
To read the embedded document below in full screen click here.
[pdf-embedder url=”http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/ResponseBook.pdf”]
Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON—A “Soft-Ritvik” Work? ISKCON Now A “Fifth Sampradaya”? A Reply to These And Other Criticisms
By Ravindra Svarupa dasa
(Editor’s note: To download and read the original document properly formatted and with the diacritics click here: http://dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads5/Response.docx)
As part of a strategic planning effort by ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission to undertake certain foundational projects to secure the long-term future of ISKCON, I devoted considerable time and effort to researching and writing a scholarly essay on the significance of Srila Prabhupada’s position as ISKCON’s Founder-Acarya.
Successive drafts of this work were critiqued by fellow members of the Srila Prabhupada’s Position Committee and others, then reworked and revised accordingly. Next, a near-final draft was distributed to all GBC members, sannyasis, and initiating gurus for review, and then discussed in a lively leadership sanga of the same convened in February 2013 in Mayapur. Again, the work was revised in light of their feedback. Then, after a final review by GBC members, the work was accepted and approved by unanimous vote as a “GBC Foundational Document.” Thus Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON came to be published in February 2014 by the ISKCON GBC Press.
In February 2015 an accusation against Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON began to be propagated on Facebook and other social media frequented by devotees in and around ISKCON.
The item thus circulated—which gives the appearance of having been extracted from a larger text—reads as follows:
Ravindra’s Founder Acharya Doctrine is also a way of over emphasizing Prabhupada so as to under emphasize present and future ISKCON gurus.
It is in fact a form of soft Rtvikism.
Basically they say Prabhupada is the one taking people back to Godhead by his teachings/siksha (a la Jesus, he is the Uddharaka guru, literally the one who uplifts)
Whereas the other ISKCON gurus present and future will only be Upakaraka (a fancy word for assistant or rtvik) gurus who simply link you to Prabhupada for him to save you.
That is nothing but Rtvikism plain and simple and there is where the whole thing is headed and always was.
No name is attached to this allegation, so I know neither the author’s identity nor his or her current or former standing vis-m-vis ISKCON. In any case, it is evident from the text that the writer has an axe to grind regarding this organization: The word “also” in the first sentence above indicates that this particular complaint is only one among several instances offered in evidence of ISKCON’s allegedly “over emphasizing Prabhupada so as to under emphasize present and future ISKCON gurus.”
The writer bestows a name upon this purported deviation: “soft Rtvikism.” However, at the conclusion of the excerpt, even the “soft” is withdrawn, and the alleged offense is declared to be “Rtvikism plain and simple.” Finally, the sweep of the assault finds a broader target: “and there is where the whole thing is headed and always was.”
In the third and fourth sentences, our polemicist helpfully provides a precise definition of what is meant by “soft Rtvikism,” complete with the exact Sanskrit theological terms.
“Basically, they say . . .” the writer begins—evidently including me among the “they”—that Srila Prabhupada is the uddharaka-guru—the actual savior—while those who come after him as diksa-gurus serve “only” as upakaraka-gurus, as mere helpers or assistants to the savior.
The writer attributes this teaching to Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. However, if you consult that document, you will nowhere find those two terms put forward, either in Sanskrit or even stealthily cloaked in a camouflage of English. It is, therefore, likely that the writer has not taken the trouble to read the work (or has read it with a calculated carelessness).
However, I do happen to know something about those very words and ideas. While this so-called “soft Rtvikism” does not appear in the “Foundational Document” published by the GBC, there is, nevertheless, a particular BBT-published work in which this very doctrine—complete with Sanskrit terminology—has been expounded in reference to Srila Prabhupada.
This exposition will be found in the introduction to the 1996 edition of the Sri Vyasa-puja book published annually in honor of Srila Prabhupada. (The Vyasa-puja observation of 1996 was, of course, special, commemorating the centennial of Srila Prabhupada’s appearance.) H. H. Lokanatha Swami is credited as the author of the book’s introduction, in which he, in turn, credits a devotee named Atmatattva dasa with the research that produced the doctrine of founder-acarya propounded in that same introduction.
Here is the relevant excerpt:
Five Symptoms of the Founder-Acarya
Srila Prabhupada founded ISKCON. He did the groundwork. He is the founder-acarya, and we must understand his position as such. Some or maybe all of the problems that arose in our movement after Srila Prabhupada left have their origin in our not properly understanding this position of founder-acarya. A scripture from the Sri sampradaya called Prapannamrta Tapana explains that a founder-acarya is known by five symptoms.
