Deconstructing the Renaming of Srila Prabhupada

An analysis of an inventive proposal

By Parampara dasa

If we were to deconstruct the proposal to rename Srila Prabhupada “sampradaya acarya”, we would find three basic constituent elements:

(1) Srila Prabhupada should be given the title that has always been exclusive to Sri Madhvacarya, that being that Srila Prabhupada should be re-designated as sampradaya acarya;

(2) the promoter gives himself the authority to redefine standard Vaisnava philosophical terminology and then bestow his new terminology upon the great maha-bhagavata devotees of the Sri Brahma Sampradaya; thus, one must question his qualification to choose which maha-bhagavatas are to be renamed; and

(3) the proposal that if Srila Prabhupada (and others chosen) were given Sri Madhvacarya’s title, then somehow or other the problems of disciplic succession would be minimized and a sublime situation would manifest. One should examine the logic underlying such a proposal.

Element (1) Redefining Sampradaya Acarya

Let us take a closer look at the first constituent:

As regards (1), redefining the title of Sri Madhvacarya, it is hard to see how this would not be offensive to Sri Madhvacarya and an embarrassment to Srila Prabhupada. Such a redefinition of the title as being applicable to whomever the promoter chooses actually runs in the face of clear statements of Srila Prabhupada that unequivocally clarify that there are only four sampradaya acaryas, one for each of the four Vaisnava sampradayas.

Here is just one quote from many of Srila Prabhupada, which interestingly seems to be absent from the promoter’s otherwise expansive promulgations:

Srila Prabhupada in the purport of Cc Antya 2.295 reveals the names of these four sampradaya acaryas:

“A Vaisnava should study the commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra written by the four sampradaya-acaryas, namely Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka.”

One wonders why such a statement does not sit center stage in the promoter’s writings. It is clear and definitive on the topic. But of course, it negates the proposal that the exclusive sampradaya acarya title should be opened up and applied to whomever the promoter chooses.

We find “the four” clearly stated, indicating the exclusivity of the title for the four sampradaya acaryas. However this exclusivity is further emphasized by Srila Prabhupada’s usage of “namely”. Srila Prabhupada becomes even more definitive by naming the four sampradaya acaryas. Certainly, there is no implication that other devotees can be similarly named; in fact quite the opposite must be concluded from a plain reading of Srila Prabhupada’s statement.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Srila Prabhupada is being unequivocally definite that this sampradaya acarya title is exclusive to “Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka.”

For Loyal Disciples

For loyal disciples of Srila Prabhupada that should settle the matter, start and finish. A loyal disciple accepts the statements of his spiritual master with an open heart. This is the essence “submissive aural reception”, the path to enlightenment. The above statement is so clear. Therefore to apply spurious secondary meanings to suit a personal agenda is not the sign of dedicated discipleship. Furthermore, loyal disciples in accepting the plain meaning would be perfectly in accord with irrevocably established Vaisnava age-old lore and convention. In other words, it is age-old Vaisnava ABC that there are exclusively the four aforementioned sampradaya acaryas – such is hardly a hidden secret of Vaisnava philosophy.

Certainly, Srila Prabhupada is the “external representative of the Supersoul”, so such a statement comes from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, at least for his disciples. Srila Prabhupada is accepted as a saktavesa-avatara, his commentaries on the highest books of Vaisnavism display an unparalleled erudition in the teachings and history of Vaisnavism. So why would someone want to go against his words on this matter? Could someone actually consider he has a better definition of sampradaya acarya than Srila Prabhupada?

A Simple Unanswered Question

Moreover, when or where did Srila Prabhupada ever present himself as sampradaya acarya? Certainly there is nothing in the Vedabase of all Srila Prabhupada’s lectures, letters, writings and commentaries. Surely if Srila Prabhupada had wanted his followers to call him sampradaya acarya he would have told us to do so quite clearly, but there is no record. It is not printed on his books.

Srila Prabhupada very clearly directed us to introduce him as “Founder Acarya of ISKCON”, and when once that title was omitted from a printing of his books, Srila Prabhupada was very sharp in correcting the BBT. Why then did he not similarly clarify that he should be given the exclusive title of sampradaya acarya?

Embarassing Srila Prabhupada

The fact is that Srila Prabhupada would not usurp the title belonging to Sri Madhvacarya. It is an embarrassment to Srila Prabhupada to see Sri Madhvacarya’s title arbitrarily being applied to himself, even if done so with misinformed zealotry.

It is irrefutable that Srila Prabhupada never designated himself sampradaya acarya or ordered his followers to call him by that name. It is nowhere in his words.

