In relation to the recent GBC announcement about H.H. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, Bhakta Eric asks: What exactly is a retired sannyasi?, among other questions.
These are good questions, because the terminology and idea of "retired sannyasi" and "retired diksa guru" have been introduced without much discussion or philosophical explanation.
Leaving aside the "retired sannyasi" for a moment, I can say something about "retired diksa guru".
Discrepancy in the spiritual master is discussed in Srila Narahari Sarkar's book Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita, and I wrote about this on pages 5-6 of my ebook On Leadership earlier this year. It's the kind of thing that you should study and be clear about before this happens to you.
According to Srila Narahari Sarkar: when a spiritual master is observed to be engaged in behaviour unbecoming an exemplary Vaisnava, such as breaking the regulative principles of their ashram, then the disciple should take shelter of the process of devotional service, their own intelligence (ref: SB. 11.7.20), and / or the instructions of other senior Vaisnavas.
The authorized course of action is to continue, as before, with one's prescribed devotional service. One may take guidance through instructions from the vaisnavas, as all vaisnavas are considered guru, or "spiritual master", or one may use one's own intelligence, duly considering the relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra, and guru. In all cases one should continue in one's devotional service.
- Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita 63
In this way the disciple should wait for the guru to rectify himself. The disciple's diksa initiation and connection to the parampara are not affected by this. They need only sustain their devotional life through other immediate means.
When the spiritual master is rightly situated the disciple can take advantage of his personal spiritual potency to assist in cultivating their own bhakti.
However, if the spiritual master becomes adverse to Sri Krishna and devotional service to Him, preaches the oneness of the jiva and the Lord, or is observed to be falling further and further with no desire to rectify himself, then that spiritual master must be given up.
However, if the spiritual master:
- Acts enviously towards 'isvarebrantah', that which is connected with the Supreme
- is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead
- is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krishna
- personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about the glorious pastimes of Lord Krishna
- has become totally bewildered, listening to the false praise of ignorant persons and day by day is more materially contaminated and fallen
-then the spiritual master must be renounced.
- Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita 64
These are the only circumstances that Srila Narahari Sarkar describes as valid grounds to renounce a diksa guru, and under these circumstances he mandates renunciation of the guru.
So in this case Satsvarupa das Goswami is in the newly-created official status of "retired diksa guru",
It means that he does not give further official diksa initiations in our line, and it gives permission to his disciples to sustain their faith as they need to.
He has the opportunity to rectify himself and again re-establish his spiritual life and public standing. I wouldn't imagine a return to active initiating duty.
Any bonafide initiating spiritual master is only acting as an agent of their spiritual master, who is acting as the agent of their spiritual master, who is acting as an agent of their spiritual master, and so on back in an unbroken line of disciplic succession to the Lord.
So while Satsvarupa Prabhu is no longer acting as an agent of his spiritual master in the matter of giving official diksa initiation, my interpretation (and hope) of this positioning is that his disciples are not required or encouraged to renounce him out of hand.
This is what I understand from the GBC announcement and Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita. I feel that this is closer to the approach described by Narahari Sarkar. In contrast to the mass reinitiation-fests of yesteryear it represents a more mature and balanced approach to dealing with situations such as these - in line with smrti-sastra and the spirit of devotional service. It's an evolution from a strict institutional / organizational control approach to a cultural influence approach.
It's less about "punishing him for his fall down", as Eric puts it, and more about encouraging everyone to continue to cultivate their bhakti in a sane and healthy way.
Download your own copy of On Leadership.
Excommunicate Em!
Sanyas is not a commitment to self, it is a commitment to the community. Guruship is not a commitment to self, it is a commitment to community.
For those who fail to uphold the commitments to the community that they made publicly, the will have to be excommunicated.
They have two choices; fulfill your commitments or be excommunicated from ISKCON.
Afterall, it's not about you or me. It's about US. The greater good of ISKCON.
I agree fully with the sentiments expressed below. I couldn't have said it better myself.
"They’re making a public commitment. They’re not just making a public commitment to each other, they’re making a public commitment to all of us. Because life is not just about “me”, and life is not just about “you”. Life is about all of us, and we all, because we’re all interrelated, we all have a duty to each other, and especially in family life. Family is the basis of human society. Community, human community needs continuity, it needs stability.
