Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 A Critical Essay Addressing the Ritvik Misconception in light of bona-fide siddhanta by Sripad Bhakti Bhavana Visnu Maharaja "One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books... One must accept a Vaisnava guru (adau gurv-asrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Krsna is. That is called the parampara system." (Cc. Antya-lila 7.53, purp.) — AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Ritvik Parampara The nature of devotional truths is that they are not revealed by debates (tarko 'pratisthah). The proper conception for any tattva is revealed in the heart only by virtue of ones' spiritual qualifications (adurlabham atma-bhaktau). We have experienced in our preaching that often the simplest spiritual concepts cannot be understood, even when painstakingly explained. This is due to the [non-devotee] recipients' disqualifications or impurities. Similarly, many devotees are disqualified from understanding finer siddhantic truths by virtue of their impurities, material desires, subtle and gross deviations from the strict line of Sri Rupanuga-varga, and particularly because of their offenses to other Vaisnavas. Devotional faith is illumined with proper understanding. Real, substantial faith can never be blindly based on incomplete knowledge and semi-devotional considerations. True faith recognizes real spiritual substance, for it is the seed of the hladini-sakti, the potency to give pleasure to Sri Krsna, embodied and distributed to us by the Absolute Pleasure Potency, Srimati Radharani. Faith is the substance that is of the same spiritual quality as the spiritual world: it is our most substantial connection with that highest realm of attainment. Ritvik Misconceptions All those who are associated directly or indirectly with the formal ISKCON movement accept that Srila Prabhupada appointed ritvik priests to initiate on his behalf during his final manifest days. However, the concept that all initiations in ISKCON after the departure of Srila Prabhupada would be done by ritvik priests is inconsistent with all of his teachings, all sastra, all predecessor acaryas, all sampradayas, and all Vedic and Pancaratrika tradition. Taking into consideration all the available documents, tapes and instructions of Srila Prabhupada we see that he did not leave clear instructions regarding the managerial aspect of the process of initiation after his departure, although he did give a clear understanding of its spiritual principles. Srila Prabhupada many times mentioned his Guru Maharaja's desire in this matter and he left it up to the GBC to manage all material and spiritual affairs. His idea was 'Let them manage; then whoever will be qualified for becoming acarya, they will elect. Why should I enforce it upon them?' That was his plan. 'Let them manage by strong governing body, as it is going on. Then acarya will come by his qualifications.' (SPL 21.9.73) Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self-effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment. (C.c. Madhya-lila 1.220, purp.) His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected. (SPL 28.4.74) We can understand from these statements that it is highly unlikely that Srila Prabhupada would appoint any successor acaryas. It is also clear from a thorough study of Srila Prabhupada's teachings that he desired that the traditional parampara system be followed in his mission, and that his consistent desire is that his disciples initiate disciples when qualified. His many consistent instructions in this regard were given at various times under many different circumstances such as lectures, letters to specific devotees and room conversations. I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole world. (SPL Madhusudana, Nov. 2, 1967) Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. (Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969) Every one of you should be spiritual master next. (Hamburg, September 5, 1969) These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters. (RC Detroit, July 18, 1971) You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master. (London, August 22, 1973) Every student is expected to become acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples... I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy... Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. (SPL Tusta Krsna, December 2, 1975) Srila Prabhupada, quoting his Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, writes very clearly that the order of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is for everyone to become spiritual master (yare dekhi tare kaha krsna upadesa amara ajnaya guru hana tare ei desa) and that one is qualified to become guru if he knows the science of Krsna consciousness (yei krsna-tattva vetta sei guru haya). Srila Prabhupada writes that this order applies equally to siksa and diksa guru and that we MUST accept this principle or Krsna consciousness will not spread all over the world. This instruction of Srila Prabhupada, which is his Bhaktivedanta purport to the exact verse enunciating this principle, is irrefutably clear. The word guru [in this verse, yei krsna-tattva sei guru haya] is equally applicable to vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, this Krsna consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. (Cc. Madhya-lila 8.128, purp.) It is simply inconsistent and out of concert with all his teachings to think that Srila Prabhupada wished his ISKCON movement to utilize a posthumous ritvik system of initiation on his behalf for all time. Generally diksa (initiation) follows siksa (instruction), and the siksa of the initiating guru continues after diksa with innumerable instruction sessions, where the guru on a regular basis answers important philosophical questions, which are essential for healthy, normal spiritual advancement. This cannot be separated from the relationship of guru and disciple. Regarding the guru disciple relationship, siksa is the most essential element: the transferral of transcendental knowledge (divya-jnanam) comprises the essence of initiation. Be it with our diksa or our siksa guru, we need a substantial siksa relationship with an advanced realized Vaisnava who can guide us by providing properly conceived answers to our particular questions, according to time, place, circumstance and personal necessity. This substantial siksa is essential to help one extract and understand the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and the previous acaryas. Further, it is the injunction of the Bhakti-sandarbha of Sri Jiva Goswami that only one on the transcendental platform can associate with a non-manifest personality. Srila Prabhupada is always with the sincere disciple in the form of his instructions, but the degree to which we are able to associate with him is limited by our degree of realization. For example, Krishna's pastimes are eternally going on in Vrindavan, but now they are unmanifest. Only one with the vision described by Narottama das Thakur in Prarthana will see the land made of cintamani, the kalpa-vriksa trees, and Krishna performing His pastimes with His associates. In the same manner, Srila Prabhupada is here with us, but our ability to associate with him is limited by our degree of faith and realization. Is Everything in Srila Prabhupada's books? "Everything" is in Srila Prabhupada's books, and when properly understood, these books are sufficient in themselves for one to advance in Krsna consciousness and attain perfection. This does not mean that every piece of information is in Prabhupada's books, but that the methodology and instructions for attaining perfection in Krsna consciousness are. If we faithfully follow the instructions given in these books we will imbibe the proper devotional conceptions and Krsna will reveal to us through His agents, the Vaishnavas and sadhus, those additional things that are necessary. (cf. Bg. 9.22 and C.c. Madhya-lila 22.54). "I carry what you lack and preserve what you have." And "by even a moment's association with a pure devotee, one can attain all success." In Srila Prabhupada's letter of November 22, 1974 he offers encouraging words by stating that by such daily sincere reading of his books, everything will be revealed in time. The problem arises in extracting, understanding and properly applying the many instructions therein. Sastra is passive and the advanced devotee is the active principle in extracting the devotional conclusions. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, in his 1931 Harmonist article (The Harmonist, Dec. 1931, vol. XXIX No. 6), while extolling the virtues of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, emphatically states this same point. "One cannot simply read the words of Bhaktivinode Thakura; one must hear them from the lips of a pure devotee." An excerpt of this article, a very strong statement against the ritvik idea by our param guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, is presented at the end of this article. Simply repeating Srila Prabhupada's instructions or cutting and pasting them into papers without understanding them cannot substitute for realizing their essence by virtue of purely practicing them. The innumerable philosophical controversies amongst Srila Prabhupada's direct disciples and followers stand strongly as a testament to this. There is much confusion regarding proper understandings of jiva-tattva, guru-tattva, rasa-tattva and Vaisnava-tattva, just to name a few. This problem cannot be denied, and substantiates that we need continuous and properly qualified siksa, always. Volumes of letters written by Srila Prabhupada in response to his disciples many very individual needs and specific questions further substantiates that the continuous flow of guidance is necessary throughout ones' spiritual life–Prabhupada did not tell his disciples to go look it up in a book. On the contrary, he stated: One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books. One must become a servant of a Vaisnava. As Narottama dasa Thakura has confirmed, chadiya vaisnava-seva nistara peyeche keba: one cannot be in a transcendental position unless one very faithfully serves a pure Vaisnava. One must accept a Vaisnava guru (adau gurv-asrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Krsna is. That is called the parampara system." (Cc. Antya-lila 7.54,purp.) The disciple, if he cannot understand the statement of the scriptures or any saintly person, he submits his doubts before the spiritual master and he clears it. In this way we have to make progress. (Montreal, July 9, 1968) By reading you cannot understand. (Bom. Jan. 8, 1977) Question: Through a book can you contact the spiritual master? Prabhupada: No, you have to associate. Devotee: "Can you associate through a book?" she asked. Prabhupada: Yes, through books and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive. (RC London, Sept. 23, 1969) The present uncertainty as to the proper guru system in some temples in ISKCON seems to be a managerial consideration, not a philosophical one. However, no amount of external arrangement can replace or satisfy our internal spiritual necessity. In their attempts to propagate the ritvik misconception, the ritvik proponents, have not been able to provide a proper siddhantic explanation of this issue. Their engagement in mundane grammatical and logical debates reveals a lack of spiritual acquisition–realization seen through the eye of divine service. There is not a single example in our sampradaya nor by any of our acaryas, nor any other bonafide sampradaya where devotees take initiation from a guru by proxy after he has left this world. The ritvik proponents continuously try to shun their burden of proof and instead state that there is "no scriptural reference indicating this ritvik practice is a deviation from siddhanta." When such a novel and unprecedented idea is introduced (initiation by a non-manifest personality) the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition dictates that sastric references be provided to validate its authenticity. This has not been done. In Srila Prabhupada's own words, such statements (even of the guru) which cannot be verified by sastra must be rejected along with the guru. (C.c. Madhya-lila 20.352, purp.). Thus if we follow the dry ritvik logic one step further, we arrive at a most unpleasant and unpalatable conclusion. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has mentioned thirteen apasampradayas that deviate from the strict line of Sri Caitanya. The ritvik conception is ideologically closest to the Kartabhaja apasampradaya; one of these thirteen: In Bangladesh, a new version of the Kartabhaja sect was founded by one Anukul Chandra. Posing himself as a Supreme Lord, Anukul Chandra has been worshipped by his followers as such. Specific features of his worship were his "Visvarupa darsanas," which centered on a very degraded practice. He is now dead, but his followers propagate that he can initiate latter-day devotees through preachers known as ritviks. New initiates must agree to follow the principles—be vegetarian once a week and worship no deity other than Anukul Chandra's picture. The example of condemnation of an improper attitude and understanding of the guru principle provides illumination for the present day situation. Virabhadra Goswami in a letter to Srinivasa Acarya ostracized one Jayagopala from Vaisnava society for claiming himself as a disciple of his param guru. This is described in Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana, khanda 3. Many devotees look to the ritvik idea as a new life-giving conception that will solve the biggest disaster in ISKCON—that of the guru issue. This is like seeing the external symptoms of a woman whose stomach is growing. Some may conceive that new life may arise from this, but actually it is only a tumor that will not bring about a new life but will only bring death to the woman herself. In the words of the most exalted and until recently, the seniormost Gaudiya Vaisnava on the planet, Srila Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami Maharaja, whose clear statement on the ritvik idea says it all, "It is the death of the sampradaya." Lord Krsna once asked Duryodhana to go into the kingdom and bring back a person more qualified than himself, and He asked Yudhisthira to find a person less qualified than himself. After some time each returned alone: Duryodhana said that he could not find anyone more qualified than himself, and Yudhisthira said that everyone was more qualified than himself. Like Duryodhana, most ritvik proponents are representing that they alone are qualified to judge the (dis) qualifications of others. This kind of thinking is avaisnava and contrary to our devotional line — it is apa-sampradayic. If one lacks the realization to understand these many essential points, that does not mean that others do not understand these points. The deliberate attempt to create and maintain Vaisnavas on the plane of lower adhikari (kanistha adhikari) – as is the case in ISKCON and among ritvik vadis, is a symptom of the incapacity to surrender and reach a higher plane of self abnegation, the plane where the greatest necessity is being served. The essence of Bhagavad-gita is that we give up all our present conceptions and attachments and place ourselves at the disposal of the highest necessity of the Lord's agents. The ritvik idea is a symptom of hrdaya-durbalya, the anartha of weakness of the heart that makes one unable to fully embrace the life of pure devotion. Ritvik vadis wish to maintain the whole management and guru system on the level of lower adhikari. If one is really sincere and cannot tolerate impurity within the formal establishment, then one should accept an exclusive life of devotion (sannyasa) and establish a higher standard of purity. One must offer his impurity in the fire of sacrifice on behalf of the Lord. The adhikari or spiritual standing of a devotee may be judged by his ideal or aspiration. The highest spiritual acquisition is not a matter of demand or right; it can only be sanctioned from the highest quarter, that of the Lord and His associates. "If God sees you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master." (Rome, 6.23.74) In this endeavor it is all risk and no gain, for we cannot demand anything in return for our service. Pure devotional service is selfless. The ritvik proponents are lacking a genuine spiritual aspiration. The underlying attitude of the ritvik idea is in essence abhakti, opposed to devotion, for it is indicative of a diseased condition to demand this connection with the plane of transcendence without proper qualifications. Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja has commented, "We cannot really help ourselves very much; because in our present state we are mainly guided by our previous samskara or acquired nature. This highest spiritual fortune is but a gracious grant from the Absolute Lord, and not a matter of right to be demanded or fought out." By cultivation of this mood of negativity (necessity) we attract the attention of the Lord. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu exemplifies this in the last verse of the Siksastaka, aslisya va pada-ratam pinastu mam... 'You may embrace me or trample me, but you will always be the only Lord of my life.'" Devotees should realize that their difficulties are due to their own past misdeeds, and they should hope and pray that their situation be resolved (tat te'nukampam su-sumiksamano, Bhag. 10.14.8). Eulogy of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura (The Harmonist, Dec. 1931, vol. XXIX No. 6) It is not empiric wisdom that is the object of quest of the devotee. Those who read the scriptures for gathering empiric wisdom will be pursuing the wild goose chase... The mutual admiration society of dupes does not escape, by the mere weight of their number, the misfortunes due to the deliberate pursuit of the wrong course in accordance with the suggestions of our lower selves... Thakura Bhaktivinoda is acknowledged by all his sincere followers as possessing the powers of the pure devotee of Godhead. His words have to be received from the lips of a pure devotee. If his words are listened from the lips of a non-devotee they will certainly deceive. If his works are studied in the light of one's own worldly experience their meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong to the class of the eternal revealed literature of the world and must be approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the pure devotee. If no help from the pure devotee is sought, the works of Thakura Bhaktivinoda will be grossly misunderstood by their readers. The attentive reader of those works will find that he is always directed to throw himself upon the mercy of the pure devotee if he is not to remain unwarrantably self-satisfied by the deluding results of his wrong method of study. The writings of Thakura Bhaktivinoda are valuable because they demolish all empiric objections against accepting the only method of approaching the Absolute in the right way. They cannot and were never intended to give access to the Absolute without help from the pure devotee of Krishna. They direct the sincere enquirer of the truth, as all the revealed scriptures do, to the pure devotee of Krishna to learn about Him by submitting to listen with an open mind to the transcendental sound appearing on his lips. Before we open any of the books penned by Thakura Bhaktivinoda, we should do well to reflect a little on the attitude which