Furthermore, renaming Srila Prabhupada as sampradaya acarya is tantamount to saying that Srila Prabhupada started his own sampradaya, a fifth Vaisnava sampradaya of which he is now the new sampradaya acarya. Yet, Vedas inform us there are only four bona fide Vaisnava sampradayas. Therefore, by renaming Srila Prabhupada, his branch of the Sri Brahma Madhvacarya sampradaya would be made into an apasampradaya, a false disciplic succession.

Resultant Anomalies

Therefore three clear anomalies are caused by inventively renaming Srila Prabhupada:

1. The position of Sri Madhvacarya is usurped.

2. It is tantamount to saying Srila Prabhupada started his own apasampradaya.

3. Srila Prabhupada is embarrassed by the false application of the exclusive title.

Element (2) the Promoter Accords Himself Sublime Authority

Another question arises. On what authority does the promoter consider himself somehow qualified to bestow titles upon Srila Prabhupada? In addition, the promoter endeavors to bestow the title on a big list of Vaisnavas in the Sri Brahma Sampradaya that he has chosen. Why does the promoter consider himself the arbitrator in this matter? The judge and jury? What is his qualification to do so? Does he consider himself especially empowered to redefine standard Vaisnava terminology such as sampradaya acarya and on his behest bestow the redefined title to whomever he chooses in his great wisdom, mercy and authority?

Questions for the Promoter to Answer

Of course, these are questions for the promoter to answer. Wherefrom his power, qualification and authority to bestow newly redefined titles on the great maha-bhagavata acaryas of the Sri Brahma Sampradaya? Putting oneself in the position to bestow titles upon maha-bhagavatas is to assume a position of authority over them. A dangerous, self-destructive mentality at the very least.

Moreover, what will happen tomorrow? It is only another small step to start renaming acaryas in other sampradayas. Perhaps at future time, the promoter will bestow titles to other acaryas in the three other Vaisnava sampradayas, as he decides, of course. Or perhaps the promoter will encourage all devotees to bestow the sampradaya acarya title upon whomever they will choose, empowered by his example. Perhaps soon great numbers of previous acaryas will be introduced as sampradaya acarya. And the unique position of the four actual sampradaya acaryas, “namely Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka,” will be undervalued, minimized and even forgotten.

Undervaluation

In this way, the promoter is determined to undervalue an august title, sampradaya acarya, by arbitrarily according himself the authority to bestow the title upon whomever he chooses. Perhaps in future the disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples with similarly decide to call their own spiritual master as sampradaya acarya. After all, if Srila Prabhupada’s disciple can rename Srila Prabhupada as sampradaya acarya, then why shouldn’t they entitled their guru in the same way?

In effect, the promoter is adopting for himself the position of sampradaya acarya. After all if he has the authority to bestow the title upon others, then he must be in position of sampradaya acarya himself. One must certainly question his underlying psychology in his adoption of such authority.

Resultant Anomalies

Therefore clear anomalies arise when the promoter postures the authority to redefine sampradaya acarya and bestow the redefined title upon whomever he chooses:

1. Wherefrom does the promoter glean his authority to redefine standard Vaisnava philosophical terminology?

2. Wherefrom does the promoter glean his authority to decide which great maha-bhagavats should be bestowed the newly redefined title of sampradaya acarya?

3. As the promoter bestows such authority upon himself, why should not other devotees posture the same authority and call their own guru as sampradaya acarya?

4. Should the promoter encourage this new usage of sampradaya acarya to the adherents of the three other Vaisnava sampradayas? Or should they maintain the previous definition, not moving with the times?

Element (3) Incoherent Logic

Now we come to the third constituent in the promoter’s scheme. Apparently, he imagines that if Srila Prabhupada were given Sri Madhvacarya’s title, along with many other previous acaryas of the Sri Madhvacarya Sampradaya, then somehow or other the problems of disciplic succession would be minimized and a sublime situation would manifest in the disciplic succession. Would this actually be the case? No doubt all Vaisnavas would like to see the vitality of the disciplic succession increased. The intention is laudable. But why would the redefinition and wide distribution of Sri Madhvacarya’s title be the route to improvement? It is hard to see any coherent logic in the proposal, rather one divines the classic logical fallacy known as non-sequitor, “it does not follow”.

Redesignating Srila Prabhupada

Certainly Srila Prabhupada is a great acarya of the Sri Madhvacarya Sampradaya and as the Founder Acarya of ISKCON his contribution is unique in modern era. His status as a great maha bhagavata is unassailable, and he spearheaded the translation and dissemination of the Vedic siddhanta and culture throughout the world. For this wonderful contribution, he is rightfully addressed as Srila Prabhupada, the master at whose feet all other masters sit.

Does it follow that renaming Srila Prabhupada with the title of Sri Madhvacarya will create a sea change for the better in the disciplic succession? Rather is it not more likely that the opposite will take place? Certainly, it is an embarrassment to Srila Prabhupada to be renamed with the appellation belonging to Sri Madhvacarya.

