consciousness. This may be because they are guilty of one or more of the
> following:
>
> 1. They are not chanting 16 rounds a day without fail.
>
> 2. They are not strictly following the 4 regulative principles, especially
> the one which states: "No illicit sex." which means "No sex outside of
> marriage, and within marriage only for procreation."
>
> 3. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his
> instruction to "Never bathe naked, even when alone." (paraphrased)
>
> 4. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his
> example and to always wear Brahmin underwear.
>
> 5. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his
> instruction to give their children a 100% gurukula/home schooled education.
>
> 6. They don't even have enough faith in Srila Prabhupada to follow his
> instruction to stop all sex life, leave home, and take to vanaprastha
> (retired) life at age 50.
>
> 7. They don't even come up to karma standards of morality in that they have
> gotten divorced. Some of them have even re-married. Some of them have even
> re-married after age 50!
>
> 8. They have failed to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to give their
> wife one, or preferable more than one, son to protect her in her old age.
>
> "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone."
>
> This, "Let's be blind followers" mentality might also be motivated by the
> GBC's failure to follow the July 9th, 1977 letter: Written, signed, legally
> viable documents containing Srila Prabhupada’s management decisions for
> ISKCON, such as the 7/9/77 letter to all GBCs and temple presidents, we
> follow blindly. This is our duty as disciples and followers of Srila
> Prabhupada. ... However, to blindly follow everything that Srila Prabhupada
> says in casual conversations is not what Srila Prabhupada intends for us to
> do. Srila Prabhupada didn’t want blind followers. He wanted followers who
> use their God-given intelligence in the service of God (Krishna). We have to
> learn to use some common sense discrimination. <http://rtvik.com/?TP=6392>
>
> Do they think that by making propaganda to follow everything Srila
> Prabhupada has ever said, blindly, with no discrimination, they are
> strengthening their case that Srila Prabhupada's ritvik system of
> initiations should be re-implemented? The answer is an emphatic, *no*! They
Pratyatosa Dasa (Howard Charles Best)
>"They are actually weakening their case by giving equal weight to statements SrilaI am wondering what these statements are?
>Prabhupada made in casual conversations before and even after the July 9th
>letter which seem to contradict the letter."
From: Greg Jay <jay....@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: ritvik not
To:
1. Srila Prabhupada could not have used the word grand disciple if He wanted Ritvik after His return to Radha and Krsna. 770528me.vrn Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple. Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand disciple. Satsvarupa: Yes. Tamala Krsna: That's clear. Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer... Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru.2. At the end of the same conversation Srila Prabhupada "orders."Prabhupada: And Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya guru hana. One can understand the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who understands his guru's order, the same parampara, he can become guru. And therefore I shall select some of you. (hums) Satsvarupa: That's all the questions.
july9th
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Greg Jay <jay.g...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: ritvik not
> To:
>
> PAMHO AGTSP
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:53 AM, w...@aol.com wrote:
>
> 1. Srila Prabhupada could not have used the word grand disciple if He wanted
> Ritvik after His return to Radha and Krsna. 770528me.vrn Tamala Krsna:
> They're his disciple. Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand disciple.
> Satsvarupa: Yes. Tamala Krsna: That's clear. Satsvarupa: Then we have a
> question concer... Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes
> regular guru.
TRANSCRIPTION WRONG FACTUALY:
The transcript that most people are presented by the GBC and cohorts
is similar to the following:
Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating. *He is grand-disciple*.
Satsvarupa Goswami: Then we have a question concerning...
Srila Prabhupada: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular
guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.
Most persons who see this transcript as presented above will naturally
either be confused or think that Srila Prabhupada is speaking of the
'ritviks' having their own disciples and thus being Diksa Gurus.
However the above transcript is NOT ACCURATE. And simply reproducing
the transcript correctly causes the whole GBC case to collapse.
The first source of inaccuracy is the phrase 'He is grand-disciple'.
Please note the following:
1. In 1985, His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu produced his landmark
paper 'Under My Order'. This paper very carefully analysed the whole
'Appt Tape'. It was this analysis of the tape that led to the current
guru system in ISKCON being introduced and the zonal acharya system
being disbanded. Thus one can appreciate the significance of this
paper and the thought that went into it. Also since the whole paper
revolved around an analysis of the so-called 'Appt Tape', its
treatment of this tape also needed to be done carefully. To this end
the transcript for the tape they produced was crucial and would have
needed to be checked thoroughly. Indeed H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu
states that the transcript has been carefully 'checked and corrected'
by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami, a senior BBT editor. In this transcript, it
clearly states 'HIS grand-disciple' NOT 'HE IS grand-disciple'. This
rendering was never challenged at the time, or subsequently, by ANY
member of the GBC.
2. Fast forward to 1990. H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu helps put out
the ISKCON Journal. Mysteriously the transcript has now been changed
to 'HE IS grand-disciple'. No explanation is given for this change.
All subsequent GBC transcripts start repeating this phrase as 'HE IS
grand-disciple'.
3. However since the change involves moving from one word to two
words, it can be easily resolved by listening to the tape. The tape
has been listened to by a number of persons and they all agree that
only ONE word is spoken before the word 'grand-disciple'. Obviously
both H.G. Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu and H.H. Jayadvaita Swami would also
have heard only one word. Thus the term spoken before the word 'grand-
disciple' DEFINITELY CANNOT be 'HE IS', since only ONE word is spoken,
not TWO words.
4. In response to this point the GBC tried to subsequently argue in
'Disciple of My Disciple' (1997) that 'maybe' the word spoken was
"He's". But this does not explain why the carefully checked transcript
in 1985 was sure that it was 'His', nor why NONE of the GBC
transcripts subsequently have never said 'He's', but only 'He is'. The
only possible explanations are:
a)They have a different version of the tape, where the words 'He is'
ARE spoken.
b)They have deliberately been mis-representing HIS/HE'S as 'HE IS' all
this time.
