Philosophy: Ritviks Explanation?

"I just think that devotees who accept Srila Prabhupada's teachings should be considered members of ISKCON so that we can work together to advance our common goal. What's so funny about that?" I understand that its a good idea to have a peaceful solution, but you should keep in mind, that there is more infighting between different ritvik groups then can possibly be sustained in one organization.

I was not offensive, I just being straight, why do you have a problem with his own words?

Now, they're competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the gṛhasthas, they are called dāsa adhikārī, and brahmacārīs, everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent.

Do you think he was wrong or was not telling the truth? That is an offensive attitude and I think you did not mean what you have said... I am sure you agree with him.

> Prabhupada uses the term ritvik many times in His books.

Only in reference to yajnic priests.

> I think the critism is based world-wide.

You think wrongly.

> please tell us which gurus are bonified and why.

See Krishna Bhajanamrta. Elaborately quoted here by Sitapati P.

'Happiness' in being post-samadhi ritvik initiated is just an ignorance of the situation which involves guru-sadhu-sastra aparadha.

Imho, if Vaisnavas from other sampradayas would learn how much time is spent in ISKCON discussing this non-issue, we'd lose a lot of credibility.

...what can and cannot be done is not for any living person today to say.Krishna can change the rules at any time.Lord Chaitanya can change the rules at anytime,it is no ones business to decide whom Krishna will hear or not hear.

...I say trick the masses into chanting Hare Krishna and giving up cow slaughter by telling them ... " you are now a follower of Srila Prabhupada " so chant and be happy.

Can someone show me in Prabhupada's books where a group of neophytes decided how the disciplic succesion would continue ?

..." anything else would be a change to how the disciplic succession works." this is your speculation only,anything can change at any time,we must do the neccesary,according to time place and circumstance,Prabhupada initiated women,wasn't He criticised for doing that?

..." if Vaisnavas from other sampradayas would learn how much time is spent in ISKCON discussing this non-issue, we'd lose a lot of credibility",so how is Iskcon's credibility doing in the UK these days,the media there has just reported that Bhaktivedanta Manors Temple President had to step down because has been convicted of being a horrific child-abuser and compulsive liar who has been bilking that temple out of hundreds of thousands of dollars,if he did those things to childern in the US he would be breaking large rocks into little rocks for the next 10 years.

"Prabhupada initiated women,wasn't He criticised for doing that?" - I think it is safe to say that we are talking with the blank wall of ignorance here, clearly... I am also out of here...

hariharibol:... this is your speculation only,anything can change at any time,we must do the neccesary,according to time place and circumstance,Prabhupada initiated women,wasn't He criticised for doing that? (....) so how is Iskcon's credibility doing in the UK these days,the media there has just reported that Bhaktivedanta Manors Temple President had to step down because has been convicted of being a horrific child-abuser and compulsive liar who has been bilking that temple out of hundreds of thousands of dollars,if he did those things to childern in the US he would be breaking large rocks into little rocks for the next 10 years.

I am not aware of anybody criticizing Prabhupada for initiating women. In our traditon women were always eligible for initiation. Some of his Godbrothers were surprised he gave the Brahma-Gayatri mantra to women, that's all. Let's not make mountains out of mole-hills. I am definitely not someone who is a GBC cheerleader willing to defend their often very poor track record, but I can tell you for example, that there were extremely serious scandals in Prabhupada's times as well, involving people he personally selected for various positions. Have you ever heard of problems with scam fundraising in Japan during those years for example? That is where most money for the Mayapur project came from back then. If not, someone older should clue you in. How about Kirtanananda? Was GBC responsible for that too? People are fallible, regardless of who appoints them, that is a fact. IMO damage to credibility of ISKCON happens time and time again because of the way this organization was, and still is, managed. The authoritarian, top down management system, with minimal provisions for accountablility, checks and balances, and reliable oversight, produced most of the scandals in the last 40 years of Iskcon's history. People are fallible, but unimpeded power can be very corrupting even to the good individuals. In Prabhupada's times there were even sannyasis who run off with suitcases full of money. Did Prabhupada send police after them? No. For one reason or another he did not. Srila Prabhupada did not like the western management systems and was always trusting his disciples and hoping they would do the right thing. When they did not do the right thing, was Srila Prabhupada to blame? How about now? Is GBC responsible for some crooked TP? If it is, than such responsibility is very indirect, perhaps as a failure of oversight. The ritviks try to convince you that their system would have prevented all such abuses. That is nothing more than an empty politician's promise: "Give me the power and I will make things right". They are clueless as to the reasons for such problems, and their 'solutions' are not much better. Somehow the 'ritvik gurus' would have been just and noble, humble and wise, and the ritvik managers and TP's would have used the perfect methods and models Prabhupada supposedly developed and applied in the 70's... what a hopeless fairytale...