serves as the indispensable prerequisite to approach its study. It is by neglecting to remember this fundamental principle that the empiric pedants find themselves so hopelessly puzzled in their vain endeavor to reconcile the statements of the different texts of the scriptures. The same difficulty is already in process of overtaking many of the so-called followers of Thakura Bhaktivinoda and for the same reason... Those who want to understand the contents of the volumes penned by the piecemeal acquisitive method applicable to deluding knowledge available to the mind on the mundane plane, are bound to be self-deceived. Those who are sincere seekers of the truth are alone eligible to find Him, in and through the proper method of His quest. In order to be put on the track of the Absolute, listening to the words of the pure devotee is absolutely necessary. The spoken word of the Absolute is the Absolute. It is only the Absolute Who can give Himself away to the constituents of His power. The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the conditioned soul in the form of the name on the lips of the sadhu. This is the key to the whole position. The words of Thakura Bhaktivinode direct the empiric pedant to discard his wrong method and inclination on the threshold of the real quest of the Absolute. If the pedant still chooses to carry his errors into the realm of the Absolute Truth he only marches by the deceptive by-path into the regions of darker ignorance by his arrogant study of the scriptures. The method offered by Thakura Bhaktivinoda is identical with the object of the quest. The method is not really grasped except by the grace of the pure devotee. The arguments, indeed, are these. But they can only corroborate, but can never be a substitute for, the word from the living source of the Truth who is no other than the pure devotee of Krishna, the concrete Personal Absolute. Swami B B Vishnu Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Matha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Very interesting...but will it deal the killer blow!!? Srila Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami Maharaja already mentions that Rtvik means the death of the Sampradaya, so if no one will believe this exalted soul, then they are just in Maya. Also, another exalted soul has commented: Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja has commented (in reference to the Rtvik doctrine), "We cannot really help ourselves very much; because in our present state we are mainly guided by our previous samskara or acquired nature. So, there! Any Sraddha in the advanced devotees, then we will follow in their footsteps. Nityananda Gauranga! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Illuminating Srila Prabhupada's Order This is in response to the paper -'Illuminations on Guru Parampara. An Essay Addressing the Ritvik Misconception in light of bona-fide siddhanta' by Sripad Bhakti Bhavana Visnu Maharaja. The author starts by explaining why it is some people can understand points of siddhanta, whilst others cannot: "Similarly, many devotees are disqualified from understanding finer siddhantic truths by virtue of their impurities, material desires, subtle and gross deviations from the strict line of Sri Rupa, and particularly because of their offenses to other Vaisnavas." We assume the author must believe that he is in a category that can understand these subtler truths, at least as far as the ritvik/guru controversy goes. Truths that sadly evade ritviks and GBC's alike. The author explains the GBC's shortcomings: "Nor have they been able to answer the internal ritvik challenge and defeat it. Due to iskcon's leaders having made many offenses to higher Vaisnavas, they seem to have lost the sakti to deal properly with such challenges to the true line of Gaudiya Vaisnavism" The irony is that the author uses exactly the same arguments to try to defeat ritvik as the GBC. So it is hard to see of what benefit all this higher understanding of 'finer siddhantic truths' has construed upon him. He even uses the same old quotes that the GBC use, such as the private letter to the ambitious Tusta Krishna that was not published till years after the GBC would have needed to see it, were it to have any direct bearing on this issue. So we shall ignore all the posturing about higher understandings, and simply point out all the inconsistencies and deficiencies that plague every facet of the author's paper, just as they infect the writings of the GBC. We shall also not be considering any statements from other gurus or previous acaryas that have not been mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books. The reason for this should be obvious. Since we are considering what Srila Prabhupada wanted for ISKCON, it is clearly sensible to start with what he himself taught. As far as we are concerned he is also the current link, from whom everything relating to devotional service, or the message of the Bhagavatam, must be primarily understood. If these conditions are not acceptable then there will never be any scope for mutual understanding; we are simply on different planets. Quotes from the author shall be boxed thus . It seems the author would have us all going to the Gaudiya Matha for higher guidance, yet it is clear from this article that they have exactly the same misconceptions as the GBC ('living guru' 'siksa vs diksa' etc). Indeed, to a large extent they are the source of them, which is why we were warned to respect them from a distance. Excluding the above, the author's main points are as follows: 1. Srila Prabhupada did not leave clear instructions on how initiation would be managed within ISKCON: "Taking into consideration all the available documents, tapes and instructions of Srila Prabhupada we see that he did not leave clear instructions regarding the managerial aspect of the process of initiation after his departure, although he did give a clear understanding of its spiritual principles." The above flies in the face of the facts. On July 9th 1977 an order was sent to the entire movement outlining what the system of initiation was to be within ISKCON. This directive was extremely clear, and was addressed to all the movement's managers. The author admits that Srila Prabhupada did indeed establish a ritvik system whilst he was present, so something clear and specific must have got through. It is for the author to prove that this clear specific system was meant to stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure. That is how the burden of proof works. It is for him to prove that a system that was established and running within ISKCON should be stopped, not for us to prove that it must continue. That everything should go on as it was is established in the Final Will, in the clause stating that the systems of management should not change. Therefore if the author wants to change something he must provide evidence of authorisation for such change. That authorisation must clearly be of the same magnitude as that which set the system running in the first place. In other words, it must be an order to the entire movement that directly relates to the issue of future initiations. As we shall see, the author falls as short on such evidence as the GBC. 2. "Srila Prabhupada did not appoint any successor acaryas." "We can understand from these statements that it is highly unlikely that Srila Prabhupada would appoint any successor acaryas." We completely agree with the above. Yet it is interesting that Narayan Maharaja, one of the learned advanced Vaisnavas that we are often told to seek guidance from, stated the opposite in the 1990 ISKCON journal. He claims the ritviks were appointed to succeed Srila Prabhupada as initiating acaryas. We are glad to see the author does not to such nonsense. 3)"It is also clear from a thorough study of Srila Prabhupada's teachings that he desired that the traditional parampara system be followed in his mission, and that his consistent desire is that his disciples initiate disciples when qualified." We find absolutely no mention of the term 'traditional parampara system' on folio. The parampara system is certainly mentioned, and in no sense does the ritvik system violate this. We shall now see what evidence the author can produce relating to this alleged 'desire' for his disciples to initiate 'when qualified': " I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole world. (SPL Madhusudana, Nov. 2, 1967)" Bona fide spiritual master can refer equally to siksa as diksa. The above is also a private letter that was not published till the mid-eighties, and thus can not in itself be used to stop the ritvik system that was up and running in 1977. "Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. (Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969)" In the above private letter to Kirtananda, Srila Prabhupada is simply giving an example to illustrate a point- 'it is just like'. Clearly he is not giving an order here, or saying that this is what will happen. Again this letter was not published till years after it would have been needed by the GBC in order to stop the ritvik system on his departure. "Every one of you should be spiritual master next. (Hamburg, September 5, 1969)" The phrase Spiritual Master can equally refer to siksa as the following quote demonstrates: 'There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions.' (Adi, 1:47) "These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters. (RC Detroit, July 18, 1971)" The above conversation with a one-off student visitor to the temple was not discovered until just two years ago. That is twenty years too late to have any direct bearing on this issue. Also it is clear Srila Prabhupada is just giving a general picture since he had also said he did not think any of his Godbrothers were actually qualified to be acarya. "You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master. (London, August 22, 1973)" As before, spiritual master need not necessarily means diksa guru. "Every student is expected to become acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples. I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy. Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. (SPL Tusta Krsna, December 2, 1975)" This private letter was not published until the mid-eighties, and therefore, in itself, could not be used as a reason to stop a system that was set up to run globally in 1977. Furthermore the letter was sent to an ambitious disciple who was also a follower of Siddhasvarupa, and thus the circumstances were not generally applicable. Such a 'law of disciplic succession' is not mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, nor did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta follow it. Generally Srila Prabhupada invoked it when dealing with neophyte devotees who were anxious to initiate even when he was still present. We note that the author has not found any instruction that supports his position unambiguously from Srila Prabhupada's books, or instructions to the whole society. Furthermore such evidence as has been offered can be easily countered by the following quotes where Srila Prabhupada is specifically asked about who would succeed him: Guest: Are you planning to choose a successor? Srila Prabhupada: It is already successful. Guest: But there must be somebody you know, needed to handle the thing. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle. Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will... Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there. (SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico) "After 80 years, no one can be expected to live long. My life is almost ended. So you have to carry on, and these books will do everything." (SP Room conversation, 18/2/76) "So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your endeavor. Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter." (SP Arrival conversation, 17/5/77, Vrindavan) Reporter: What will happen to the movement in the United States when you die? Srila Prabhupada: I will never die Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter) I will live from my books and you will utilise. (SP Press Conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco) Reporter: Are you training a successor? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there. (SP Press conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco) "Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the Movement." (SP Room conversation, 2/11/77) Interviewer: What happens when that inevitable time comes a successor is needed. Ramesvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide the Movement in the future. Srila Prabhupada: They will guide, I am training them. Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader though? Srila Prabhupada: No. I am training GBC, 18 all over the world. (SP Interview, 10/6/76, Los Angeles) Notice Srila Prabhupada says nothing about his disciples going on to succeed him as initiator acaryas. There are other points on all these quotes that were made in response to the GBC. We suggest the author reads 'Institutional Cataclysm' and our response to 'Prabhupada's Order'. 4. The 'amara ajnana' verse where Lord Chaitanya orders everyone to become guru is somehow linked to the 'yei krsna-tattva' in such a way that the order is for everyone to become diksa guru. "Srila Prabhupada, quoting his Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, writes very clearly that the order of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is for everyone to become spiritual master (yare dekhi tare kaha krsna upadesa amara ajnaya guru hana tare ei desa) and that one is qualified to become guru if he knows the science of Krsna consciousness (yei krsna-tattva vetta sei guru haya)." We need to unpack the above. These are two entirely different verses that deal with two entirely separate issues. In the purports following the 'amara' verse Srila Prabhupada states : 'it is best not to accept any disciples.' (C.c.Madhya 7.130 purport). Thus clearly this order, as relayed to us by Srila Prabhupada, is not for everyone to become diksa guru. The other verse deals with the Smarta misconception, and is very important since Srila Prabhupada himself was from a vaisya family. Not that we are all automatically instructed to become diksa guru. "The word guru [in this verse, yei krsna-tattva sei guru haya] is equally applicable to vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, this Krsna consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. (Cc. Madhya-lila 8.128, purp.)" Srila Prabhupada thus authorises all his disciples to become vartma pradarsaka and eventually siksa guru, whilst he remain the diksa guru. The movement could not spread without this allowance for people born in lower than Brahmin caste to become gurus of whatever the applicable category may be. If Lord Caitanya had already authorised everyone to become diksa guru 500 years ago then the following statement in the Srimad Bhagavatam would be redundant: '...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.' (S.B. 2.9.7, purport) 5. Siksa, or the transfer of transcendental knowledge, is the most essential aspect of the guru disciple relationship. "Regarding the guru-disciple relationship, siksa is the most essential element: the transferal of transcendental knowledge (divya-jnanam) comprises the essence of initiation." We completely agree with the above. According to the GBC Srila Prabhupada is the siksa guru for everyone for as long as ISKCON exists. This must be the case since everyone is getting siksa from his books. Of course they are not just reading books of knowledge, they are absorbing the lucid purports and practicing strictly the rules and regulations etc. The author has been caught in his own logistical trap; for if he concedes that Srila Prabhupada can still impart siksa (transcendental knowledge) without being physically present, then he must accept he can be the diksa guru. This is because he has already stated that siksa is the most 'essential element'. If the most essential element of diksa is still available from Srila Prabhupada, then clearly the author should have no problem with the ritvik system. "This substantial siksa is essential to help one extract and understand the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and the previous acaryas." Srila Prabhupada is already giving the siksa, this is accepted. If someone is having a problem then a more learned Godbrother can point him in the right direction by showing him where Srila Prabhupada deals with such an issue. But that is vartma pradarsaka guru, not diksa. " Further, it is the injunction of the Bhakti-sandarbha of Sri Jiva Goswami that only one on the transcendental platform can associate with a non-manifest personality." We would need to see what Srila Prabhupada says about this alleged injunction. "Srila Prabhupada is always with the sincere disciple in the form of his instructions, but the degree to which we are able to associate with him is limited by our degree of realization." But that is the case whether he is physically present or not. And as Srila Prabhupada always taught, physical presence is irrelevant to the guru disciple relationship: "Physical presence is not important." (SP Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan) or "Physical presence is immaterial." (SP Letter, 19/1/67) Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically present: "Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence." 6)"Everything is in Srila Prabhupada's books, and when properly understood, these books are sufficient in themselves for one to advance in Krsna consciousness and attain perfection." We completely agree with the above. That is why we are disinclined to read anyone else's books. If one does, then one must be very careful to make sure Srila Prabhupada gives the same teaching, otherwise if he acts on separate instruction his behavior is most sinful. 7) "Srila Prabhupada mentions instructions for a number of essential areas of devotional service only in seed form, and we submit that he does have his reasons which are not always revealed to his disciples in their neophyte stages. An advanced Vaisnava is needed to help us in our progress beyond the neophyte stage we require specific instructions for our specific questions. " The above contradicts the assertion made in point 6. We do not need to go outside of Srila Prabhupada's teachings for our spiritual life. We thought this was conceded. Now the author is backtracking. We may need advice from a senior devotee in how to apply and where to study, but that does not mean Srila Prabhupada is not our diksa guru. When Srila Prabhupada was here he wanted devotee's everyday 'specific questions' to be answered by his TP's, Bhakta Leaders and Sanyasis etc; but all the time he remained the sole Diksa Guru. We are suggesting that this situation should have continued. 8. Srila Prabhupada was not bothered if ISKCON was dissolved : 'We are not attached to any organization,' he said. 'It is an instrument we will use and if it becomes troublesome we will dissolve it and go on chanting Hare Krsna. (Acyutananda dasa, letter to Gaudiya Magazine, 1994)" We do not accept such hearsay evidence. There is nothing on folio to this effect. 