Not signed in (To ask a question, Sign In)

Pariprashnena (to inquire submissively). Questions & Answers resource for all devotees.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Philosophy: Ritviks Explanation?

Bottom of Page

101 to 148 of 148

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2008
     
    well, your arguments make it pretty much impossible to convince you with philosophical points:

    --the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isn't an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;

    --that srila prabhupada never made any clear statement that he wanted a p.s. ritvic system doesn't convnce you, since these statements could have been supressed by his dishonest followers;

    that doesn't leave much room for further philosophical arguements, does it?

    another two questions come to mind that you should ask yourself. first, do you consider yourself on the kanistha, madhyama, or uttama level?

    if, as i expect, you fall into the kanistha category, you are, by definition, not able to clearly distinguish between the different levels of vaisnavas. (don't have the quote ready, but it's in the nectar of devotion somewhere, i think).

    kanistha adhikaris worship the form of krsna, have a hard time to understand that worship of krsna's devotees is as important, or more so, than worship of the lord, and can't differentiate between the different levels of devotees.

    if that's true, you won't be able to figure out which guru is how advanced or not. in order to avoid offences, you have to give all of them the benefit of the doubt, unless you know for sure they're bogus.

    not doing that you will certainly offend one, the other, or several of them who actually are pure devotees--not necessarily maha-bhagavatas, but purely following to the best of their abilities.

    as you know, offending devotees is a sure way to not make any advancement or find peace in your service to srila prabhupada and the lord.

    now please look at some of the rtivic webistes and propaganda. those that i have seen (IRM, per example) are brimming full with vitriolic criticism of all present gurus, GBCs, and their folowers. calling my guru-maharaja "jaya-potatoe-swami" is one of the least harmful things they say.

    considering their blanket criticism of all current ISKCON and their desire to replace the whole ISKCON leadership with their own people, peaceful coexistence with them in this organization is impossible.

    in the ultimate sense a vaisnava has no enemies. i'm sure that, given a moment to consider, almost everybody in ISKCON will wish them well, i.e., that they come to their senses, stop offending devotees, and either become constructive members of ISKCON, or build their own society and show us how to do it better.

    in another sense, though, we have to consider people who want to harm ISKCON as enemies of the society, and deal with them on that level. that's why court-cases are going on and ritviks are not allowed to preach in our temples.

    i see many things in ISKCON that need change and improvement--but not by inventing an new "sampradaya" that doesn't honour the original tradition, consists of people who criticize vaisnavas en gros, and want to throw everything srila prabhupada has built in the garbage to follow their own concoctions.

    the progress ISKCON makes on the road to becoming a truly honest and compassionate society may be slow; but we've come quite a way from the old 'zonal acarya' days, and i see strong currents of devotees who want the right thing. it's just not as easy as one may think, and may take more time than one would like.

    mainly it takes commitment, not only from those on top, but from everybody, to get over our selfishness, pettiness, and whatever other anarthas each of us may have. in one way the saying that "people get the government that they deserve" is valid for us, too.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2008 edited
     
    Dear Phani prabhu,

    Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

    I seem to have upset you. That has not been my intention, so please accept my apology. I have simply been trying to understand what is the right thing.

    I have also been turned off by the crude remarks from the rtvik side, however I do not necessarily think that because a person is upset that his complaints should be dismissed. It is impossible to deny that many people have been abused in so many ways through their contact with ISKCON, and I can begin to understand their frustration. I don't personally know any of the rtvik proponents, but I would be surprised if they're have any desire to hurt Srila Prabhupada's mission. It seems to me that they want to help, but that they see ISKCON as having gone in a direction that would displease Srila Prabhupada. I know what it's like to feel a strong desire for ISKCON's spiritual well-being, but to be condemned by leaders whose conduct does not seem appropriate to the level of worship they receive and influence they have. It is a horrible position to be in, to be rejected by the organization that one loves so dearly.

    "--the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isn't an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;"

    I'm not sure if that's true. Take this for instance:
    http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/Sri-Sam-rittvik231107.php

    I've already said that I feel unable to sort through the philosophical arguments, and I'm not sure that's the answer. If both sides would respect each other and show enough humiity and detachment to consider the evidence with an open mind, then I think that would help a lot. Everyone seems to just want to prove themselves right, but I don't think that will solve it, punditji. I'm just trying to trust Krishna's arrangement now; I don't know what else to do.

