Social: [Closed] is sampradaya sun a ritvik site?

Thank you Swarup prabhu for taking the time to answer but I should have been more specific - my question was directed towards Jahnava dasi.

VEDA:'molester messiah cult' - never heard of anything like that happening in ISKCON in the last 20 years or so. That person really loves to live in the past. Btw, 'free speech' is unknown in Vedic society. Any adharmic speech is stopped, esp. by brahmanas (curses) and ksatriyas (weapons).

Talk about living in the past... What contemporary brahmana has the power to stop anyone by curses? "Shut the F- up!" is about the best they can do, but I doubt that's a Vedic mantra. LOL.

Of course, everyone considers his own view to be dharma. The Sampradaya Sun provides a place for various views to be discussed among devotees so that we can see which withstand scrutiny. Those who are opposed obviously don't have much confidence in their propaganda.

In the matter of ksatriyas shutting people up, was that an endorsement of the folks who blew Sulocana's face off with a few bullets at close range?



http://www.igor-film.org/gb.html

I wasn't aware that free speech wasn't allowed in Vedic culture.

Pandu P., curses still work today, although not as efficiently as before.

> everyone considers his own view to be dharma.

Therefore POVs don't count as evidence, due to well-known four errors of baddha jivas.

No endorsement. Sulocana wasn't doing anything adharmic. Kirtanananda was.

Girinayaka P., all this is a strawman. I speak about Vedic society in old times.

Today's free speech means just whatever one thinks regardless of dharma/g-s-s. Even in religious forums like Beliefnet prevails prajalpa in the form of sentiment, wishful thinking and attacks on religion. Hardly anyone is able to talk acc to g-s-s.

>people expressed their doubts about chastity

Yes, but they didn't claim She's unchaste without proof. That's quite a difference.
If it'd be nowadays we'd see huge tabloid headlines: "Sita unchaste!" That's a lie, i.e. adharma.

Doubts are not adharma but a function of buddhi. (SB 3.26.30) Still, doubts are best revealed humbly and in private (pranipatena pariprasnena), to not disturb others. Not in a challenging mood, what to speak of a public insinuation. Going public should be only the last step. Nowadays it's often the first.

These various conclusions should be within the range of dharma though. That's important. Sankaracarya, interestingly, didn't debate with Vaisnavas, at least I'm not aware of it.
Also, at the end of his Sariraka bhasya he accepts difference between liberated jiva and isvara, i.e. doesn't contend sutras. This is pretty revealing.

I can't say anything about Radhanatha M., since there is contradictory information.

Although dharmasastras don't give rules for every case, one who understands the general principle won't be confused in most cases.

So I try to stay away from aparadhas. When Chakra became offensive, I stopped reading it.
For the same reason I don't feel attracted to Sun or other similar sites.

I like your attitude Pandu Prabhu, please keep sharing such good thoughts.

Mishraji, no way, different doesn't mean automatically offensive. The tone and purpose count. A common sense.
While preaching online I'm far from being sheltered. 8)
For me a website (it's editors, obviously) is offensive when it allows an offense against a Vaisnava to be published, what to speak of repeatedly. Many devotees took aparadha lightly and they're not anymore around.
Everyone reads acc to one's tendencies. And I read these news sites sparsely anyway.

several definitions of a Vaisnava:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/vaisnavism.htm#7

Vaisnava aparadha:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-1.htm#2

> Does the word vaishnava applies to pure vaishnavas only?

No.

Btw, I also heard of pure kanistha, pure madhyama and pure uttama. Any references?

> If not, is there a difference between offense to a pure devotee and a sadhaka immersed in the modes of nature?

The strength of reaction. Plenty of examples in Vedic and GV history (Ramacandra Puri vs. Haridas Thakur, Ramacandra Khan vs. Sri Nityananda, etc. etc.).

Yes, SB 11.2.45-. Long and interesting purports. Thanks for refs.

Risking to offend someone by suggesting a truth is not an offense. Implication that by revelation of the truth the Vaisnava is actually not a Vaisnava is. It is the insinuations that are offensive, not the truth itself. Why would a Vaisnava be offended by truth? Anything will serve to help him to feel more humble, but your intent could be an offense (and could be a desire to help on contrary). I find some articles in SS to be far from trying to find a truth and are specifically only personal attacks, which is by definition is an offense. If you do not find it, we must be talking about two different SS.