9. The ritvik system must be wrong since it is unprecedented. "There is not a single example in our sampradaya nor by any of our acaryas, nor any other bonafide sampradaya where devotees take initiation from a guru by proxy after he has left this world." Before we can even entertain such an objection we need to see evidence that the objection itself is bona fide. Where did Srila Prabhupada ever say that the order of the guru can be ignored or disobeyed just because an identical order was not issued at some point in the past? As we have explained many times, ritvik does not violate any sastric injunction. The use of priests to give names etc is merely a detail of the diksa process, and Acaryas are fully at liberty to change such details: "Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaisnavas." (S.B. 4.8.5, purport) 10. Srila Bhaktivinode gives an example of an apasampradaya that is ideologically close to ritvik. "Bhaktivinoda Thakura has mentioned thirteen apasampradayas that deviate from the strict line of Sri Caitanya. The ritvik conception is ideologically closest to the Kartabhaja apasampradaya; one of these thirteen: In Bangladesh, a new version of the Kartabhaja sect was founded by one Anukul Chandra. Posing himself as a Supreme Lord, Anukul Chandra has been worshipped by his followers as such." Firstly we do not jump over Srila Prabhupada in order to find reasons to justify not following one of his direct orders. Secondly the example is nothing like the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada established since: 1.. The guru was claiming to be God Himself. 2.. The guru was thus bogus. 3.. Any type of initiation he did would thus also be bogus. 11) "The underlying diseased vision of the ritvik idea, that all are equally unqualified, is a sign of crippled faith in the process of Krsna consciousness." We have never said anything like the above. Thus the author is merely insulting us without justification, the very thing he is supposed to be aloof from. 12) "To categorically reject all members of the Gaudiya Matha based on particular statements of twenty years past, without a proper look at their individual spiritual qualifications, is foolish, offensive and diametrically opposed to an honest endeavor to find the truth in a spiritually dynamic way. " Srila Prabhupada also writes about the Gaudiya Matha's deviations in his books, which shall be the law for ten thousand years to come. 13) "If we listen to the ritvik proponents, they will tell us even to reject the words of Jiva Goswami (Sat-sandarbhas) and Bhaktivinoda Thakura (Harinama Cintamani) when they don't agree with their particular ideology. They argue that Srila Prabhupada did not present the points illuminated by these acaryas, therefore we can never consider them valid. " It is quite clear from all the above that the author still has a very poor grasp of Srila Prabhupada's instructions and teachings, and yet he is very eager to jump over to previous acaryas. He would be advised to start by trying to get to grips with his own guru's teachings. We do not reject any previous acarya; we just understand them through the current link. To do otherwise is very sinful. 14) "The deliberate attempt to create and maintain Vaisnavas on the plane of lower adhikari (kanistha adhikari) as is the case in iskcon and among ritvik vadis, is a symptom of the incapacity to surrender and reach a higher plane of self abnegation, the plane where the greatest necessity is being served." Since we are not trying to do this, and have never written anything like this, we have no idea what the author is talking about. We are quite happy for everyone to become disciples of the topmost platform. And if they are on this platform they will want to follow Srila Prabhupada's direct order, rather than try to come up with every possible lame excuse under the sun why not to. In Conclusion Given the author's strong recommendation to take siksa from senior members of the Gaudiya Matha, we must assume that he has taken full advantage of such instruction himself. Yet in spite of this it is clear he has not the slightest grasp of the issues, nor of Srila Prabhupad's teachings on how initiation should continue within his society, nor of basic aspects of guru tattva. The author is all too ready to go anywhere and everywhere in his single-minded attempt to justify yet another deviation from a bona fide acarya's instructions (the Gaudiya Matha having already gone against the orders of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and then failing to recognise or surrender to his clear successor). We hope he will reconsider his position in light of the above. Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada IRM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 *Jndas says in a previous thread: The sat-guru can never be institutionalized. The link between a disciple and such a liberated soul is spontaneous and natural. It requires no external confirmation from governing organizations. The liberated soul does not get identified by votes or public opinion. Nor is he "certified" or "authorized". The tradition of guru and shishya has existed for countless millions of years. It has carried on through many past Kali-yugas, and it has withstood the test of time. All the revealed scriptures speak unanimously in a single voice on this topic. We must approach a self-realized soul and receive personal guidance from him. In the Upanishads we find examples of such fortunate souls who found liberated souls to enquire from. The Upanishads are nothing but conversations between self-realized souls and self-realizing souls. Those conversations must take place for us to develop our spiritual potential. Those ancient seekers could have simply referred to the past scriptural passages, but they knew it was not sufficient, for "the absolute truth cannot be known through study of the Vedas". Thus they approached realized souls, and humbly enquired from them about the Absolute Truth. Only personal association with a liberated saint, sadhu-sanga, has the potency to deliver factual realization to us. We are each responsible for our own spiritual destinies. We are free to associate with and enquire from anyone on the planet. Do not place blame on this group or that institution. It is our own fault who we decide to enquire from, or who we decide to accept as a spiritual authority. Krishna is in all of our hearts. When He sees we are sincere He will guide us to a sat-guru, from whom we can enquire just as the seekers of the past enquired from the liberated souls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 To All G.B.C., All Temple Presidents Dear Maharajas and Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as " ritvik "- representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity: His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami His Holiness Jayapataka Swami His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami His Holiness Ramesvara Swami His Holiness Harikesa Swami His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's " Initiated Disciples" book. Hoping this finds you all well- .Your servant, Tamala Krsna Gosvami Secretary to Srila Prabhupada Approved: ..(signed) A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Let us now summarize, point for point, the system formalized by Srila Prabhupada on July 9th, 1977, as documented in the letter to all GBC and Temple Presidents. 1. " Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as " ritvik,- representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation." (N.B. In the presence of the full GBC Body, some senior disciples were appointed, "to act as 'ritvik'- representative of Srila Prabhupada the acarya," for performing first and second initiations.) 2. "His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity: His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami His Holiness Jayapataka Swami His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami His Holiness Ramesvara Swami His Holiness Harikesa Swami His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari (N.B. So far eleven senior disciples names are given by Srila Prabhupada "to act as 'ritvik'- representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya.") 3. "Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple." (N.B. Instead of the previous practice of writing to Srila Prabhupada, the Temple Presidents should "henceforward" write to the "ritvik" representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya nearest to their temple, with their recommendations for initiations.) 4. " After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative." (N.B. The closest " ritvik' representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya", after considering the recommendation for initiation, the 'ritvik' is authorized by Srila Prabhupada to give a spiritual name, and accept the person as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada's. In the case of second initiation the "'ritvik' representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya", can chant gayatri on the person's new brahmana thread. Again it is mentioned that the newly initiated disciple is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, and not of the " 'ritvik' representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya", who it is again mentioned, is only acting as a representative of Srila Prabhupada . 5. " After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before." (N.B. As previously done the Temple President can perform the fire yajna when he receives the spiritual name or brahmana thread from the " ritvik' -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya "'.) 6. "The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's Initiated Disciples book." (N.B. The name of the newly initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada should be sent by the " ritvik'- representative of [srila Prabhupadal] the acarya," to be included in Srila Prabhupada's "Initiated Disciples" book.) So in summary , in this letter it is mentioned that Srila Prabhupada instituted this local "'ritvik' -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acar:va" system, "when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana", and then specifically communicated the system to the entire GBC and Temple Presidents in a letter clearly indicating the following: I. The persons listed were only authorized to act as " ritvik' -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya". 