    If you think calling me a kanistha will help, fine. I don' t know what I am. I heard my first Bhagavad-gita class from Krishna's own lotus lips, and I cry with ecstasy in feelings of separation almost every day while chanting my japa. On the other hand I struggle to control my senses and sometimes fall prey to illusion and bewilderment. I don't know what this makes me, but kanistha adikari is a big improvement from my previous condition. Still, I don't know what relevance it is. I've already said that I'm perplexed by this issue.

    Concerning offenses, I don't know how to not commit them in this environment. Devotees have divided into diferent camps and fight with each other. It's not a safe situation for making spiritual advancement. As you said, I cannot properly discern others' spiritual advancement; and I also cannot make good advancement outside of devotee association. So here again I am perplexed. I am just begging that devotees stop fighting with each other, and even that is taken as offensive. I guess I will go to hell.
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2008
     
    i'm sorry, there's a couple of misunderstandings here. first of all i'm not upset. if i was, i'd just keep quiet.

    and calling you 'kanistha' isn't supposed to be a form of name-calling; i think that very few devotees today can rightly be classified as madhyama-adhikaris--but i can't be sure, since i'd classify myself as an aspiring kanistha, at best. (and this is not false humbleness, i assure you.)

    in your case, i think your confusion and unableness to figure out what is right and what is wrong puts you in the kanistha category pretty clearly--and again, that's not meant to be an offense.

    true, i can't understand how you seem unable to understand things that seem crystal-clear to me, but that doesn't upset me. if and when i can think of something to say (write) that may help you in your understanding, i say that. right now i can't think of anything else, though.

    i could tell of examples of ritviks who i personally know, and observed their way into this concoction; they were fried with ISKCON, wanted to keep control of their personal influence spheres as TPs and resented the GBCs interference.

    yesterday they were staunch supporters of GBC and present gurus, today they preach that it's all bogus. it's perfectly clear for me to see what happened, and that their motives are selfish and materialistic. the fact that they soon stepped down into horrible forms of vaisnava aparadha only confirms that their path was dead wrong.

    but these are personal observations from me which don't carry much argumentative weight; and even if you believed me, this wouldn't prove that other ritvik supporters have the same defects.

    for me, though, this whole issue is crystal clear, and just by studying srila prabhupada's books you should arrive at the same conclusion.

    your experience with fanatical guru-worshipers is a sorry example of how wrong things in ISKCON still are, at least in some places, but that shouldn't lead you to try to change the whole philosophy.

    anyway, as i said, i don't have much else to say on this topic for now. i'll wait for a while, perhaps something new comes up, or i get a new idea, we'll see. but again, i'm not upset with you at all.
  4.  
    Pandu das: "--the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isn't an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;" I'm not sure if that's true. Take this for instance: http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/Sri-Sam-rittvik231107.php
    The claim that Sri sampradaya is essentially a ritvik sampradaya is totally bogus. It is just like claiming that Madhva sammpradaya is ritvik because in both cases there is a strong sense of orthodoxy and adherance to the teachings of the dominant acharya (Ramanuja or Madhava). Current gurus in those lines simply repeat very closely the teachings of those acharyas without hardly coming up with anything new it terms of doctrine and practice. They consider themselves to be 'little gurus' at the feet of their great predecessor Acharya. Yet they are most definitely regular gurus, not ritviks in the sense proposed by our Iskcon ritvikvadis. Compared to these two lines our line is constantly evolving and developing. How often does Srila Prabhupada quote his own guru verbatim? Hardly ever. He makes his own presentation. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was like that as well. Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages are much less rigid and orthodox than Madhvas or Ramanujas. Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta. Ritviks want to put an end to these practices and turn our sampradaya into a version of Sikh religion, where Prabhupada is Guru Nanak. In the eyes of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas that of course would make our line an apa-sampradaya, just like the Sikh religion. I don't know about you, but I have no desire to be a part of such line. I signed up for membership in the Gaudiya-Madhva sampradaya and ritvikvada is not a part of that line.
    Thankful People: VEDA
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2008 edited
     
    Kula-pavana:... Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta...

    Yet one of the biggest arguments against post-samadhi rtvik initiations is that it can't be correct because Srila Prabhupada would not have introduced something new. There is evolution and development in our line, but it cannot be in a way that keeps the Founder-Acarya's diksa available after his mahasamadhi. (Even Srila Prabhupada's books continue to evolve.)

    I'm struggling to see how this is internally consistent. It resembles a line of argument that comes from a predetermined conclusion in which one argues on one side of a concept or the other side of the same concept at different times, depending on which supports one's desired outcome.

    Some brahmanas probably thought Vyasa's dividing the Veda into four and putting it into books was heresy. As we've heard, He did it knowing the qualifications of the people of our time, just as one may argue that Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize any diksa gurus because of knowing his disciples weren't free from material desires yet.