· First, he is udharika, which means that he is the savior of everyone. The Prapannamrta Tapana goes on to explain that those who come after the founder-acarya in the disciplic succession, who act as spiritual masters, are upakarika, his helpers. They are never to be equated, even after hundreds of generations, with the founder-acarya.
· Second, he is dinabhaya. Dina means “very fallen,” and abhaya means “to remove fear” or “fearless.” The founder-acarya removes the fear of all the fallen souls by his teachings, whose nature is that anyone anywhere who takes shelter of them will become fearless.
· Third, he gives purports to the scriptures carrying the Vaisnava siddhanta, such as Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, and makes them available to the world in maha-grantha, or great books.
· Fourth, he also gives purports to the songs of the Vaisnava acaryas.
· Fifth, his name becomes identified with the philosophy of Lord Visnu Himself.
Srila Prabhupada’s position as the founder-acarya of ISKCON exactly corresponds to this ancient definition of founder-acarya. Establishing a relationship with a spiritual master in the line of Srila Prabhupada first of all means establishing a relationship with him as the founder-acarya.
Reading this for the first time in 1996, I had immediate misgivings concerning the first “symptom,” where the founder-acarya (here denoting Sri Ramanujacarya) is the “savior” while all subsequent gurus are “helpers.”
This doctrine, advanced on the authority of Prapannamrta Tapana, was supposed to enlighten ISKCON about Srila Prabhupada, it’s own Founder-Acarya. I wondered, however, why, within the vast trove of works produced by the four Vaisnava sampradayas, this particular teaching, in this particular work, should be singled out as authoritative in this matter for us. Among the authorized sampradayas there might be a variety of diverse teachings bearing on this topic. Why should the Prapannamrta Tapana in particular be chosen as definitive for Lord Caitanya’s movement? In addition, the Sri-sampradaya itself has in time split into a number of branches that differ among themselves in doctrines of salvation. Did they all agree on this specific matter? If not, which among these, if any, should be authoritative for us?
It seemed that the winnowing of the writings of the four sampradayas had been undertaken by previous acaryas like Rupa Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami; in recent times Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura had continued such work. And in fact there is much still to be done. Who, I wondered, was this one person, Atmatattva dasa, that he should decide for us in this matter?
These were some of my initial misgivings.
Somewhat later, I discovered a bit more about Prapannamrta Tapana. According to that work, Sri Ramanujacarya himself is an avatara of Adi-sesa. This surprised me: I had not heard from any of our own authorities that Sri Ramanujacarya was visnu-tattva. Yet if one accepts Prapannamrta Tapana as authoritative on the matter of founder-acarya, one must also accept it so concerning Sri Ramanuja himself. (If I accept the former yet reject the later, then I have made myself the authority.)
And thus one wonders whether, for the adherents of Prapannamrta Tapana, Sri Ramanuja’s own positions as uddharaka and founder-acarya are entwined somehow with his status as visnu-tattva. How, then, could one apply this to Srila Prabhupada, who, as is well known, once banished disciples from ISKCON temples for preaching that he was visnu-tattva.
Because of such misgivings, I did not rely on this 1996 introduction for any direction or instruction in the matter of researching my assigned work on Srila Prabhupada’s position. At some point, I did consider inserting my apprehensions about the ’96 introduction somewhere within that work—a footnote or appendix—but already there were too many footnotes. Besides, I thought that few if any would even recollect a twenty-year-old Sri Vyasa-puja introduction. Certainly none of the host of ISKCON leaders who reviewed drafts of the work ever brought it up.
But—wouldn’t you know—not only did somebody, somewhere, remember it—and there may have once been a clique preaching it—but then went on to misattribute it to Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON.
Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON does not depend upon Prapannamrta Tapana. It reaches its central conclusions by relying on Srila Prabhupada’s own writings and lectures; on authorized ISKCON literature like Back to Godhead and Srila Prabhupada-lilamrta; on writings authorized and approved by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, specifically, Sree Krishna Chaitanya, Vol. 1 (1933), and The Harmonist (1927-1936); in addition, it relies upon Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s Sri Navadvipa-dhama-mahatmya (1890). All information derived from these and other sources is conscientiously referenced.