What pariprashnena(or you can say the people("Devotees") here on the forum) have done to me is, pushed me more into the ignorance of confusion. I thought it to be a website(as the name suggests) where all my questions would be answered but after going through this particular discussion I feel myself in a quagmire of doubt.

Thanks to those who answered my questions earlier.
Good bye, pariprashnena and team.

Hare Krishna.
Das

raj108: Not sure what exactly made you confused. If you specify, I'll try to elaborate.

Janmastami P.: I purposely said "in ISKCON-related discourse". Don't personally remember ZA period but from what I know about it have no reason to disagree with you. Otoh, I've identified ritvik strategy in points 1,2,3,5,6,8 and 9. These are all materialistic ways which should be absent among devotees.

re: #9 -- Misinformation and preaching to the 'rear' ranks of the devotees is a common tactic of the enemies of the movement. That includes -- taking quotes out of context, using misunderstanding to flame passions of resentment, suggestive implication that anyone who is a leader must be wrong, because of some other wrongs, making any mistake of leadership into a cause of failure instead of a ''pillar of success'' as Prabhupada wanted, etc. Is it right Veda Prabhu. (do you still wear glasses? have not seen you since '96:)

VEDA:I've identified ritvik strategy in points 1,2,3,5,6,8 and 9. These are all materialistic ways which should be absent among devotees.

Regarding these materialistic strategies, remember that most of them are taught, promoted and encouraged in the in the Manu-samhita and Mahabharata as bonafide and essential strategies in managing a kingdom, i.e. sowing dissension, sending spies, using gifts and bribery, ridiculing opponents. Note also that some of these strategies are used in spreading Krishna consciousness to preach against materialism; i.e discredit the opposition, undermine good name, ridicule leaders, gifts and bribery, ridicule traditions. So in and of themselves the strategies are not bad. As always, it's the motive behind the performer that counts.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite] There's a recent example (2 weeks ago) from Prague. One lady, a rather fresh devotee, was talking on FB with another devotee who was first posing as if from ISKCON but then started preaching ritvikism to her, telling her how her guru is off, etc. She was pretty dismayed and confused, not coming into contact with ritviks before. This covert approach reminds me of JWs.[/quote]
============

Veda, there are mistakes on all sides. Not hard to find mistakes. One should learn to see good in others. Devotee is like a bee.

I'm sure, if you try a bit, you will be able to find good even in actions of those ISKCON devotees, who are being demonized by the label "ritvik".

BTW, your points from your list could be applied also to some actions of some GBCs. It is not that mistakes are copyright of ritviks, and GBC proponents are imune to making any mistakes.

Try to see good, become a bee, and your life will be a much happier one.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Giri-nayaka P., the talk is not about mistakes but patterns, tactics. 'Wolf in sheep's clothes' mentioned above being just one of them.
I can see good in devotees who accepted ritvikism out of frustration and lack of information, i.e. became its victims. But I have no respect whatsoever for those running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed. The effect of aparadha is full-fledged in their case. Unfortunately, they don't seem to believe in it. That's maya apahrta jnana.
Being like a bee doesn't apply in case of apasiddhanta and adharma in general. They have to be opposed by all means, otherwise one gets implicated.[/quote]
==============

ok, ok.... I can see that you are full of determination to expose all those who are 'Wolf in sheep's clothes' , their "patterns, tactics".... You say you have no respect whatsoever for those running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed, those full-fledged aparadhis. Although they don't consider themselves to be so. But, as you say, that's "maya apahrta jnana"... As you say, "Being like a bee doesn't apply in case of apasiddhanta and adharma in general." They have to be opposed by all means, I see what you mean.

Well, it seems you are from Czech yatra. Why bothering with ritviks at all, they are few and confused anyway. BUT, your own GBC's group could be well approached with your determined approach. You would have plenty of work to do cleaning the Prague, for example, including Czech GBC representative. Ritviks are far and weak, why are you even bothering. Do the cleaning where it is really needed - in front of your own door. By demonizing ritviks left and right, the GBC courtyard will not get any cleaner.

Sorry, but I will not accept any biased fanatical statements from anybody, who is demanding purity from some, but is actually screaming out of his self inflicted repressed environment. You are well conditioned by GBC system (and especially the Czech version of it, which is a kind of weirdness in itself), and all your anti-ritvik ranting may as well be just result of your own feeling of repression within GBC system. Are you sure you are right? Are you sure you are not misled? I mean' it's not like you never made mistake before, is it?