Clear Contradiction

A clear contradiction is self-evident. How is one vitalizing the sampradaya by destroying one of its fundamental philosophical tenets? A sampradaya is identified by its sampradaya acarya, in this case, Sri Madhavacarya. The sampradaya becomes cohesive and unified around this central and exclusive sampradaya acarya. However, by giving the sampradaya acarya title to whomever he chooses, the promoter dissipates this central pivot of the sampradaya, and so weakens the unity of the sampradaya. In this way, the opposite effect is created. Instead of becoming stronger, the sampradaya becomes weaker by minimizing the central binding personality who wrote the sampradaya’s seminal commentary on the Vedanta-sutra.

Creating Multi Apasampradayas

Moreover, by bestowing the sampradaya acarya title widely (not just upon Srila Prabhupada), on whomever the promoter decides, then the validity of the sub-branches of the sampradaya is brought into question. The established convention is that there is one sampradaya acarya for each of the four Vaisnava sampradayas. Therefore multi sampradaya acaryas signifies multi sampradayas. However, the multi sampradayas then become apasampradayas, as the Vedas strictly declare there can only be four Vaisnava sampradayas.

Clearly then, by arbitrarily entitling many different acaryas as sampradaya acarya, the cohesion of the sampradaya is attacked. No longer is there a central defining sampradaya acarya, such as Sri Madhavacarya, but lots more sampradayas all with their own sampradaya acaryas. This is farcical and absurd.

Disturbing All Branches of the Sampradaya

In addition, one can foresee more disturbances to the Vaisnava sampradayas. Undoubtedly, the learned members of other branches of Sri Brahma Madhvacarya Sampradaya will point out the illicit redefining of the post of sampradaya acarya. They will reject the idea and be irritated by an artificial and unsupportable concoction. This will only lead to fractious controversy within the Sri Madhvacarya Sampradaya. Srila Prabhupada’s followers will be defined as uneducated and whimsical, reflecting badly on Srila Prabhupada. For example, are members of the Gaudiya Math going to concur with Srila Prabhupada being re-named sampradaya acarya? The fact is that presently many in the Gaudiya Math resent Srila Prabhupada being called “Srila Prabhupada”. Will they accept Srila Prabhupada as the new “sampradaya acarya”?

The Opposite of Good Sense

Yet, the promoter foresees only good effects by his arbitrary redefinition of the post of sampradaya acarya. This is only his imaginings, the opposite of good sense. There is no coherent logic to be ascertained in his illusory proposal. One only sees disjointed speculation. One only sees an affront and dissipation of the Sri Madvacarya Sampradaya. The result would be more of the quarrel and hypocrisy that characterizes Kali Yuga.

Resultant Anomalies

While promoting his invention, the promoter informs us that his new idea will have a positive effect. However, anomalies will arise:

1. Why would the redefinition and wide distribution of Sri Madhvacarya’s title be the route to improvement? It is hard to see any coherent logic to this aberration..

2. The renaming of Srila Prabhupada and other Vaisnava acaryas would be a cause of controversy and disturbance.

3. The axiomatic position of Sri Madhvacarya in the sampradaya would be minimized, even forgotten by multi sampradaya acaryas, thus dissipating the cohesion of the sampradaya.

4. To be given the title belonging to Sri Madhvacarya is an embarrassment to Srila Prabhupada.

5. The status of Srila Prabhupada and his teachings would be brought into question by the deviance of his supposed followers.

6. Multi sampradaya acaryas is tantamount to creating multi apasampradayas.

7. Fractious controversy would be created between different branches of the sampradaya.

8. The expanded term sampradaya acarya would become arbitrarily bestowed upon any devotee of the sampradaya by the misinformed zeal of their neophyte disciples. In this way, the august term sampradaya acarya becomes devalued to common coinage.

The Promoter offers Logical Fallacy as his Evidence

When recently challenged for proof positive from guru, sadhu and sastra to support his new invention, the promoter could only pose a classic rhetorical fallacy, we directly quote the promoter:

“Fine.  Now show me where Srila Prabhupada — or anyone of his predecessor
acaryas — said that these were the ONLY four personalities who may be
called sampradaya acaryas?” Either that, or admit that no such restriction exists.”

This is a common rhetorical trick called “shifting the burden of proof”, which then leads to the fallacy of “appeal to ignorance”. Actually the burden of proof lies with the promoter.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of “appealing to ignorance” is committed. Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” where “ignorance” stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

So the promoter employs a logical fallacy as his only proof. He asserts that he can rename anyone he chooses as sampradaya acarya because such action has not yet been proven false. This is the logical fallacy at the heart of his proof and so is no proof at all.