The unique place that Srila Prabhupada as Founder-Acarya occupies in ISKCON is summed up in these words (22):
In ISKCON, Prabhupada himself remains present, generation after generation, as the single prominent siksa guru immanent in the life of each and every ISKCON devotee—a perpetual, indwelling active guiding and directing presence. He is thus the soul of ISKCON. As such, Srila Prabhupada himself continues to act effectively in this world so long as ISKCON continues as the coherent expression and unified instrument of his will. In this way Srila Prabhupada remains the soul of ISKCON, and ISKCON his body.
That Srila Prabhupada has and will continue to have a distinctive, efficacious relationship with every devotee in ISKCON is due to his unique position as Founder-Acarya. He is the animating soul of ISKCON, ISKCON is his body—the embodied, outward, organized expression of his will. Any individual devotee in ISKCON, acting in harmony with all the rest, becomes an integrated part of that body and is animated by Srila Prabhupada just as the whole body is. (Note that there is a condition stated in the excerpt above for this healthy state to be realized.)
So although Srila Prabhupada is no longer on this planet in bodily form, he is not absent. So long as we members of ISKCON make every effort to cooperate with one another, on the principle of unity-in-diversity, then we will be directed, individually and as a whole, by Srila Prabhupada himself.
I for one am quite convinced—by personal experience—that from his eternal position in the transcendent Navadvipa of gaura-lila, Srila Prabhupada exercises a providential care over ISKCON, intervening as necessary. (We would not have lasted this far without it.)
Srila Prabhupada continues to aid all in ISKCON who come after him; that is his visible legacy, the inheritance bequeathed upon generation after generation of beneficiaries. Although a devotee properly receives initiation by the mercy of his or her diksa-guru, ISKCON’s Founder-Acarya has provided both that guru and that disciple with immense facilities to enable robust spiritual advancement: his volumes of books in over fifty languages, to begin with; temples with properly installed Deities, served daily with devotion; a calendar chock-full with regular and occasional classes, lectures, seminars, kirtans, and festivals to provide knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and encouragement; abundant opportunities for all varieties of services of all kinds of talents and aptitudes; facilitates to visit transcendent places of Vaisnava pilgrimage; and hundreds of “embassies of the spiritual world” positioned around the globe providing gateways opening on the passageways leading back to Godhead. All this and more has been provided for us by our ISKCON Founder-Acarya, and any present or future diksa-guru has all this simply given for the deliverance of disciples. Such is Srila Prabhupada’s great legacy to all. Our only task is to open our arms to receive it.
In short, such continuing mercy, made available generation after generation, seems to me to be the meaning of “Founder-Acarya.”
At the same time, were I to apply the vocabulary of Prapannamrta Tapana to our own situation, then I would have to say that for us the term udharika, or savior, applies properly to Lord Caitanya (or the Panca-tattva), and the term upakarika—helper or servitor—to all who come after Him and receive potent mercy from Him.
Srila Prabhupada has been specifically empowered to save and deliver us precisely because he became so consummately the servant of the servant of Lord Caitanya. Indeed, Prabhupada’s own self-declared position is that of upakarika, and that is the way he taught us to honor him: namas te sarasvate deve. As Prabhupada once said, with tear-flooded eyes and choking voice: “My spiritual master was no ordinary spiritual master. He saved me” (Giriraja Swami, 1995 Vyasa-puja Homage). Discipleship is Srila Prabhupada’s greatest, most sublime lesson for us, taught by his own astounding example. We learn from him how, by just becoming the mere upakarika—and indeed, the upakarika of the upakarika—a devotee of such humility can be empowered by Gaura-Nitai to act as asraya-vigraha or “Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead” (CC. Adi 1.46 purport), as saksad hari-tva: directly endowed with the qualities of Hari.
Thus there is not the least temptation to consider the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON as uddharaka.
Yet another mistaken claim in circulation concerning Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON is that it teaches, or implies, that Srila Prabhupada founded a new, fifth Vaisnava sampradaya. This notion is explicitly addressed and rejected in the pages of the book itself (88-90).