    Also, I wonder how you are a higher authority on Srivaishnavism than the gentleman wrote that, who claims to be initiating devotees in that sampradaya. Admittedly, I know practically nothing about the other sampradayas, but you seem to be claiming that what he's saying about what he does is wrong. It reminds me of the story Srila Prabhupada told about how the author of a book knows what his own book is about. Similarly, this devotee must know how he conducts initiations. Whether he is correct in understanding what Srila Prabhupada intended is another thing, but the claim that "post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya" seems to be proven false here.

  6.  
    Srila Prabhupada is like GOLD,
    for one who knows the value of gold,
    he accepts it. Prabhupada once said that about His books. He said, " My books are like gold, and for one who knows the value of gold, he will accept them". Because Prabhupada is non-different than His books, the statement applies. Speaking of Prabhupada's books, it has just come to my attention from a reliable inside source, who happens to be a Trustee of the BBT, and a member of the GBC, who will remain nameless, has informed me that the book changes were done to suit the philosophy of the GBC. Just a little FYI for the participants of this site.
    • CommentAuthorKula-pavana
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    Pandu das:
    Kula-pavana:... Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta...

    Yet one of the biggest arguments against post-samadhi rtvik initiations is that it can't be correct because Srila Prabhupada would not have introduced something new. There is evolution and development in our line, but it cannot be in a way that keeps the Founder-Acarya's diksa available after his mahasamadhi.

    There is a clear and present risk in introducing new concepts and practices into the sampradaya. Let me give you an example. SP took a serious risk when he started giving sannyasa to young Western disciples who practiced Krsna consciousness only for a few years. His guru gave sannyasa only to very mature disciples born in brahminical families and practicing KC from birth. This change or innovation SP introduced did not work out. 90% of his sannyasis fell down and their falldown was not even the worst part of that experiment. The program was a disaster and in 1977 Srila Prabhupada emphatically declared: "No more sannyasa!". Too bad his disciples did not listen, and the problem remains in our society, with people like Satsvarupa and others making a mockery out of the sannyasa order. Lets say (because the evidence for this is extremely flimsy) that Prabhupada indeed wanted to make himself a Guru Nanak of the Prabhupada line. If his disciples do not think it is a good idea, that is pretty much the end of that innovation. Just like Prabhupada decided to do things differently than his guru when it comes to giving sannyasa, his disciples may decide that keeping the old sampradaya practices of direct initiations is a better way to go. That is the self-correcting nature of our sampradaya. Guru, sadhu, and shastra.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    First, I have a problem accepting ritvik claims since they're taking things out of context and distorting them to suit their case, just like JWs.
    Second, even if prof. Tatachar's opinion is presented correctly, it's still only his own opinion. To me personally makes much more sense the elaboration of Kripamoya P. at

    http://lix.in/-319d8c

    Sri Ramanujacarya adored Sri Yamunacarya as his siksa guru and he adored his five leading disciples as his diksa gurus. See his bio at http://ramanujacarya.blogspot.com/

    To make any conclusions re Sri sampradaya, we'd need an official position of Sri Sampradaya.

    If we accept that ritviks must be authorized by the acarya (as per the the end of the interview), then after disappearance of those 11 ones, ritvikism will naturally end. If we accept that they can authorize more ritviks, it'll end as well since they afaik didn't do and most probably won't do so having either left their bodies, stopped practicing or being not in favor of ritvikism.

    I've recently posted here the opinion of Advaita Acarya on the virtual diksa in the dream:

    http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/opponents.htm

    To me this is the GV conclusion, in sync with many SP's "disciple of my disciple" quotes.

    But I've got an idea how to deal with this issue - to ask the Lord directly by presenting ritvik (TFO) and ISKCON docs to His deity in the temple. This is called deva prasna and was used in case of Sridhara Swami's SB commentary. Briefly mentioned here:

    http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/iskcon-internal/364040-sukadeva-know-doesnt-now.html
  9.  
    Pandu das:Also, I wonder how you are a higher authority on Srivaishnavism than the gentleman wrote that, who claims to be initiating devotees in that sampradaya. Admittedly, I know practically nothing about the other sampradayas, but you seem to be claiming that what he's saying about what he does is wrong.
    There is plenty of information on Srivaishnavism out there. I have studied that tradition for some time and this is my understanding of their practices. Very often the answer to your question depends on how you phrase the question and who you ask. On top of that there is trust in the transcript of the said conversation. Besides, it you want to go by the criteria Srivashnavas use as listed by Prof. M A Lakshimtatachar, you can easily say that SP was not authorized by his guru to become acharya and start his own line. Here is an excerpt from his speach: ----------------- "ISKCON devotee: One final question is that for somebody has to become an acharya, how important is it for him to receive an authorisation to take that post from the previous acharya? In this case, there is an authorisation to continue to as a ritvik and ritvik alone, there is not authoriation to function as guru. How important is it to receive an authorisation? Sri Tatachar : It is very much necessary to receive an authorisation. Without an authorisation you cannot do. Generally what happens in the Srivaishnava parampara, they were always worried about the succession ( Tamil sloka). Who will be the successor to take care of the propagation of this system? When the acharya was about to pass away, he would nominate a person to take care of the panth and hold the mantle thereafter. That is how it has been done. That is why even in the Srivaishnava parampara, while giving sannyasa, he cannot take sannyasa on his own. The acharya will give the sanyas and say that here afterwards he will be the mathadipathi. ISKCON devotee: That means authorization is a must. Sri Tatachar : IT IS A MUST ISKCON devotee:To become a guru or a mathadipathi or a peethadipathi Sri Tatachar : Yes, yes, yes." ---------- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not appoint an acharya. Here is what Srila Prabhupada said himself: (From the letter to Rupanuga) "If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya." So if Srila Prabhupada became an acharya despite the fact that his guru did not nominate him, so can his disciples. In our tradition acharya is accepted based on his qualifications (self-effulgent acharya). That is not an acceptable practice among Srivaishnavas. Read this line: "When the acharya was about to pass away, he would nominate a person to take care of the panth and hold the mantle thereafter" - does that look like a ritvik system to you???? As I said: The claim that Sri sampradaya is essentially a ritvik sampradaya is totally bogus.
  10.  
    Several times here was mentioned idea, that with ritviks sampradaya would end. I find this argument very weak. It seems to be based on idea, that continuation of gaudiya vaisnava sampradaya is somehow dependent on ISKCON and its gurus. In know ISKCON devotees consider iskcon to be the junction point for all vaisnava sampradayas, although credit for that actually goes to Caitanya Mahaprabhu alone. But we seem to think we are better than Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There were even ideas, presented in shape of GBC papers (by Drutakarma p), how to unite all gaudiya vaisnava under single ISKCON GBC. Such arrogance breeds ideas, that with ending our line, then all will be finished. Actually nothing will be finished, without GBC ISKCON things will go on just fine.

    Another thing is, that Srila Prabhupada allowed for possibility, that self effulgent acarya will manifests within ISKCON in the future. So even if now all iskcon devotees are initiated in whatever way, GBC or ritvik way, everybody is siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. And that will continue untill (if ever) another self effulgent acarya, like Srila Prabhupada, is sent by Krsna. But until that happens (if ever), there is no need for any voted-in semi-acaryas.

    Vaisnava sampradaya is something much greater than GBC ISKCON line. We should not cultivate arrogance, thinking that we are the only ones, and the we are so important, that without us there will be disaster.....

    Although ritvik system may not be traditional, it was implemented by Srila Prabhupada, that is a 100% fact, and he never appointed any acarya successors. Ritviks can appoint new ritviks, gust as GBCs appoint their own, and thus sampradaya-branch remains alive, until new self effulgent acarya arrives (or until the branch dries-out, and falls off the sampradaya tree).

    Please see the sampradaya line in Bhagavad Gita. Only great acaryas form its structure. Surely there were many great devotees in between, but they are not mentioned. Still nobody argues, that sampradaya was broken because not all diksa gutrus are mentioned. Srila Prabhupada is final link in our branch of sampradaya. There needs not be any other link after him, ever. The branch can remain easily like this. It can remain alive by our purity. No need to introduce next acaryas artificially. If next self effulgent acarya appears on this branch, then fine. But this may happen after several hundreds or thousands of years, or never!

    Also please note, that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never appointed any successors to his branch. Still his line continues to be alive more or less. And Srila Prabhupada was never appointed by BSST to start new line, still he did it, and ISKCON line is also alive more or less.

    Srila Prabhupada was well aware of tradition and importance of previous acarya appointing successor acarya. But he didn't do so, just like Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never appointed any successors.

    (end of part1 )
  11.  
    (part 2)

    ============
    If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission.