Implicit Condemnation of Promoter’s Fallacy

In fact, additionally, the words of Srila Prabhupda implicitly condemn the fallacy of the promoter by their plain meaning which of course are perfectly in line with established Vaisnava philosophy:

“A Vaisnava should study the commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra written by the four sampradaya-acaryas, namely Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka.”

Here the definite article is employed as “the four”. This indicates the exclusivity of the title for the four sampradaya acaryas. Next, this exclusivity is further emphasized by Srila Prabhupada’s usage of “namely”. Thus, Srila Prabhupada becomes even more definitive by naming the four sampradaya acaryas. Therefore, we must conclude that Srila Prabhupada is being unequivocally definite that this sampradaya acarya title is exclusive to Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka, especially, when this exclusivity is perfectly in line with age-old Vaisnava philosophy and practice.

Proof Positive from Guru, Sadhu and Sastra

Vaisnava epistemology demands proof positive from guru, sadhu and sastra, not fallacious rhetorical trickery. To employ the same is an overt admission that the promoter has actually no proof positive.

So it is not surprising that though the promoter has been propagandizing his logical fallacy for many years, the learned Vaisnavas have not accepted his redefinition and arbitrary expanded usage of the exclusive august term sampradaya acarya. We pray that the promoter will see the error of his ways and reconcile his newly invented idea with established Vaisnava philosophy.

Reconcilation: Accepting Two Distinct Terms

In fact, the reconciliation is that one should distinguish between the terms Sampradaya Acarya and Acarya of the Sampradaya. As Srila Prabhupada instructs us there are only four samapradaya acaryas and this august appellation can therefore only be correctly attached to that exclusive four: Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka.

However, the term, Acarya of the Sampradaya, may be applied to all qualified devotees initiated into a particular sampradaya. However, the terms are distinct; they do not have the same meaning.

Definition of Acarya

In Cc Adi Lila, 1.46, Srila Prabhupada defines acarya:

“In the Vayu Purana, an acarya is defined as one who knows the import of all Vedic literature, explains the purpose of the Vedas, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.”

Correctly Naming a Sampradaya

A sampradaya may be designated by the first link of a sampradaya as well as by the sampradaya acarya. Thus Srila Prabhupada appeared in the Sri Brahma Sampradaya, which can also be designated the Madhvacarya Sampradaya.

For example, Srila Prabhupada, purport, Sb 1.9.6:

“He[Narada] initiated even Vyasadeva, the author of the Vedic literatures, and from Vyasadeva, Madhvacarya was initiated, and thus the Madhva-sampradaya, in which the Gaudiya-sampradaya is also included, has spread all over the universe. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu belonged to this Madhva-sampradaya; therefore, Brahmaji, Narada, Vyasa, down to Madhva, Caitanya and the Gosvamis all belonged to the same line of disciplic succession.”

However it would be an errant concoction to rename a sampradaya after any acarya of that sampradaya, even if that acarya were the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore it would be erroneous to expound the ‘Sri Caitanya Sampradaya’. Certainly we in ISKCON would be in contravention to propound that we are in the ‘Srila Prabhupada Sampradaya’, asserting that Srila Prabhupada is our sampradaya acarya. Using the full title, ISKCON is in the Sri Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya. Interesting, this branch of the Brahma Sampradaya under Sri Caitanya does not use the name of Sri Caitanya. The addition of ‘Gaudiya’ is sufficient. In this way one sees the convention of naming a sampradaya with a combination of the original starting point, in this case Sri Brahma, and also the sampradaya acarya, in this case, Sri Madhavacarya, resulting in the Sri Brahma Madhvacarya Sampradaya.

Conclusion

The important point is that the appellation sampradaya acarya is exclusive to the four personalities: Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka. This is Srila Prabhupada’s plain statement as quoted above and well-established in Vaisnava lore. Of course, Srila Prabhupada is an acarya of the Sri Brahma Sampradaya, but it would be erroneous to then mistakenly designate Srila Prabhupada as the sampradaya acarya. That would be tantamount to saying that Srila Prabhupada has started a fifth Vaisnava sampradaya, which would be a serious and unsupportable concoction. There are only four Vaisnava sampradayas, as quoted above.

Therefore to designate Srila Prabhupada as a Great Acarya of the Sri Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya is perfectly correct. And of course he is exclusively the Founder Acarya of ISKCON. Already Srila Prabhupada has accepted a most wonderful and bona fide appellation: Srila Prabhupada, the master at whose lotus feet all other masters sit. These wonderful bona fide appellations certainly obviate the necessity of arbitrarily creating a false designation. To designate Srila Prabhupada as sampradya acarya is greatly mistaken, even if done so with misinformed enthusiasm. Problems arise in disciplic succession when the careful message of the great acaryas is disregarded. Misusing or redefining standard terminology is a philosophical digression to be avoided.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****