Phani Prabhu, Hare Krishna.

>“nowhere in his books, conversations, or letters does srila prabhupada refer to 'post-samadhi ritvik initiations.'”

He established a fully-automated rtvik initiation process. Where, in his books, conversations, or letters, did he ever say that it should be stopped post-samadhi?

>“'post samadhi ritvic initiation' would be a completely new phenomenon in any vedic Sampradaya”

… As would pre-samadhi rtvik initiations, which Srila Prabhupada instituted.

>“if i can take initiation from prabhupada today, who's going to stop me from becoming a disciple of bhaktivinoda thakura, or even lord brahma?”

Srila Prabhupada instituted it; the others did not.

>“it's a different issue, as pandu prabhu says, that devotees can _not_ take initiation today, develop faith in srila prabhupada through his books, recordings, etc., and make progress in devotional service--even up to the point of prema, i believe.”

Perhaps someone else said that.

>“guru to disciple. and to enter into this guru-disciple relationship, both have to be living.”

Rtvik is also guru to disciple. So your view is based on the idea that Srila Prabhupada is his material body, and that he is therefore dead?

>“people who think they follow prabhupada decide that the parampara system has to be changed,”

It was the GBC who changed the system that Srila Prabhupada established shortly before his mahasamadhi. Where did he say it was to be stopped?

>“> please tell us which gurus are bonified and why.
>See Krishna Bhajanamrta. Elaborately quoted here by Sitapati P.”

I thought he was asking for your judgment. If you don’t think we can properly understand Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, how can we understand Krishna Bhajanamrta?

>“...and here i'm getting out of this discussion again. just isn't worth my time.”

It's worth your time to speak your mind, but not to hear the response?

pandu: "It's worth your time to speak your mind, but not to hear the response?"

yes. i've listened to this discussion for a long time and heard all the responses. there's nothing new being said.

i spoke my mind mainly because of you, pandu prabhu. i've got the impression that you are a serious devotee, badly fried by unfortunate circumstances and, to say it mildly, over-zealous followers of one charismatic guru.

you're really trying to understand these issues, to make sense of your experiences and srila prabhupada's instructions. the other participants in this discussion, on both sides, already know what they're going to believe, and nothing anybody says can change that.

once again: srila prabhupada never instituted a posthumous ritvic system. he was bodily alive while accepting disciples, and that has always been the case as long as our sampradaya exists.

that the process apparently was 'fully automatic' at some time means that srila prabhupada trusted those he delegated the decision to to approve of new disciples or not.

had he desired to introduce a new system like posthumous initiation, he would have spelled that out very clearly. everything else is wishful thinking and concoction.

i'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but i can't understand how there can be the slightest doubt about this in the mind of anybody who's read at least some of srila prabhupada's books.

you're getting entangled in technicalities and word jugglery. it was never srila prabhupada's way to hide important procedures about how devotional service should be conducted behind riddles and half-spoken instructions that have to be interpreted in artistic ways to understand what he wanted to say.

he made it very clear, for anybody with at least half a brain to understand, what needs to be done.

and now i'm gone for good...

Dear Phani prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Thanks for your input. I, however, haven't heard it all, and am still trying to digest some of what I've heard. Aside from the arguments from the various sides, there is the persistent fact that I feel a very close connection with Srila Prabhupada and that it is undoubtedly he who planted the seed of Krishna consciousness in my heart. It was very difficult to choose one of his disciples from the guru list. Reading the purports in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta describing how the initiation process works in ISKCON, there was no mention of this part of the process. I felt like I already had a guru and was being forced to choose another one, when in fact my faith in the second was entirely dependent on the first. It feels very unnatural to me and does not inspire me in devotional service. It's only purpose is/was to allow me to serve in ISKCON. I just wish I could drop the pretenses and admit who is the guru in my heart.