    >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga -- Tirupati 28 April, 1974
    ============

    Acarya is something else than initiating gurus. And vaisnava sampradaya is formed through succession of acaryas, not through succession of initiating gurus. Each branch can have hundreds of initiating gurus, but they will never be listed on sampradaya tree. Only sampradaya acaryas are listed on sampradaya. Until next self-effulgent acarya appears, Srila Prabhupada remains the last link on Sampradaya tree. This doesn't mean, that sampradaya is finished - it just means, that it is structuraly on hold, waiting for the next sampradaya acarya to be sent by Krsna.

    If acarya sees, that his line is not strong, he can decide to appoint noone as his succesor, and istead lets self-effulgent acarya manifest later on, when time is right. BSST did this, and Srila Prabhupada too. Sorry to say this, but noone was qualified in 1978, to take over the post of acarya in ISKCON. Now, 30 years later, this post is still open, and still anybody can manifest his self-effulgent qualification to be accepted as self effulgent acarya. As of now, nobody was able to convince others in this. So time is not ripe yet. Sampradaya will remain strong based on Srila Prabhupada, although some will claim to be acaryas and whatever. But present ritvik system will remain active untill next self effulgent acarya manifests.

    ISKCON already implemented ritvik system long ago, they just dont call it ritvik, they call it GBC-no-objection-system. But after 11 acarya period, ritvik system was re-implemented in ISKCON, through guru reform. GBC gurus also initiate disciples into SP disciples, siksa disciples. Even GBC law allows for ritvik system, where one is being initiated by whoever, and then instructed to take full shelter from Srila Prabhupada siksa. Thats ritvik system too!!! One initiates you, but you take siksa directly from acarya!! Both GBC gurus and ritvik gurus are one and the same thing. Although GBC refuses to admit it, GBC's are ritviks as well, and ritviks are ritviks too. They both initiate disciples into siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. It is just that one group gives you title of diksa disciple od SP, and other gives you title diksa disciple of so-and-so GBC guru. Big deal. But both are initiating disciples into Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciples. The day they will both realize this, they will stop fighting, and ISKCON line will go on nicely, fixed on Srila Prabhupada forever, (or untill next self-effulgent sampradaya acarya).
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    gurus do not initiate disciples into SP disciples, everyone who joins ISKCON is his siksa disciple. not all GBCs are gurus, so by your own logic you are wrong. There is a fine line as far as ISKCON guru position and ritivik position is concern, ritvik does not have relationship or qualification to help a disciple to establish personal relationship with Prabhupada. I am not saying all gurus these days do, but they have this requirement, where as ritviks do not, they are just silent priests, who needs them, better take initiation without a priest then to have some nonsense aparadhi doing it for you.
  13.  
    Well, Caitanya-candrodaya prabhu, thats your personal opinion, and thats fine, I lake to hear your opinion. You can have your opinion, and while your opinion is valuable, I doubt you will want to push it forward as the only, absolute truth.

    No matter what you say, in practice GBC gurus actually initiate their disciples into Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Disciple means sisya, not lineage. With joining ISKCON, according to GBC law, you are presented with two choices:
    1. Become sisya of Srila Prabhupada, with diksa of ISKCON approved ritvik
    2. Become sisya of ISKCON guru, with diksa taken from that same ISKCON guru, or some other diksa guru (fallen guru or one not inspiring you much).

    Yes, not all GBCs are gurus. I thought that was quite clear to all in this debate. When I say GBCs, I clearly mean GBC with their system of guruship. Its GBCs vs. ritviks debate, yes?

    You say "ritvik does not have relationship or qualification to help a disciple to establish personal relationship with Prabhupada". I think you are wrong. If Satsvarupa (with his quirks) can connect one to Srila Prabhupada, why Hansaduta (with his quirks) can not? Why is GBC appointment requirement enough, and Srila Prabhupada's instruction that "all my disciples become gurus" not enough?

    Regarding ritviks being silent priests, that you mention.... Many GBC gurus are silent priests too. If GBC guru initiates you, and then you never meet him again, then it is ok - but if ritvik-labeled guru does so, then it is all bogus? If GBC guru tells you to approach Srila Prabhupada directly for siksa, then it is ok - but if ritvik-labeled guru tells you the same thing, then it is worthless?

    Your points make no sense. I spoke with many ISKCON devotees, and relationship of most towards their Guru and Srila Prabhupada is exactly what ritviks are offering. Sure, labels are different, but GBC invented those labels. If it wasn't for GBC separatism, there wouldn't be any ritvik label at all.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    Giri-nayaka das: Even GBC law allows for ritvik system, where one is being initiated by whoever, and then instructed to take full shelter from Srila Prabhupada siksa. Thats ritvik system too!!! One initiates you, but you take siksa directly from acarya!! Both GBC gurus and ritvik gurus are one and the same thing. Although GBC refuses to admit it, GBC's are ritviks as well, and ritviks are ritviks too. They both initiate disciples into siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. It is just that one group gives you title of diksa disciple od SP, and other gives you title diksa disciple of so-and-so GBC guru. Big deal. But both are initiating disciples into Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciples. The day they will both realize this, they will stop fighting, and ISKCON line will go on nicely, fixed on Srila Prabhupada forever, (or untill next self-effulgent sampradaya acarya).