2. The eleven names given were Srila Prabhupada's "His [srila Prabhupada's] senior disciples". 3. These were the names given, quote "so far" indicating that more might be given at a later date. 4. The Temple President was to "henceforward" (N.B. The American Heritage Dictionary defines henceforward as henceforth or from this time forth or from now on) send the name of the recommended person to the, quote "whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple." (ie: the rtvik -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarya" who is located physically closest to the President's temple.) 5. That the new disciples name must be sent by the local " 'ritvik' -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarva" to be included in "His Divine Grace's Srila Prabhupada's Initiated Disciples' book". From the above statements it is clear that "henceforward" this was the system of "first and second initiation".. Srila Prabhupada approved this system, after consulting with the whole GBC in Vrndavana, "Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana".. Srila Prabhupada never consulted with the whole GBC on this matter again, and never issued any other official approved document or order changing the system. Srila Prabhupada never appointed anyone anything more than just " 'ritvik' -representative of the acarva rSrila Prabhupadal". Srila Prabhupada said clearly that all the disciples so initiated by the local " 'ritvik' -reDresentative of rSrila Prabhupadal the acarya" were to be included in "His Divine Grace's [srila Prabhupada's] , Initiated Disciples' book" as ~ bona fide disciples. Actually something like this system was going on in ISKCON before this time. Many Sannyasis and GBC men had chanted on beads and Srila Prabhupada sometimes instructed other persons to pick out names for his disciples. So all that Srila Prabhupada was doing here was to formalize this system. We should also note that there was never any talk of a prospective disciple choosing a guru, because the only guru was Srila Prabhupada and as far as choosing which " 'ritvik' -representative of the acarya Srila Prabhupada" to write to, Srila Prabhupada makes it clear that the Temple President is to write to the nearest one, with all the initiation recommendations from his temple. The fact that Srila Prabhupada went to all the trouble of sending this letter to all the GBC and Temple Presidents means that ~ wanted this system implemented. Since he never implemented any other system, and since he did not want the system of management to change after his disappearance, as we have seen from his will, we conclude, that this system should be practiced even today. Conclusion Since all "executive directors" or "GBC committee members" for the properties must be, "my [srila Prabhupada's] initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books" and "the system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change", the conclusion is that there will always be disciples of Srila Prabhupada in ISKCON. In other words Srila Prabhupada is able to initiate disciples even though he is no longer physically present, just as when he was in India he was able to initiate disciples all over the world by letter and latter after July the 9th , 1977 by allowing some of "His senior disciples" in different parts of the world to be his local " 'ritvik' -representative of [srila Prabhupada] the acarva" and chant on beads, threads and give names, and by also allowing his Temple Presidents to perform the fire yajnas.. What is the difference if Srila Prabhupada is in Gokula Vrndavana (India] or Goloka Vrndavana (the spiritual sky] he gave us a simple system to continue the first and second initiations for him. Thus Srila Prabhupada remains the Founder and the Acarva of ISKCON. Thus ISKCON and the devotees of ISKCON, all followers and bona-fide initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada are united with one purpose, under one acarya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Srila Prabhupada. Therefore taking into consideration all of the above. In accordance with the will of His Divine Grace A.C. .Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, we call upon the executors of Srila Prabhupada's will in cooperation with the GBC body of ISKCON to kindly furnish written proof that they are following each and every mandate given to them by Srila Prabhupada in the above documents, as a sign to all the assembled vaisnavas that we can have faith in them to lead Srila Prabhupada's movement. Specifically we call upon the executors of Srila Prabhupada's will and/or the GBC body to show compliance with sections 2 through 6 of Srila Prabhupada's will by: 1. Publishing the complete list of ISKCON properties and the list of names of the 3 to 5 "initiated disciple(s)" of Srila Prabhupada's who are the "executive directors" or "GBC committee members responsible for the particular property" and who are "strictly following all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books" along with corresponding notarised recorded documents, proving that the GBC are complying with sections 2, 3,and 6. 2. In order to ensure that an "my [srila Prabhupada's] initiated disciple," who is "strictly following all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my [srila Prabhupada's] books," will always be available to replace the "executive directors" or "GBC committee members responsible for the particular property". That the system of initiating Srila Prabhupada's disciples continue "henceforward" exactly as outlined by Srila Prabhupada in the letter approved by him and sent to all GBC and Temple Presidents, dated July 9th,1977. And that since no other system having been approved by Srila Prabhupada, that the GBC body as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON continue "henceforward". "The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change" and the GBC and local representatives of Srila Prabhupada make sure that all devotees initiated in ISKCON since Srila Prabhupada's disappearance and in the future have their names included in "His Divine Grace's Srila Prabhupada's Initiated Disciples book" as per his authorized instructions. Proving that the GBC are complying Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Have you ever preached about Krsna Consciousness by distributing Books, as Srila Prabhupada insisted time and time again rather than distributing political stuff like Back to Prabhupada? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
suchandra 1 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 ISKCON/GM, both had so many falldowns, what's presently the most heard slogan: If a guru does'nt fall down, then he is authorized. But is that realy powerful logic how to defeat the ritviks? Lets say in the next 10 years again five or six other gurus will resign like it happened in the past - who'll accept a guru as something trustworthy? And when the reputation of Vaishnava gurus once is on that level - someone whom you cant really trust - things will be even more difficult than in the Catholic church where priests dont have such an important function and can be easily replaced without any problem. <!-- End PNphpBB2 Attachment Mod --> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 I remember Tribhuvannath Prabhu said once that Rtvik philosophy is maya because the treasure of Krsna Consciousness is just so great... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 hey guest, you are the one in Maya. Following Prabhupada's instructions is Krishn a Consciuosness. NOT following his Instructions ( Specially how initiations should continue) is Maya. It takes a very simple and honest heart to wanna follow the Guru. It takes a very motivated dirty heart to wanna become Guru. Do not be confussed, anyone that follows Prabhupada's instructions 100% is a guru. Guru is a teacher that repeats exactly what his Guru taught. When Prabhupada says, " Become Guru" he is talking about Siksa not Diksa. Yes everyone can become Guru provided he is follow the instructions of the bona-fide Archarya. But Prabhupada never gave an order EVER to Initiate on ones behalf. And why? Because to be a Diksa guru one needs to be a PURE DEVOTEE! Look into it. Chant and realize how dirty and self motivated ISKCON hasd become. It's not even a spiritual movement anymore, just a haven for Dirty hearts, Sure there might be some that are jsut innocent also. But innocence is no excuse, ones one finds out this malicious corruption he should be as angry as a thunderbolt and fight for Prabhupadas Order! Present ISKCON has become, The International Society for Guru posing Consciousness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Why do you delete a post that goes against your dirty hearted opinion? People want to discuss about spirituality Dont Rob them of Knowledge! Is this a one sided forum? My opinion and many 100's of honest devotees are Fed up with the present False philosophy that ISKCON is producing! Yamaraja is the busiest Demigod in Kali-yuga, But dont worry about forgetting that, all you Prabhupada wannabes will soon know that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 post deleated by admin5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Admin5 1 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 We will be deleting posts that are insulting others in an overly broad way.. We will leave the posts that one side or the other use to make their points regarding the meaning of letters ect. The post immediately above, we will leave for now, so that everyone can see the types of posts that will be deleted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 thank you. you can delete the cursing now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 My personal experience and realisation is that a lot of the ISKCON gurus are all pure devotees. I once attended HH Radanatha Swamis lecture and a little into the lecture, his speech was like a flow of nectar and his kirtans are always so esctatic and anyone who has been will most probally tell you as I have heard a lot of people say the same thing (as are HH Sivarama Swamis kirtans are so esctatic and mellow and it is because of that new years eve kirtan that i had joined Krishna Consciousness), so I couldn't understand the Rtvik philosophy or even the makeup of people trying to preach it (by distributing back to prabhupada or other non-devotional literatures instead of prabhupadas special books). I have, by Krsnas mercy, met many pure devotees in ISKCON and have heard stories of many others pure devotees (devotees, gurus), so the purity is already there! There will always be some problems, but this is the material world and problems are everywhere..