"wow ! and some devotees believe that ?" - no nobody believed you, except for Pandu, try again at home first. We do not deify diksa gurus, they are servants of the acharya, the founder acharya.

Pandu prabhu, obeisance at your feet. All glories to Prabhupada.
"We accept that which is favorable to our Krsna consciousness and reject that which is not". If forced acceptance of a "bona-fide, "ISKCON" guru is an impediment to your spiritual well being, which is quite obvious, then the only wise choice is to reject. Because everything takes place in the heart, and you have these strong feelings regarding Srila Prabhupada in your heart, then use the intelligence Krsna gave you and leave it at that. Do what Prabhupada is revealing to you in your heart. Don't let outside forces from any "camp" persuade you otherwise. You sound like a sincere devotee Pandu prabhu. Follow your heart regarding this matter.
ccd; Yes Bubba, let us poke fun at, and joke about the spiritual lives of sincere devotee's who obviously need some answers and sincere direction. Good job. But for one who lacks in sincerity, it is impossible for him to project any sincerity. Therefore, what you say is right on the money as usual.

Pandu: "Honestly, if you were a new bhakta in recent times, would you feel comfortable taking initiation from ANY of Srila Prabhupada's disciples? Didn't some prove to have little faith, at least? Some perhaps a little crazy? Would you really take the orders of any of Srila Prabhupada's disciples as your life and soul?"

I feel if I was a young bhakta I would have the same amount of my sukrity and I would be lucky to have good association, where whatever little faith I have will be nurtured.

I have to be very honest with you and I never take anyones mundane words as life and soul but I take solace in other peoples words, I never tried to be a fanatic and any fanatical attitude to a guru is strongly discouraged by me.

If they have at least a little faith you can overcome so many things, if you are not a fanatic. I prefer talking to devotees who have problems or doubts rather then fanatics. It makes me feel sane insted. The only reason I may not feel comfortable in taking initiation from ANY, because of my own problems or weaknesses or if I was not lucky enough to end up in the company of devotees who are a funny combination of fanatics and perpetual critics, the two camps we are talking about claiming to follow Prabhupada, not a good choice if you ask me.

ccd, accepting GBC certified guru, and upon his request seeing some others devotees as enemies is far from "essential limbs of bhakti". I'd also say to Pandu "follow your heart". If he sees ritviks as solution to his dilemma, then ok, let him go for it, and try. I bet he will burn his fingers, and will not find there what he is looking for, but that's my vision. He may need to try it out, to be able to differenitate more between internals and externals of our path. I also have hard time grasping internal path, without putting it in some perspective relative to externals. We all have our conditioning to deal with, so why not try alternatives, and learn?

I think Giri N is on the trip against anything connected with GBC, as if there is no God and he is not in control. As if Prabhupada has nothing to do with it.

One should not see other devotees on ones enemies, just as appropriately - fanatics, ritviks, friends etc. Why would you hate anyone who deserves a laugh? The idea that apasampradaya can live peacefully with the sampradaya in one institution is well intended stupidity, there is nothing to hate, except for ignorance.

ccd:I think Giri N is on the trip against anything connected with GBC, as if there is no God and he is not in control. As if Prabhupada has nothing to do with it. One should not see other devotees on ones enemies, just as appropriately - fanatics, ritviks, friends etc. Why would you hate anyone who deserves a laugh? The idea that apasampradaya can live peacefully with the sampradaya in one institution is well intended stupidity, there is nothing to hate, except for ignorance.

CCD, A few more questions, if it's OK. I'm trying zone in on the corner you're painting yourself into...

Is God only in control of the establishment, not the challengers?

When the Zonal Acarya system was the rule, did you consider that "sampradaya" too?

Can the GBC only be wrong when THEY decide they're wrong?

Hare Krishna.