    Hare Krishna. That pretty much describes my experience. I requested initiation from Bhaktimarga Swami because I thought that among the gurus who were accessible to me, he would be the least likely to come between me and Srila Prabhupada. Still, I was confused about how the relationship would manifest considering the GBC's rules and ISKCON etiquette. I had to ask Bhaktimarga about his pranam mantra; it seemed like I should know it but he wasn't going to tell me. Sometimes I chant it before Srila Prabhupada's, and sometimes I don't. I'm not really sure who is my guru, a rather odd predicament. Anyway, at my initiation Bhaktimarga said that Srila Prabhupada is my 'primary guru." Immediately after my initation he attended a rtvik meeting. (iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/06/015.html) Eventually I asked him if he has any books, recorded lectures, etc., and he told me to just study Srila Prabhupada's. I asked about forming a disciples' e-mail network, and he said he didn't want that.

    Three years ago when I got a first hand experience of ISKCON's dark side at Gita-nagari, Bhaktimarga responded in a way that made me lose faith in him, along with the rest of the rest of the movement. (The details are somewhat of a long story.) After two years of depression and almost no sadhana, I assumed fault for everything and begged everyone's forgiveness. After that Bhaktimarga began acting somewhat more like a direct guru in the sense that he was more inclied to give orders and expect personal service. I'm not comfortable with that sort of relationship, nor confident that it is the best thing for my spiritual life, yet it's what's expected of me not only from him but from the Gita-nagari devotees. So this is a bit of a dilemma, and part of why I'm hoping that the post-samadhi rtvik view will someday be accepted.

    • CommentAuthorKula-pavana
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    Pandu das:Three years ago when I got a first hand experience of ISKCON's dark side at Gita-nagari, Bhaktimarga responded in a way that made me lose faith in him, along with the rest of the rest of the movement. (The details are somewhat of a long story.) After two years of depression and almost no sadhana, I assumed fault for everything and begged everyone's forgiveness. After that Bhaktimarga began acting somewhat more like a direct guru in the sense that he was more inclied to give orders and expect personal service. I'm not comfortable with that sort of relationship, nor confident that it is the best thing for my spiritual life, yet it's what's expected of me not only from him but from the Gita-nagari devotees. So this is a bit of a dilemma, and part of why I'm hoping that the post-samadhi rtvik view will someday be accepted.
    Iskcon is still suffering from the hangover of the old 'superman guru' in the 'zonal acharya' days. Devotees expect a superman for a guru, and most gurus act as if they were indeed supermen. This is their conditioning. When they see that their guru is not a superhero they envisioned, they lose faith in such a guru, and experience a major crisis of faith in the process of KC. In a typical Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage nobody expects their guru to be like some sort of Vaishnava superstar. Disciples are content to have a competent and compassionate guide who is a senior Vaishnava, and the gurus are just happy they can help their disciples reach Krsna through the sampradaya they represent. I doubt that introducing a ritvik system will solve the above listed problems. A disciple needs direct guidance from an authority he trusts and has confidence in. Ritvik system turns such living authority into nothing more than a clerk, giving you diksa on behalf of the lofty ideal of a guru you formed in your mind. You have no real faith in that local diksa guru, you do not feel like you are his disciple, you do not want him to give you orders. You want orders from your ideal guru. That is not a vedic system. In the Vedic system every guru is a 'ritvik' of Sri Guru, Krsna. That is a proper mentality of an actual guru. Find such a person and become his real disciple. He will not stop you from seeing Prabhupada as your siksa guru.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    I do not think its GBCs vs ritivks, its good association vs not very good association. In my experience good vaishnavas often avoid being involved in politics or management if they can, thus my favorite gurus are not on GBC anyhow and I am proud of it, So no - its about personal vs impersonal.