Why not take a bit of distance from GBC system, and their numerous, numerous nonsense. Be fair judge. Put GBC's and ritvik's side by side, and judge them from a bit of distance. You may be surprised about who is more into "apasiddhanta and adharma in general", "running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed", and who needs to be "opposed by all means, otherwise one gets implicated".

Veda: >>>One lady, a rather fresh devotee, was talking on FB with another devotee who was first posing as if from ISKCON>>>>

Veda Prabhu, Why do you think that devotee mentioned in this example does not belong to ISKCON. What makes us part of ISKCON, what is your definition of ISKCON?
Thank you.

I think for a lot of people it comes down to this: they know that Srila Prabhupada is never going to fall down, so they have faith in him. Any other living person they cannot be so sure about, so they are attracted to putting their faith principally in Srila Prabhupada. Present-day ISKCON's official stance on the role of Srila Prabhupada and the ritvik idea are very close. The idea is to "put Prabhupada in the center". Turning it into an -ism introduces other dynamics.

VEDA:Giri-nayaka P., you're shifting the debate. If you want to talk about GBC deviations, it'd belong to another thread. However, I don't know how this fits the purpose of Pariprashnena. Seems like Pariprashnena recently went the same political way as many other devotee forums, despite it's hopeful statement to avoid politics. .

Could you please be more specific where you see our terms of service violated and we´ll do the needful.

As my contribution:

The issue of how to structure a society based on Vedic principles within an existing society is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue. Anything involving multiple people is always going to be complex, because people are individuals. Any society has a shifting center of balance as competing interests and needs vie for ascendancy. This is natural.

The disciplic succession, established by Krishna Himself, is not immune to the environmental factors of the material world. This is why in Bhagavad-gita He states that over time it is lost, and He must return to re-establish it.

To demonstrate some of the complexity of the situation, which is too often rendered down into two simple, opposing ideological positions, I would like to tell of one aspect.

Srila B.R. Sridhara is claimed as both a proponent of ritvikism and also as a proponent of the Zonal Acarya system (even "its architect") by different people.

In terms of claming him as a ritvik proponent, his words (quoted in the book "Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion") are cited:

"With this I transfer these beads; from now he [Govinda Maharaja] will do so on my behalf as ritvik. The ritvik system is already involved both here and in the foreign land. The ritvik is the representative, so if you want to take [initiation] from me and you take from his hand then it will be as well and as good as taking from me. In the maha mandal [earth] Sargar Maharaja [formerly Akshayananda Swami] and many others, they are also ritviks of Swami Maharaja [Srila Prabhupada] and also myself and they may do so. But in this Math he, Govinda Maharaja will be the representative. Henceforth he will represent me in this affair beginning from today's function.

Now I shall go from here, [depart the material world] he will do the necessary on my behalf. He will give Hari Nama diksa, sanyasa and everything."

As a counter point to this, the transcripts of the conversations between Srila Sridhara Maharaja and the ISKCON leaders who went to see him after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance (which can be found in Srila B.A. Paramadvaiti Swami's book "The Search for Purity") paint a fuller picture.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja tells how after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, all the disciples met to decide what to do. One disciple made an impassioned speech that no-one was fit to occupy the post of acarya after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. He advocated some kind of ritvik system. After he finished speaking everyone looked to Srila Sridhara Maharaja, who said: "I agree with everything that you have said. I will add only one more thing: We are not Sikhs."

With this he was referring to the elevation of Guru Nanak to the position occupied by Jesus Christ in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. It represents a transformation of the essential dynamic of transmission of Vedic knowledge and culture from guru to disciple.

There are faults in everything, and no matter which way you look at it there will be some discrepancy. But the clear message was: "Tradition, for all thy fault and our inability to do it perfectly, I still love thee. We have to uphold the tradition as best we can, because that is what we pass on to the next generation, as well as the knowledge that travels through this tradition."

When the ISKCON leaders approached Srila Sridhara Maharaja for advice after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, he attempted to advise them based on his experience of the post-Prabhupada Gaudiya Math.

Some of his advice was used to justify the Zonal Acarya System, and some of it, which could have ameliorated the excesses of that system, was ignored and suppressed.

For example, he suggested, after some discussion, that rather than having the pranam mantra of a particular successor guru sung in kirtan in a temple, the non-sectarian "om ajnana" mantra could be used, followed by Srila Prabhuapda's pranam mantra. In this way the disciples of all successor gurus could think of their guru when they sung the mantra, and no-one would be overly discriminated against or for.