Pandu das: Other devotees have a different story. Many developed faith in Krishna consciousness through the preaching and association of Srila Prabhupada's disciples and feel a strong bond with them. That seems to be the situation with Bhakti-Tirtha Swami's disciples at Gita-nagari. They love Srila Prabhupada through Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. If I wanted to take that away from them, I would indeed be like an enemy. But I don't.

Problem is that most ritvik proponents are quite happy trying to destroy the faith of such people in their guru. It is defacto their main mission. And that is why the ritviks are usually seen as the enemy by the current gurus and their disciples. For most ritviks current gurus are just a bunch of cheaters and their disciples are a bunch of naive fools who should only have faith in Prabhupada. I respect other people's opinions - but only to the point where their opinions are not offensive to other Vaishnavas, be it current Iskcon gurus, Prabhupada's Godbrothers, Gaudiya Matha devotees, or any other Vaishnava camp. They can believe in the ritvik system if they like, as long as they act like real Vaishnavas.

I don't doubt that Krishna is in control and that Srila Prabhupada is easily potent enough to make gurus, but doesn't it also depend on the disciple's free will? The actual important question isn't about the guru's or so-called guru's purity and attachment to devotional service, but of mine.

Assuming that Srila Prabhupada was satisfied with his disciples' progress and considered them gurus in their own right... I've taken initiation from such a guru. Why, then, do I remain in the bodily conception of life, unable to subdue my desire to enjoy these material senses? Why can I not remember Krishna even after meeting Him in this lifetime? Why do I have virtually no potency to attract others to Krishna consciousness?

I ask this not only due to my own lamentation, but as a matter of logic. If the qualification of the current gurus was simply a due to Srila Prabhupada's potency, then my own spiritual development should also be a entirely dependent on my guru's potency. If I can remain fallen despite haveing a bona fide guru, then the advancement of the current gurus can also be questionable. Since my personal faults and virtues seem to play a very significant role in my spiritual advancement, not just my guru's potency, then it would seem that the same would be true of my guru's relationship with Srila Prabhupada. Thus, the qualification of the current gurus would not be simply a matter of Srila Prabhupada's potency to make gurus. In fact, I've been told that the mercy of the guru on the granddisciple is greater than on the disciple. Yet, when all the factors are added up, the result is that I somehow remain bereft of Krishna consciousness. That is the problem I need to solve.

Considering all this, it seems that spiritual advancement is not just due to the guru's potency, but also due to the disciple's service to the guru. This brings us back to the question of how purely the current gurus are serving Srila Prabhupada. It may be that they retain some material interest, and if I surrender to such a contaminated guru, whether aware of their impurity or not, it will be a long road back to Godhead. I have no such doubt about Srila Prabhupada.

Pandu das: Considering all this, it seems that spiritual advancement is not just due to the guru's potency, but also due to the disciple's service to the guru. This brings us back to the question of how purely the current gurus are serving Srila Prabhupada. It may be that they retain some material interest, and if I surrender to such a contaminated guru, whether aware of their impurity or not, it will be a long road back to Godhead. I have no such doubt about Srila Prabhupada.

Do you think that if you do your part, Lord Krsna will abandon you just because your guru was 'not pure enough'? You are right in thinking that having even the best guru is not a guarantee that our road to Krsna will be short and sweet. How many of Prabhupada's so called old and close disciples did not amount to much in the realm of devotion? Quite a few. Yet the reverse is true as well: if you are renounced, honest and sincere, than having a 'second or third class' guru will be no handicap for you. Do not worry about the potential contamination your guru might have. Worry about your own real contamination. Some devotees in Iskcon think that unless a guru is perfect in every way, he is not fit to be accepted as guru. That is pure sentimentalism, not shastric wisdom. Serving a physically present guru is much harder than serving an ideal that just hangs high on the wall. Many devotees found that out even with Srila Prabhupada. A physically present guru can yell at you, be critical of you, push you to do things you don't like, and even appear mundane precisely when you expect transcendence. Just ask those who served Prabhupada. That is why in the vedic tradition we have paramparas of physically present gurus, not just pictures of saints on the wall, or books on the shelves. One day you will understand that we are much better off that way.