According to the Sri Navadvipa-dhama-mahatmya of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the four Vaisnava sampradayas were promulgated in this yuga to prepare for the eventual appearance of Lord Caitanya. His teaching of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva synthesizes and completes their theistic understandings of Vyasadeva’s Vedanta-sutra. Between the time of Mahaprabhu and the present age, that tradition was preserved and enriched by a line of teachers; it did not, however, began to unfold it full potential until the modern Industrial Age. Then Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura prepared the tradition for global expansion, which attained fruition through their servant A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, whose ISKCON covered the world.
As Lord Caitanya is Krsna Himself, He effectively originated in this Kali-yuga His own distinctive sampradaya—later titled the Gaudiya-Vaisnava-sampradaya—just as prehistorically, that same Supreme Lord had inaugurated sampradayas with Brahma, Sri, Rudra and the Four Kumaras. However, because Caitanya as bhakta-rupa fully immersed Himself in relishing the feelings and activities of a devotee, he received diksa initiation from Isvara Puri, thus particularly honoring the Brahma-Madhva-sampradaya. We abide by his act and take our place in that tradition, while at the same time we cherish most of all the special energy, mercy, and wisdom transmitted by the yuga-avatara.
We also revere the other three Vaisnava sampradayas, all of whom prepared the way for Lord Caitanya. In this connection, I wish to make a final point. Even though I refrained from using the Sri-sampradaya teaching found in Prapannamrta Tapana for the Founder-Acarya book, yet to characterize that teaching as “soft Rtvikism,” as our unidentified critic does, I consider careless and possibly offensive. The doctrine of Ritvikism is a quite recent innovation, an unwanted plant (upasakha) sprung up locally in ISKCON’s soil. Ritvikism asserts that the Founder-Acarya himself is properly ISKCON’s only authorized diksa-guru. Ritvikism holds that those who after Srila Prabhupada undertake the prescribed activities of initiation are not themselves diksa-gurus but merely ecclesiastical functionaries, or rtviks, carrying out the ritual formalities on behalf of the Founder-Acarya, the actual initiator. Thus, after Srila Prabhupada there is no guru-parampara. So far as I know, such an unorthodox idea has not appeared anywhere within the Vaisnava sampradayas nor, for that matter, among any others that are astikya, faithful to the Vedic tradition.
It is of interest to note that while one critic criticizes Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON for being crypto-rtvik, another disparages it for being not rtvik.
This is found in a booklet issued in April 2014 by the rtvik group ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM) and written by Krishnakant [Desai]. This work bears the exact same title as the GBC-published book and displays a cover formatted just like that book. Where the ISKCON cover bears the words “A GBC Foundational Document,” the IRM work proclaims: “Presenting the Conclusions of the GBC Foundational Document.” Within, however, one discovers a quite different conclusion: that the GBC Foundational Document is missing a vitally important element, now supplied by this IRM work: “Acarya of ISKCON means Diksa Guru of ISKCON.” It is best to go to the authentic GBC Foundational Document to find out what it is.
That book, the real Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, can be downloaded free of change at http://www.founderacharya.com/.

An anonymous complainer is using the Prapannamrta Tapana to discredit Ravindra Svarupa’s well written extensively researched and carefully vetted Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. That barely deserves the dignity of a response and yet Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, patiently and tolerantly goes to the trouble to do so. He deserves a lot of credit. I wouldn’t have bothered.
I find your statements about the position of Srila Ramanujacarya to be very disturbing, as if the acaryas of the Sri Sampradaya are not qualified to know his real position and have greatly embellished his hagiography. The implication is that the former acaryas in the Sri Sampradaya are dishonest and exaggerated the position of Srila Ramanujacarya. The same accusation could be made about the Gaudiyas: that our claim that Lord Caitanya is Radha-Krsna is an exaggeration, that BVT finding the Caitanya Upanisha is a forgery, that statements that associates of Lord Caitanya like Murari Gupta was an incarnation of Hanuman is a pious fraud, etc, etc.
You are making provocative statements that could create irreparable damage to the extremely good relations that we have with the Sri Sampradaya.
Bhaktisiddhanta said this about Ramanujacarya:
“During that period, Bharata-varsa, which is a land where
saniitana-dharma is meant to be practiced, was flooded with
people opposed to devotional service to the Lord. Desiring to
deliver the people of Bharata-varsa from the great danger of
misusing the valuable human form oflife, Lord Hari empowered
a suitable living entity with His potency of Sankarshana to stem
the tide of anti-Visnu sentiment. By the will of the Supreme
Lord, this empowered incarnation appeared in the village of
Mahabhuta Puri at midday on a Thursday, during the period
of Adra naksatra, on the fifth day of the fortnight of the waxing
moon in the month of Caitra in the year 938 Saka era, from
the womb of Sri Kantimati, who was a devotee of the Supreme
Lord, fathered by her pious devotee-husband, Kesavacarya.”