    You still use gurus in plural, you are very fortunate if you have one devotee who inspires you GN. It is not easy to get by. I do not get inspiration in this debate because you are rather polemical, you will not change your opinion that is based on your feeling rather then on what you are told by paramapara, in the same way ritivk polemics are ad hominum and thus are using false logic way too often to represent Prabhupada. I would suggest you all keep away from GBC and ritivikvada altogether if you want healthy spiritual live. If you can not at least keep away from ritiviks.
    Thankful People: Kula-pavana
  17.  
    ******************
    [quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]Ritvik system turns such living authority into nothing more than a clerk, giving you diksa on behalf of the lofty ideal of a guru you formed in your mind. You have no real faith in that local diksa guru, you do not feel like you are his disciple, you do not want him to give you orders. You want orders from your ideal guru. That is not a vedic system.[/quote]
    ******************

    Here you are exactly describing, what most of ISKCON devotees are confronted with. You get diksa automatically, 6 months waiting period. You meet your guru on initiation, when he hands over the beads, and you hand over envelope with some money. There is no living authority, your only connection is Srila Prabhupada. You have no real faith in diksa guru, you do not feel as his surrendered disciple - not in the same way as you feel towards Srila Prabhupada. You try to idealize, deify your diksa guru, but the image keeps collapsing with every new experience.

    That's why I say that GBC system is also ritvik system. You get initiated by appointed (no objection - whatever...) priest, and then you approach Srila Prabhupada for all guidance.

    Surely, this is not experience of all ISKCON devotees. Some have personal relationships with their diksa Gurus, and some actually get valuable personal guidance. I know I did, but I know some of my godbrothers never got any traditional personal experience from their guru. And matajis usually get much less of traditional guru than men, (although again, some gurus are quite comfortable in female association, but that's another subject matter....).

    That's why I said that ISKCON provides two options for aspiring devotee:
    1. ritvik system, where you are initiated by appointed GBC guru (priest), and then you take siksa from Srila Prabhupada directly, being helped by everybody and anybody who can be helpful in your surrounding.
    2. traditional guru system, where you approach GBC's guru, and take diksa and siksa from him, live with him and serve him as disciple. If guru gets distracted into GBC management, or bloops, or stops inspiring you, you can approach another GBC's guru, or take to option 1 above.

    So, ISKCON already supports ritvik system as option within GBC's system. That's why I'm wondering why all the fuss about another ritvik group. Do they really care about welfare of devotees, or do they just say so, to make excuse for their separatism. If they provide the same system, why are they fighting among themselves? What is the reason for seeing "ISKCON enemies" in other ISKCON devotees.

    I can only think that GBC's gurus have problems with another group, because because GBC's themselves have some problems on their own. Maybe the reason is, that that other group initiates you into Prabhupada's disciple. And that is bad, horrible, enemies.... Why? Because "Prabhupada's disciple" is like a trademark of specific group only, and they get some benefits for that, like separate tables, chairs and so on.... It is pathetic, but can we say that it is not true? Just imagine a whole flood of new SP disciples - that would cause some serious confusion, and nobody would know who is REAL SP disciple, and who is second generation (fake) SP disciple.....