Yes, these resolutions are fine. It is just that in practice things are done differently. Especially fanatical disciples of big gurus are not working according to above GBC resolutions, and it seems their big gurus support that and encourage it at least to some degree.

And regarding 601/2000 resolution, it is still a tough one for many to accept, that one can accept Srila Prabhupada as his principle siksa-guru. (they will say, how can you accept him, without being accepted by him...) Many confuse this with ritvik system, and have unjust reservations towards devotees with ISKCON diksa, who openly admit to be siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

In a controversial situation, I generally find little credibility in someone who gives their point of view without acknowledging contrary evidence or opposing arguments. For example, it is true that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become diksa gurus, but he also gave caveats such as "first become qualified," and "on my order." The "disciple of my disciple" and "regular guru" references are taken out of context. They were spoken immediately after "When I order, 'You become guru,' he becomes..." The fact that the GBC takes the part they like out of a context that is not favorable to them is highly suspect. It seems to me that in this matter the GBC refers to its own presumed authority more than to any clear authorization by Srila Prabhupada, but I don't know of any instance when Srila Prabhupada authorized the GBC to decide who can become initiating guru and who cannot.

It is true that there are instances when he expressed his desire for his disciples to become initiating gurus, but these cannot be taken as authorization, due to the "first become qualified" caveat. I can tell my children many times that I want them to become doctors, but that does not mean I want them to practice medicine without first learning the science and obtaining a medical degree along with any other applicable licenses. After being qualified, one may be authorized.

This raises the question of what constitutes authorization. I believe the July 9 letter establishes the proper standard. This was a dual-signed letter composed late in Srila Prabhupada's manifest pastimes and sent to all the temples announcing an authorization pertaining to the method of conducting initiations. No terminal provision was stated. Earlier oral conversations that happened to be tape recorded, without any order to disseminate the recording to all the temples, do not reach the level of an official proclamation that I would expect of an authorization to give diksa in an international society.

The prohibition of rtvik initiations is another matter entirely. From what I've seen, the only argument against ongoing rtvik initiations is that it has apparently never been done before. I'm not sure how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's sannyasa initiation fits into this. In any case I don't think "never been done before" is strong evidence for prohibiting the continuance of something that Srila Prabhupada established in a written proclamation, based on the fact that Srila Prabhupada did many things that had never been done before (including rtvik initiations pre-samadhi). Other than in ISKCON, I don't know of any instance in history when diksa gurus were given or denied authorization based on certification from a governing body.

Furthermore, something I just learned, the July 9 letter was introduced as a followup to the May 28 meeting, in which the question was about initiations was specifically asked in reference to "particularly at that time when you're no longer with us." Based on the connection between this discussion and the followup letter, I think the fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted rtvik initiations to continue post-samadhi is irrefutable.

Whether any of his disciples have become qualified since, that's another matter. He did want them to give initiations after becoming qualified (though without his certificaiton it would have to be a matter of self-effulgence), but it appears quite clear to me that he also wanted to himself initiate disciples through rtviks post-samadhi.

Hare Krishna.

that article at namahatta.org is, admittedly, a bit polemic and will make ritvic proponents bristle with indignity. but then, the whole ritvik issue has always been a polemic one, from both sides.

personally i prefer jayadvaita maharaja's line of arguing. even though he gets a bit polemic, too. he looks at the arguments from the point of logic and refutes them beautifully. (i'm attaching a zip-file with his three ritvik-essays here.)

leaving polemic and logic aside, it just doesn't make sense that srila prabhupada would contradict his own teachings, which he has been repeating for all his preaching life, by issuing one single letter.

having ritviks perform religious functions for others, even an acarya, is nothing new; accepting disciples post-samadhi is. he would have explained everything in great detail had he decided to change the sampradaya--in fact, such a decision would have brought the sampradaya to an end, with srila prabhupada as the last one, everybody else from now on his disciple.

phani: having ritviks perform religious functions for others, even an acarya, is nothing new; accepting disciples post-samadhi is. he would have explained everything in great detail had he decided to change the sampradaya--in fact, such a decision would have brought the sampradaya to an end, with srila prabhupada as the last one, everybody else from now on his disciple.