“Life and Teachings of the Four acaryas” p 47.
So this suggests that he considered Ramanuja to be at the least a saktyavesha avatara of Sankarshana – Sesha Naga. In the Sri Sampradaya (both Vadagali and Tenkali sects) he is considered a dual appearance of both Sesha naga and Laksmana, the younger brother of Rama.
Bhaktisiddhanta also wrote that Ramanujacarya was an incarnation of Lord Nityananda:
“Once tridandi -sannyasi Sri Ramanuja Svami of South India, who was an avatar of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, delivered the Vaiñëavas of this world from the talons of the worshipers of five gods.”
“Brahmana and Vaisnava” pp 192-3
And you wondered who this “Atmatattva Dasa” is? He is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, a very learned and humorous South Indian from a brahmana family. He was co-founder of the main gurukula in Mayapura. He left ISKCON a few years ago because of some problems. But that do not negate his research.
For a long time I have been concerned about the level of fanaticism of many who take initiation from ISKCON gurus. A significant amount do not have a clue that their guru is under the authority of the GBC. I am sure that the mandatory disciples course, using, “Srila Prabahupada: The Founder Acarya of ISKCON” and the “Lines of Authority” paper will greatly reduce this fanaticism. I would like to highlight certain points.
In, “Lines of Authority” we read:
“All members accepting leadership roles within ISKCON, including diksha gurus and siksha gurus, have the duty of serving together under ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission (GBC)…”
And:
This statement shall also be studied in ISKCON courses including introductory courses, the ISKCON Disciple Course, the Spiritual Leadership Seminar, and other relevant venues. Reading this statement, and affirming it has been read prior to initiation, shall be part of the test for all prospective initiates.
In “Srila Prabahupada: The Founder Acarya of ISKCON” we find this statement:
“It is customary in India for an ācārya to leave his institution to his chosen successor as a legacy in his will. The action Śrīla Prabhupāda took in 1970—establishing the GBC— allowed him in 1977 to set this down as the first provision of his “Declaration of Will”: “The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.” By thus establishing the GBC and leaving it as his chosen successor at the head of ISKCON, Śrīla Prabhupāda insured that the order of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura would continue to work efficaciously in the world and bear fruit” End quote..
I have been firmly convinced and taken shelter of the concept of the GBC being Srila Prabhupada’s, “chosen successor” since I moved into the Boston Temple in 1980. I easily accepted Srila Prabhupada as a perfect being and understood his order was to accept the GBC as the ultimate authority. Five months after moving in I was initiated by a, “Zonal Acarya” who later fell down. Although I could not have described it with the above terminology at the time, when I learned of this fall down I (literally) immediately knew my connection with the parampara remained through my continued acceptance of the GBC.
It is not possible for a conditioned soul to earn a direct connection with the Supreme Personality of Godhead even by performing extreme austerities for millions of births; it is causeless mercy. Yet I, and anyone else, can have that direct connection in spite of their Guru falling and the imperfections within the GBC (then and now). Thus one who understands the principal of parampara will not feel hopeless because of a Guru fall down or GBC mistakes and they will never leave ISKCON.
My question to Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu is as follows:
In your statement (cited above) you say it is customary for an Acarya to leave his institution to a chosen successor in his will. Srila Prabhupada acted in accordance with this custom and left his establishment to a successor but it was a novel act in that the successor was a board not an individual. Obviously the other difference is that a customary successor would occupy one chronological link and chose the next successor himself, but the GBC is the successor for repeated generations.
As the custom is that the successor becomes the acarya why not be a little bold and define the GBC as the, “successor acarya”? And as the GBC is not a single link in the chain but rather the link for generations why not call it the, “GBC Acarya System”?
I made a mistake in my previous comment. The quotes I cited as part of “Line of Authority” are actually from the minutes of the GBC Annual Meeting 2013.
303. GBC Statement on the Position of Srila Prabhupada.
http://gbc.iskcon.org/gbc_res/GBCRES13.html