He also recommended that successor gurus should not occupy Srila Prabhupada's seat in his temples, but should always sit on a lower seat. They should open their own temples where they could demonstrate in practice their spiritual potency, and receive an appropriate reciprocal recognition and status. In this way unqualified persons riding on Srila Prabhupada's reputation and running the goodwill and momentum of ISKCON into the ground could be avoided.

This advice, and other advice like it, was discarded, and chosen parts of his advice were presented and implemented, and devotees forbidden to speak to him directly.

Why should anyone have to go outside of ISKCON for an answer for how to obey Srila Prabhupada's order for initiations? Satsvarupa, representing the GBC, asked him directly on May 28, 1977. Obviously the matter wasn't clear from his prior conversations, books, letters, etc., or there would have been no need to ask. So he was asked, but unfortunately the tape has been determined by the GBC's own professional analyst to be unreliable, showing signs of possible tampering. I don't know why they won't provide the original tape for forensics, but it suggests they have something to hide. In any case it does not matter because the subject of the May 28 conversation is undisputed -- how to conduct initiations after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. The other fact that is indisputable is that the July 9 letter begins by referencing that conversation, and this can only mean that it is an official written promulgation answering the same question. I don't see how it can be any other way, and so far no one has even offered a challenge to this reasoning. Hare Krishna.

Pandu P., I didn't notice any solid arguments of yours. No g-s-s, no practice in established sampradayas, only two docs meant to overthrow all the previous standard Vaishnava teachings of SP.

> There is evidence from statements much earlier in ISKCON's years that Srila Prabhupada optimistically hoped for a successor,

One of those much earlier statements: "Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program." (Letter to Hamsaduta, LA Jan 3, 1969)

> one moon, not many stars

This simply means that one pure devotee is better than hundreds of neophytes. BSST also said it.

> There is also no record of him describing the transition of rtviks to zonal acaryas would take place, and no record of him explaining how multiple diksa gurus would function under the authority of the GBC. Whatever one believes Srila Prabhupada intended, all this is missing.

My understanding is that due to his ill health and inexperience of his disciples with legal matters the successorship issue was very much neglected.

Gauridas's testimony was challenged. You can look up details.

Talk about missing tapes and their possible content is useless unless they're found. Before that it's only a conspiration theory.

> Similarly Bhaktiviabhava Puri Maharaj is quoted as saying that Srila Prabhupada told him, "I have not selected. Only rtviks to act in my place now."

"Now" = before tirobhava. So this "now" specifies "henceforward".

One who is not in "good standing" can't fulfil any official functions in ISKCON.
Membership in an organization means to accept its philosophy. If someone doesn't want that, why should he remain in? If you think ISKCON deviated from a proper path (ritvikism), why do you support it by your service? To me it's a contradiction. Or?

> Similarly I have not been notified of any action against me by this committee

Then contact them to get their position in writing.

Overglorification of ISKCON gurus was greatly reduced in the last 20 years. It'd require some kind of police to search for 'guru fans' all around the net and discipline them. Hope you see the infeasibility of this idea.

Alchemical: Let them follow Prabhupada who didn't condemn anyone but his deviant disciples, materialistic scientists, mayavadis and apasiddhantas. I don't recall him calling bad names anyone.

It is funny how tradition and sastra just does not stick to the western mindset (and combined with video mobile phones look funny as well). One can only smile on overemphasis of diksa -- Prabhupada did not care about diksa process so much - as we discovered... He stressed instructions of Krsna and following it. Why are we so much hung up on diksa? Are we some quasi-disciples of Sridhara Maharaja of Navadvipa (as Sitapati pr. suggests in a way). In any case - be one an impersonalist-like-ritvikvadi or thinking oneself to be a big-acharya, whatever pitfalls one gets into, there is a way out - devotee association and discussion of Bhagavatam and Gita together. Try it and you will give up taste for Sampredicament Sin and its spinoffs.

So stop this obsession and resulting looped discussion with diksa roles and duties, it is not central. Bhakti process is, so avoid offenses to both camps and just associate with devotees without reservations and without projecting your own misunderstandings on others.

Real enemies are:

ccd: Agreed. I'm suprised that Pariprashnena remained free from politics for almost two years. Would be nice to keep it as such for the benefit of all devotees.