Originally Posted by Vedesu

Originally Posted by Vedesu

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Bhakti Caru Maharaja seems to be the Iskcon guru most often quoted by the ritvik camp. Perhaps this is really the way he thinks, or perhaps he is trying to play both sides.

Originally Posted by suchandra

Thanks to God there're scholars who explain what is wrong and right like HG Sriman Krishna-kirti prabhu, editor of the Hare Krishna Cultural Journal. Although it seems in order to enforce his logic he felt kind of desperate to make use of the bag of tricks to consider Vaishnavas as on a par with followers of mleccha religions.

Excerpt from ISKCON Constitution Essay

Submitted by krishna-kirti on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 23:54. This is an excerpt from my ISKCON Constitution Essay:


Ritvikism’s Western Cultural Roots
Ritvikism is Protestant ISKCON-ianity. It is, after all, a protest movement. It defines itself in terms of reform, much as how, for example, some Lutheran denominations see themselves as working towards future reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church.
Whether ritvikists are affiliated with the politically successful IRM (ISKCON Revival Movement) or remain apart from it, they all prefer a “literalist” reading of Srila Prabhupada’s statements. Being a literalist does not mean the literalist always accepts the literal, or direct, meaning of any particular passage and rejects all other understandings. When there is some conflict between one or more authoritative passages, the literalist will proffer indirect meanings instead of literal meanings. Yet their preference is for the literal meaning of any particular statement Srila Prabhupada made. Because of their literalism, ritvikists are squarely in the conservative camp.


Yet although ritvikists are conservative, they are not traditionalist. Like many evangelistic, “low church” denominations, ritvikists eschew tradition, or they at least maintain a utilitarian view of it. In modern ritvikism’s foundational manifesto, The Final Order, Krishnakant Desai makes this statement [bolding in original]:

It is a distinguishing feature of acaryas in our line that, practically without exception, they set their own historical precedents. As acaryas, it is their prerogative to do this; albeit in accordance with sastric principles. As already stated, the use of ritviks without the guru’s physical presence on the planet does not violate any sastric principle. Srila Prabhupada’s books contain all essential sastric principles, and since there is no mention in his books of the guru needing to be on the planet at the time of initiation, it cannot be a principle. Thus the historical precedent of continuing to use ritviks after his departure can only be a change in detail, not in principle.[32]

The above passage also conveys a ritvikist version of the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura, “by scripture alone.” Ritvikists reject the use of references from previous acharyas wherever they oppose ritvikist doctrines. Desai rhetorically asks, “What is wrong in consulting previous acaryas?” and then answers, “Nothing, as long as we do not attempt to use them to add new principles which were not mentioned by our own acarya.”[33]
As with sola scriptura, with ritvikism it is by the corpus of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions alone.
A key difference between a traditionalist and a ritvikist is that although both prefer a literalist reading of Srila Prabhupada’s statements, the traditionalist sees Srila Prabhupada as the representative of an unbroken tradition whereas the ritvikist sees Srila Prabhupada as the founder
of a new tradition. The traditionalist sees time, place, and circumstance
adjustments as temporary measures on the way to reestablishing the unbroken tradition they believe Srila Prabhupada represents. Ritvikists, however, see time, place, and circumstance adjustments made by Srila Prabhupada as if they were set in stone—changeable only by Srila Prabhupada and inviolable for the rest. For the ritvikist, Srila Prabhupada’s time, place, and circumstance adjustments are the new way of doing things and always will be for the faithful disciple.
Given the Protestant character of ISKCON’s Anglo-American cultural roots, ritvikism’s striking resemblance to Protestant Christianity has been more of a likelihood than a coincidence. In terms of ideology and culture, Ritvikism is ISKCON’s version of Protestant “low church” evangelical Christianity. The ritvikists are ISKCON’s Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, and it was perhaps inevitable that ISKCON would eventually have them.
Oddly enough, ritvikism’s reliance on a utilitarian notion of time, place, and circumstance ideologically aligns ritvikists with ISKCON’s pragmatist and socially progressive status quo—the differences between them being more in attitude than in patterns of thought. The slight differences between them may make reconciliation something that could happen sooner than expected, though not necessarily in ways either group may be able to presently imagine.

Originally Posted by AncientMariner

Don't care about all that. All I wanna know is which camp is going to burn in eternal Vaisnava hell incarnating as ants and termites etc. and which one is gonna be liberated and become blue like Krishna?