Of course if a) was the case the whole GBC case collapses anyway since
it proves beyond any doubt that the tape was falsified since two
different recordings exist.
If b) is the case then it supports the idea that they have been
deliberately trying to mis-represent the actual recording so that
people will draw the 'ritviks are diksa gurus' conclusion. However,
with this mis-representation now cleared away, as will be seen, the
conclusion that will be drawn is completely different.
TRANSCRIPTION WRONG GRAMATICALLY:
1. Also there is no reason to suppose that Srila Prabhupada did say
'He's' as opposed to 'His', since such an interpretation would not
make any sense.
Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating. *He's grand-disciple*.
The pronoun 'He' (from He's) before the term 'grand-disciple' refers
to the person BEING initiated, the initiate, or the 'grand-disciple'.
However in straightforward standard English the pronoun usually refers
to the immediate ante-cedent (the term that the pronoun follows). In
this case that term is 'who is initiating'. It is obvious therefore
that in this case the pronoun CANNOT be 'HE' because how can the
INITIATE, the person being INITIATED, or 'grand-disciple',
simultaneously be the person 'who is initiating'!
2. Even if we allow for the ante-cedent that the pronoun refers to. To
be other than the most immediate. There is actually NO ante-cedent for
the pronoun 'HE' to refer to in the whole conversation, since the
speaker Srila Prabhupada has never previously mentioned nor alluded to
the initiate, or the person BEING INITIATED, in the singular. The only
time previously in the conversation that the speaker or the
questioners ever mention the initiate, it is ALWAYS in the plural.
'(Yes, THEY are disciples.') Thus a speaker cannot just introduce a
pronoun that has no ante-cedent. It does not make sense. In other
words the 'HE' has to REFER to something. But it can not refer to
something that has not yet even been mentioned.
TRANSCRIPTION CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS:
However the use of 'His', does make sense, since this use CAN be
consistent with the most immediate antecedent, 'who is initiating'. In
this case the 'HIS' MUST refer to Srila Prabhupada since the 'ritvik'
cannot have grand-disciples. Srila Prabhupada would then also be the
person 'who is initiating'. Thus there is no case for insisting that
the words spoken were 'HE IS' or even 'HE'S'. Even the GBC admit that
at the very best 'maybe' it states 'He's' ('Disciple of My Disciple'),
as opposed to 'HIS'.
SECOND SOURCE OF INACCURACY:
The second source of inaccuracy is in the way the transcript is
written out. If one actually listens to this part of the tape the
sequence of events are as follows:
1.Srila Prabhupada states 'Who is initiating'. He then PAUSES.
2.After the PAUSE, he next states 'HIS grand-disciple'. (See above)
3.Srila Prabhupada again pauses.
4.H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja then attempts to interrupt and begins to
ask another question.
5.Srila Prabhupada IGNORES him and CONTINUES SPEAKING.
Taking all these facts into account, and omitting the interruption
from H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja, which has absolutely no bearing on what
Srila Prabhupada says, since he also ignores this interruption, the
transcript can now be more accurately represented as:
Srila Prabhupada: Who is initiating (pause) His Grand-Disciple (pause)
When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That's all. He
becomes disciple of my disciple.
TRANSCRIPT CLEAR:
Now the transcript becomes clearer. The term 'his grand-disciple' is
first introduced, and then mentioned again in different terms at the
end of the sentence - 'Disciple of My Disciple'. This by the way is
another reason to put these two terms together on the same line,
representing the same stream of thought, since the two terms are both
speaking of the same entity - Srila Prabhupada's grand-disciples.
Sandwiched in between the two terms is the PROCESS by which the entity
is arrived at - 'When I order you become guru, he becomes regular
guru'. Thus in the LAST sentence of the whole conversation Srila
Prabhupada merely repeats the standard PRINCIPLE, that WHEN the Guru
orders the disciple, THEN he becomes a Diksa Guru.
NO ORDER GIVEN:
We see that on the May tape no such order was given. And the only
order, which was given, was on July 9th, to be ritviks. So it is
straightforward. Unless they can produce the actual order, the line:
"His grand-disciple, when I order you become guru, he becomes regular
guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple."
In itself authorises and orders *nothing*.
> 2. At the end of the same conversation Srila Prabhupada "orders."
> Prabhupada: And Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, *amara ajnaya guru hana*. One can
> understand the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he can become guru. Or one who
> understands his guru's order, the same parampara, he can become guru. And
> therefore I shall select some of you. (hums) Satsvarupa: That's all the
> questions.
>
> Of course this makes perfect sense. But I don't expect anyone on this list
> to agree.
>
> sincerely
>
> Gaura Keshava das
I looked in the 'Random House Dictionary' and it defines an order as:
1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate
(Random House Dictionary)
I fail to see where Srila Prabhupada makes "an authoritative direction
or instruction; command; mandate" in the quote given.
On the contrary Srila Prabhupada's frequent use of the word "can"
indicates a possibility. Rather than "an authoritative direction".
Usage note:(Random House Dictionary)
Can and may are frequently but not always interchangeable in senses
indicating possibility: A power failure can (or may) occur at any
time. Despite the insistence by some, that can means only “to be able”
and may means “to be permitted,” both are regularly used in seeking or
granting permission: Can (or May) I borrow your tape recorder? You can
(or may) use it tomorrow. Sentences using can occur chiefly in spoken
English.
What makes "perfect sense" is that Gaura Keshava das has an inability
to understand English. Is it his 2nd or 3rd language?
Pratyatosa Dasa (Howard Charles Best)
Your servant, Pratyatosa Dasa