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 ...one Maharaja said that there are 2 types of ISKCON, the material ISKCON and the spiritual ISKCON where all the pure devotees are Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Wrong. Just like Krishna's body, there isn't any difference. It is all spiritual. This is the truth but only if the society was following the Archarys wishes. Now it is ONLY material. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 but as it is known, insincerity and offences to other VAISHNAVAS will cause Maya to cover up the pure devotees from the eyes of those offenders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 ISKCON learder are not Vaishnavas! The offence is not fighting to stablish Prabhupadas Real ISKCON with Him in the center. You are the one in Maya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Wrong. Just like Krishna's body, there isn't any difference. It is all spiritual. This is the truth but only if the society was following the Archarys wishes. Now it is ONLY material. While we have not reached the stage of anartha nivrtti, then our minds and hearts will be filthy. ISKCON is a society where we try to purify ourselves of that contamination. while we are not freed, to that degree we are effectively in material consciousness hence the 2 ISKCONS I was explaining earlier, (the material ISKCON and the spiritual ISKCON) because our mundane habits are externally expressed: Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja has commented, "We cannot really help ourselves very much; because in our present state we are mainly guided by our previous samskara or acquired nature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 sorry about the cursing. Hare krishna Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 F*** You! Delete That Judging by this response, you are a beginner in Krsna Consciousness. I would recommend you to avoid politics as this damages our spiritual life by misdirecting our attention. Krishna is the goal. Prabhupada said that (regarding so many false gurus in Kali yuga), "Actually you should trust Krsna! He will never let you down!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Wrong! Only if the Principles and wishes of the Spiritual Master are followed it is spiritual, no matter how contaminated one is. Just like we chant Hare Krishna mantra, now we might be filthy sinful, but the chanting is spiritual. If it was not then it would not purify us. If The stablishment follows correctly the wishes of the Archary ( PRABHUPADA) it is ALWAYS spiritual,no matter how dirty one is. No matter how contaminated! why are you quoting Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja ? Srila Prabhupada is the Authority of ISKCON! Hare Krishna Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Judging by your responses, you are not very smart and honest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aashish108 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Have a look at the below website, it seems to have managed to defeat the so called Final Order by IRM, it is called: Deconstructing "The Final Order" and "Ritvik-Vada" IRM - a hoax or really reviving ISKCON ?: http://iskconrevivalmovement.com/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 The Lies of Vijaya Kumar by Bhakta Deepak 13th March 2006 A certain Vijaya Kumar has advertised on the 'Hare Krishna Cultural Journal' that he has done a "point for point" rebuttal of “The Final Order” (TFO). I was curious to read it, since it is well-known that all previous attempts to rebut this paper have failed spectacularly, usually due to the papers not answering what TFO actually states, but instead answering phantom ‘straw man’ arguments. A quick perusal at the matrix of defeated challengers to the IRM on the IRM home-page will make this clear. The use of ‘straw man’ arguments, is a commonly used technique when one is singularly unable to answer the actual arguments of an adversary. One instead answers arguments NOT stated by one’s adversary, because they CAN be answered, and then incorrectly attributes these answered arguments to one’s adversary. This is what the ‘straw man’ technique is. So I was naturally curious to see whether Mr Kumar’s attempt actually does rebut TFO point by point, or if it is too full of ‘straw man’ arguments. I wish to point out that I am no scholar or official representative of the IRM, just as Mr Kumar is no representative or scholar for the GBC. But I CAN read, and I do possess a copy of TFO, and this is the only skill one needs, in order to check if someone is using ‘straw man’ arguments. I shall present all quotes from Mr Kumar’s paper enclosed in parenthesis thus . Mr Kumar’s paper begins in section 1 with him outlining what he thinks “The Final Order advocates”. I say ‘thinks,’ because he does not actually quote TFO itself to show what it is TFO states. On reading further one understands why this is the case, because he states his first ‘straw-man’ argument when he claims the following: [The ritivk-vadis say that this kind of system will solve the problems that are now present in the guru-parampara system, and when this is followed by all devotees the whole ISKCON will become problem-free (as far as problems concerning the present guru-system).] (“What the Final Order Advocates”, Mr Kumar’s reply to TFO) The above of course is not stated anywhere in TFO. Not surprisingly, Mr Kumar then goes onto ‘defeat’ the above ‘straw-man’ argument, not stated in TFO, which is of course par for the course when using the ‘straw-man’ technique. And if Mr Kumar tries to argue that he did not mean to state that the above is explicitly stated in TFO, then why write it in a section titled “What The TFO Advocates”? Next one comes to section 2 of the paper, and one finds bizarrely that Mr Kumar analyses the appendices used in TFO, rather than the actual use TFO makes of these appendices in the main text, which of course is what is relevant to a piece purporting to be a ‘point by point’ rebuttal of TFO. For this we actually need to jump to section 3 of Mr Kumar’s paper, which I did. Even here, bizarrely, Mr Kumar tries to rebut the foreword to the book by an academic scholar! Next he begins on TFO’s Introduction, and in response to this Mr Kumar states: [Let us keep in mind that "one wrong action" (fall down of gurus) is not the support for "another wrong action" (ritvik-vada).] (Reply To TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) Again another ‘straw-man’ argument, since TFO does not state anywhere that “one wrong action” (fall down of Gurus),” supports its conclusion. So let’s keep that in mind! Next in response to the following statement from TFO: “It is our strong conviction that the present guru system within ISKCON should be brought fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's last signed directive on the matter;” (“The Final Order”, Introduction) Mr Kumar states: [The author admits his "STRONG CONVICTION", that the WHOLE PARAMPARA-SYSTEM, has to be based ON ONE LETTER OF PRABHUPADA.] (Reply to TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) Notice the huge ‘straw-man’ difference. TFO states that the present ISKCON Guru system should be ‘brought in line’ with Srila Prabhupada’s directive; whilst Mr Kumar claims TFO states that the “whole parampara-system, has to be based on one letter of Srila Prabhupada”, which of course is not stated in TFO. Next in responding to TFO quoting the GBC stating: "In logic, later statements supersede earlier ones in importance." (GII, p.25)” (“The Final Order, Introduction) Mr Kumar responds: [Of course the science of soul, Supreme Soul, material nature, etc are all explained by Prabhupada in logical way, that does not mean LOGIC has super-seeded the SASTRA.] (Reply to TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) Firstly since TFO is quoting the GBC, he is attempting to rebut them primarily. And secondly, the GBC do not state that ‘logic has super-seeded the SASTRA”. The GBC only states that later statements supersede earlier ones. So yet again Mr Kumar responds to something not stated by TFO, i.e. it is another ‘straw-man’ argument, while at the same time he also unwittingly attacks something the GBC never stated! Next Mr Kumar states: [Next he goes on to say that whoever does not agree with him is A CONSPIRER AGAINST PRABHUPADA by "deliberately disobeying Prabhupada". This is just a sheer assumption, that if any one disagrees with the author, he is against Prabhupada.] (Reply to TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) But