So when you enter into this kind of relationship, it’s not just about “what do I want to get out of this? What do I want?” It’s actually about “what can I do for others?” It’s not even about “what can I do for this other person?” It’s about “what can we do together? What can we together do for everyone else?” Now if we begin to live from that platform, instead of thinking “What can everyone do for me? What can I do for myself?” If we begin to live from the platform of “What can I do for others?” then the whole relationship becomes different. Instead of “What can I get out of this other person?” it becomes “what can we together do for others?”, and that makes for such a difference in the relationship.
So the commitment is not simply the two of them to each other, but it’s a commitment to all of us. It’s a commitment to contributing to stability and continuity. Community needs stability, and it needs continuity. We need to create a stable community, a stable society, so that people can have a stable situation in which they can pursue spiritual realization. You know when you’re so disturbed and there are so many disturbances, and you don’t know what’s happening from one day to the next, and your future is so uncertain - it’s very difficult to concentrate on anything higher than just getting through the day. But if we can have a stable situation underlying us for our practice, then we can apply ourselves to that practice, and we can make advancement, we can make progress.
So the duty of those who come together in this way is to provide that stability, and making this public commitment in this way to all of us also helps them with their commitment to each other, because they can realize as they go through it that “it’s not just about us, it’s about everyone, and the public commitment that we’ve made.”
EXACTLY!!!
Re-read it and understand
Re-read it and understand that it is descriptive and not prescriptive.
Otherwise, your application of the principle to this social aspect is consistent.
H.H. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
Prabhu. Some of points can be valid, "it is more about encouraging everyone to continue to cultivate their bhakti in a sane and healthy way" - however one can not fail to see a mistake on the part of GBC. By assuming that power of Bhakti is not strong enough to transform a person, even me, anyone... to rise above the conditioning, it gives not just wrong, but an offensive interpretation on the potency of the holy name.
Its not that by "keeping up the appearances" one can become a guru. It is the quality of inner strength of the process of bhakti. Bhakti in the heart will, even in the face of difficulties, withstand and become stronger and more authentic. In fact a "falldown", as was the case in many sages, starting with Vyas to Bilvanmangala, if leading to stronger position in Bhakti, is a miracle and a hand of God, nothing to be ashamed off.
Does GBC beleives in the power of Bhakti or do they think that accidental fall, even such a 'non-phisical' as with H.H. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, should lead to retirement of the services in Bhakti? How will Prabhupada be pleased if the oldest and one of the most honest, dedicated and humble devotees can not formally initiate disciples? Certainly a mistake.
Of course its a false notion, as his disciples will be leading others and will continue sampradaya, presenting his vision and connection to Srila Prabhupada to the following generations.
Not only that, he will also be an example of how GBC should rethink the paradigm and maybe de-institutionalize the 'rubber stamping' process. While Satsvarupa Maharaja will continue to command our respect, he will not have to demand the respect, so every bit of respect he gets is due and deserved, for overcoming material desires as he did is a good example, as well as great credit to the movement. For me personally he is an example of devotee who does his service not because he gets the benefits of respect and feeling good about himself, he does it now against the odds and that is certainly a proof that bhakti is unmotivated and even under a heavy attack or a seduction attempt (failed it be as in this case) will never fail, if humble and sincere.
But since when a failed attempt of maya will be anything but a credit to the process of bhakti and for that matter to the sampradaya?
Dear Prabhu, you said:
Dear Prabhu, you said: "...one can not fail to see a mistake on the part of GBC."
Would you like to spell out what you see this as being, succinctly?
I am having trouble grasping your thinking in your comment.
reply to sitapati
I am suggesting that all really just need to rethink the current paradigm and start looking at the difficulties by the result of ones overcoming the material desires or temptations as Maharaj did, not by the fact that someone may have been subjected to such testing.
As I said a failed attempt of maya should be seen as a credit to the process of bhakti and for that matter to the sampradaya, not a disqualification. One should not fail to see it.
a failed attempt of maya should be seen as a credit
a failed attempt of maya should be seen as a credit to the process of bhakti and for that matter to the sampradaya, not a disqualification..
I hope that was clear enough.