...which would turn our line into yet another apa-sampradaya. * One of the requirements for properly representing the sampradaya is keeping the teachings in line with previous acharyas. Prabhupada never spoke of himself as the final link in the disciplic succession coming down from Lord Caitanya. Several times he specifically refered to his disciples as the next link.

hariharibol:...Lord Sri Krishna is responsible for the guru-parampara to continue,in what ever form He chosses,including a "missing " link for 50 , 500 , or 5,000 years,it's His call , not the GBC's.

Certainly. I see several promising 'links' among the Iskcon gurus, and Iskcon is not the only branch of Lord Caitanya's tree. Other Vaishnava organizations are busy preaching all over the world too. It may be Lord Krsna's call to chose several qualified Vaishnavas to carry on His mission and become successful. We individuals can only pray to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. There is no need to drag aspiring gurus down. Let them preach, write books, make disciples, and spread Lord Caitanya's movement all over the world.

Kula-pavana: Certainly. I see several promising 'links' among the Iskcon gurus, and Iskcon is not the only branch of Lord Caitanya's tree. Other Vaishnava organizations are busy preaching all over the world too. It may be Lord Krsna's call to chose several qualified Vaishnavas to carry on His mission and become successful. We individuals can only pray to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. There is no need to drag aspiring gurus down. Let them preach, write books, make disciples, and spread Lord Caitanya's movement all over the world.

"Aspiring guru" doesn't sound very good. I thought we should aspire for pure devotional service, and becoming a guru is a byproduct. "O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service, birth after birth."

The writing by Jayadvaita Swami was somewhat more convincing, and there was the benefit of reading rebuttals by Krishankant, although I got a little tired of reading these rebuttals. I saw good poitns made on both sides. I thought it was unfortunate to see Jayadvaita Swami dismiss much of Krishnakant's arguments without much explanation, and to see a significant amount ridicule. I think this is a very important subject, regardless of who is ultimately right, and I wish the ISKCON folks would take it more seriously.

A big part of the difficulty is that those who take up arguing about it seem very biased toward whichever side. Someone either wants to be a guru or wants Srila Prabhpuada as their guru or wants to get along with ISKCON, etc., and therefore they don't give fair treatment of the other side's good points. When I debate with devotees, I don't do it to "win;" I do it to learn the truth. I haven't been seeing that on this topic. I've been seeing strong arguments from both sides, but each side refuses to acknowledge each other's strengths. Instead, there is a frequent tendency to dismiss the other, which leaves points of disagreement unsolved.

As a result, I've begun to feel again that this is a disagreement that I am simply unable to comprehend. I observed an e-mail debate on this subject a year ago, and came to the same conclusion. The relevant events occurred too long ago and were experienced by people whom I do not know. So much has happened since 1977 that in some ways it almost seems irrelevant. The GBC and the gurus have been flexing their muscles and vying for influence for more than 30 years. Some like me is less than insignificant in their view. If they want a certain picture painted for folks like me, or if there are facts they don't want us to know, then anything else is simply hopeless. Neither am I independent. I want favorable devotee association for myself and my family. I would like to someday be able to support my family through devotional service rather than sitting in a cubicle surrounded by atheists. So I want to support ISKCON and for ISKCON to support me. Yet moreover, I want to serve Srila Prabhupada and Krishna, and if ISKCON needs some cleansing, I want to help. Integrity means a lot to me, and I'll never forget when one small leader in ISKCON told me that "Integrity is not a Vaishnava principle." Of course I think he's wrong, but it reveals a lot to hear something like that from someone who has spent most of his life in ISKCON.

I guess what it comes down to is a forced acceptance of my own insignificance, a feeling of helplessness, and a practical example of my dependence on Krishna. If Krishna doesn't want this question to be solved, then it's not going to get solved, and maybe He doesn't care for my help.

One important thing is that throughout my inquiry I have been trying hard to not lose faith in Vaishnava principles and to maintain my enthusiasm for devotional service. It is difficult to stay clean when sorting through so much mud, and of course I wasn't that clean to begin with. I seem to be cursed in the matter of committing offenses, but for those whom I've offended by my inquiries, please forgive me and bless me to advance in devotional service so that somehow Srila Prabhupada and Krishna may be pleased with me.

Hare Krishna.