TFO does not state this. It actually states the opposite: “thus we consider it highly unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying, or causing others to disobey, a direct order from our Founder-Acarya.” (“The Final Order, Introduction) It is at this point, I realised that Mr Kumar probably does not even have a full grasp of English. For how else can a simple statement that the author of TFO deems it unlikely that anyone is deliberately disobeying Srila Prabhupada, be translated to mean that the author of TFO is stating that anyone not agreeing with him is ‘a conspirer against Prabhupada by deliberately disobeying Prabhupada’?! A ‘straw-man’ argument of the highest order. Next Mr Kumar produces an even bigger whopper by stating: [Then he goes on to say, if any one is against "author" then, that "sin" is also committed against Prabhupada.] (“Reply to TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) TFO does not state this at all. Mr Kumar even embellishes his blatant lie by enclosing the word ‘sin’ with quotation marks. But no such word or idea is used by TFO in the introduction. Continuing with this barrage of mass fabrication, Mr Kumar next states: [Does any one has to use "offense against Prabhupada" to preach Krishna consciousness??] (“Reply to TFO Introduction, Mr Kumar) I don’t know if anyone does, but I do know TFO definitely does not. The term ‘offense against Prabhupada’ or nothing remotely like it is used here in TFO despite Mr Kumar again conjuring up quotation marks to try and convince the reader that TFO is stating something which it is not. Please note, that even before we begin Mr Kumar’s supposed rebuttal of TFO, we are almost a quarter of the way through his lengthy tome, and it is already choc-o-bloc full of ‘straw-man’ arguments! And as we shall now see, Mr Kumar’s attempts to answer the TFO proper itself do not fare any better. Commenting on the Ritvik arrangement made by Srila Prabhupada in the July 9th directive, Mr Kumar states: [All true, Prabhuapda has appointed ritviks to do initiations on his behalf, on his order, not whimsically. And he need not be consulted for initiations. What was the reason ? If Prabhupada was healthier he could not have done that. He could have travelled and initiated everyone personally, but since he was not healthy, needed time to do preach, he had to do like that.] (Reply to TFO Evidence, Mr Kumar) But the arrangement made had no connection with any possible incapacity of Srila Prabhupada. It simply delegates to a ritvik the final part of the initiation process which Srila Prabhupada was still performing: acceptance of a disciple via the granting of a spiritual name, an activity which did not depend on Srila Prabhupada’s health as it did not require him to travel at all, but could easily be performed at any time by him as long as he still retained the use of his vocal chords. On the contrary, as the letter makes clear, the physical initiation ceremonies, which would have depended on Srila Prabhupada’s health and him requiring to travel, were ALREADY being conducted by the Temple President: “*In the past* Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. *After the Temple President receives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before*.” (July 9th Directive, emphasis added) So the change in arrangements made by Srila Prabhupada were to facilitate initiations continuing completely without the physical involvement of Srila Prabhupada; NOT to facilitate procedures that Srila Prabhupada could no longer carry out due to ill-health and being unable to travel, since these procedures had already been delegated. Again it seems evident that Mr Kumar’s inability to understand even simple sentences written in the July 9th directive, stem from his lack of understanding of basic English. For Mr Kumar also writes phrases such as “needed time to do preach” which make no sense in English. The key argument of TFO revolves around the unauthorised modifications made to the July 9th directive by the GBC. These modifications are: “* Modification a) : That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada. * Modification b) : Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.” (‘The Evidence’, “The Final Order”) Commenting on these modifications imposed by the GBC, TFO states: “We refer to a) and b) above as modifications since neither statement appears in the July 9th letter itself, nor in any policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada subsequent to this order.” (‘The Evidence’, “The Final Order”) In response to this statement, Mr Kumar writes: [This is another irrational argument that "everything should appear in one letter".] (Reply to TFO Evidence, Mr Kumar) Note again how Mr Kumar employs another ‘straw-man’ argument by arguing that TFO states that “everything should appear in one letter”. But of course anyone, who has the ability to read simple English, will see that TFO does not state anything of the sort. It simply states that NEITHER of these modifications appear in ANY policy document issued by Srila Prabhupada. Not that “everything” must appear in ONE letter. Commenting on TFO presenting a dictionary definition of the word ‘henceforward’, Mr Kumar states: [The author starts to explain the "hencefoward" to mean "from now onwards", which is perfectly true. Later he adds new meaning to say "'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'." Is the author giving new meaning to "hencefoward" ? I feel the author is trying to give new meaning to the "hencefoward" apart from "from now onwards".] (Reply to TFO Evidence, Mr Kumar) This is a blatant contradiction and ‘straw-man’ argument, which can only be explained again by Mr Kumar not having a basic grasp of English. To state what a word does NOT mean, cannot by definition be GIVING a new meaning to the word. E.g. If I state the word “begin” does NOT mean “to end”, I am not giving a new meaning to the word “begin”. I am simply pointing out, that once the actual meaning of a word is given, all other meanings are excluded. So by saying that TFO “adds new meaning”, when the TFO does not do this, is a ‘straw-man’ argument. And Mr Kumar stating that for TFO to say what henceforward “does NOT mean” is an example of TFO saying what it DOES mean (adding a new meaning), is a self-contradiction. Commenting further on the fact that the July 9th directive does not state that the ritvik arrangement must end on Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure (Modification A), Mr Kumar comments: [Just because it is not ordered to stop, after departure of Prabhupada, means to continue. This sound illogical & insane.] (Reply to TFO Evidence, Mr Kumar) Mr Kumar’s absurdity now moves onto even greater heights. If an instruction is not meant to be continued in the absence of an instruction to stop it, then no instruction could ever be followed. For we could arbitrarily stop it anytime we felt like it, because remember the absence of an order to stop an instruction would not mean it can continue. We could have stopped the July 9th directive on July 10th, since we cannot assume that the absence of an order to stop it on July 10th, means for it “to continue”. And for good measure, Mr Kumar claims that it is “illogical and insane” to continue an instruction simply because it has not been stopped, even though this is the very meaning of “to continue”. Summarising his objection to the July 9th directive, Mr Kumar states: [Prabhuapda is implying "not to disturb him" for initiations any more, continue to act as ritivks, that's all. He is not implying that ritvk initiations should continue after his departure. If that was his idea, Prabhupada would always make clear & complete statements.] (Reply to TFO Evidence, Mr Kumar) Again this is another self-contradiction from Mr Kumar. First he claims that Srila Prabhupada is actually “implying” something in the July 9th directive – “not to disturb him”. Then he states that Srila Prabhupada “would always make clear and complete statements”. Well if this was the case then Srila Prabhupada would not be IMPLYING “not to disturb him”, but rather he would have to state it in the form of a “clear and complete statement”, which of course Srila Prabhupada does not. And it is true that Srila Prabhupada is “not implying” that ritvik initiations should continue after his departure. He is very clearly STATING in the July 9th directive, a system “for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation” for ISKCON. TFO is structured as follows. The first 5 pages present the evidence and supporting evidence, for Srila Prabhupada instituting the ritvik system for ISKCON. The rest of the document deals with possible objections to this evidence. However having come to the end of Mr Kumar’s supposed ‘rebuttal’ of “The Evidence” section, it is very clear that not only has Mr Kumar not rebutted the evidence presented in TFO, but he has not even understood what is being presented, presumably due to his poor grasp of the English language. Consequently he has presented a litany of ‘straw-man’ arguments, followed by self-contradiction. It is therefore not necessary to read any more of Mr Kumar’s 222 page ramblings, for he has demonstrated that he cannot even UNDERSTAND what the TFO states, let alone rebut it. I would recommend he enrols on an English course, learns to read and understand accurately, and try to rebut the TFO again, in say, a year, when at least he will be able to understand what it is he is supposedly rebutting. Others who have read Mr Kumar’s paper, such as Sudama prabhu and other IRM followers to whom Mr Kumar specifically sent his paper to, asking for feedback, agree with my analysis, and have asked that this be the combined feedback of us all to be conveyed to Mr Kumar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