    GBC's may have some reasons to label some within ISKCON as their enemies, but actually, all this is nonsense. In 50 years, when all trademarked SP disciples will pass on, nobody will bother anymore whether you are this-initiated, or that-initiated. We will all be SP disciples, we will know what to follow, and there will be no special benefits for anybody. And who gets initiated by who, that will be a thing of the past, and we will laugh about it.
  18.  
    Giri-nayaka das: Here you are exactly describing, what most of ISKCON devotees are confronted with. You get diksa automatically, 6 months waiting period. You meet your guru on initiation, when he hands over the beads, and you hand over envelope with some money. There is no living authority, your only connection is Srila Prabhupada. You have no real faith in diksa guru, you do not feel as his surrendered disciple - not in the same way as you feel towards Srila Prabhupada. You try to idealize, deify your diksa guru, but the image keeps collapsing with every new experience. That's why I say that GBC system is also ritvik system. You get initiated by appointed (no objection - whatever...) priest, and then you approach Srila Prabhupada for all guidance. Surely, this is not experience of all ISKCON devotees. Some have personal relationships with their diksa Gurus, and some actually get valuable personal guidance. I know I did, but I know some of my godbrothers never got any traditional personal experience from their guru.
    During Srila Prabhupada's presence many devotees did not even get to meet their guru in person at the time of initiation and their connection with Prabhupada was mainly virtual. That certainly was an anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation. Usually Vaishnava gurus accept only a very limited number of disciples and they play a very practical role in their lives and training. Thus IN PRACTICE the current GBC system you describe is not much different than the old system in pre 1977 Iskcon. If anything, current bhaktas get more direct training from their gurus. But in case you did not notice, I am not a big fan of the GBC system either. Just like you, I did not get my diksa automatically, had a personal relationship with my diksa guru and faith in him - not a faith that he was a superman, but a faith that Krsna placed him in my life to help me in spiritual life. I know scores of new devotees today who have a similar relationship with their gurus and similar faith. We never deified our gurus, and we never deified Prabhupada. That is not a Vedic system. You respect your guru as the 'hand of God' in your life, Krsna's representative. Lord Krsna sent me several very helpful guides in life and I am always open to acceptance of qualified Vaishnavas as my siksa guru. The current GBC system does not bother me too much. What bothers me are lies, fairytales and distortions passed around among devotees in the guise of 'instructions on the guru-tattva'.
    Thankful People: phani, Giri-nayaka das
  19.  
    Giri-nayaka das: So, ISKCON already supports ritvik system as option within GBC's system. That's why I'm wondering why all the fuss about another ritvik group. Do they really care about welfare of devotees, or do they just say so, to make excuse for their separatism. If they provide the same system, why are they fighting among themselves? What is the reason for seeing "ISKCON enemies" in other ISKCON devotees.
    If ritvik proponents were not so obnoxious in their behavior and criticism of the current ruling elite, I am quite certain that ritvikvada would have been accepted as valid or at least tolerated in Iskcon. IMO both sides twist the tradition in order to prove their point and grab power. It is just another struggle for fame, profit, and distinction. That is why so many of these people became leaders, sannyasis, and gurus to begin with. A ritvik guru wannabe, or a GBC guru wannabe - what's the difference??? As ccd said: "I do not think its GBCs vs ritivks, its good association vs not very good association." Spot on... A crook is a crook, and a good guru can be found inside or outside Iskcon. You just have to know what gold is to find it...
  20.  
    Yes, there are crooks and idiots in both camps. But, so what. It is material world, what can be expected. Indeed, it is sadhu sanga that we need. Some will try to engage us in their politics and power trips, trying to convince us that their enemies should be out enemies and so on, but I believe we should learn to tolerate these things, and keep taking shelter of Krsna and His pure representatives.

    I know I find inspiration is so many ISKCON devotees. Not so many outside of ISKCON, since I never really felt the need to look arround, but I'm open to any desirable association. Actually, in ISKCON some inspire me to become like them, and others inspire me to never become like them - so in this way everybody is a source of inspiration and guidance. I bet outside of ISKCON it would be the same.

    I agree that good association can be found in ISKCON and outside ISKCON. Actually, making this difference (inside, outside) may not be that neccessary at all eventually. One thing is sure - ISKCON is not immune to idiotism, and neither are ritviks or other groups. So, lets learn to live with it, and go on.
    Thankful People: Kula-pavana
  21.  
    ********************************************
    Kula-pavana: During Srila Prabhupada's presence many devotees did not even get to meet their guru in person at the time of initiation and their connection with Prabhupada was mainly virtual. That certainly was an anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation. Usually Vaishnava gurus accept only a very limited number of disciples and they play a very practical role in their lives and training. Thus IN PRACTICE the current GBC system you describe is not much different than the old system in pre 1977 Iskcon. [/quote]
    *********************************************
    Yes, exactly, even Srila Prabhupada didn't implement traditional guru system, that we wish to expect and which we like to call traditional. Did we already mention here, that it was he who implemented ritvik system in ISKCON? :) Maybe, as you say, the reason was an "anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation." Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there is anomaly in our understanding of sampradaya? What do you think? Could it be that we are missing something, that Srila Prabhupada knew? Maybe there is more to traditional sampradaya, than we can grasp at this moment, especially after being screwed-up by neophyte wannabe kanistha self-appointed acaryas for all our years in ISKCON?

    Srila Prabhupada preached traditional guru system, his books are full of it. Will anybody say, that he preached one thing, but practiced another? I don't think so. Could it be actually, that proper implementation of traditional Guru system, as described in Vedas, is exactly as Srila Prabhupada practiced during his presence. How it all fits together I don't know yet, but I'm sure if we let ourselves move in this direction, we may find wealth of encouragement.

    As you noticed, my point is, that from perspective of disciple, in a technical way, there is little difference between pre 1977 Srila Prabhupada's guru system, post 1977 acarya system, post-acarya GBC's guru system and labeled-ritvik guru system. From perspective of disciple, of course! All later systems seem to have much more in common with Srila Prabhupada's system, that they have in common with anything else. There are slight details, but basis is the same. From perspective of disciple (conditioned soul, who needs to be saved), they are all the same.

    Of course, from perspective of guru, and especially personally motivated one, there are differences. One could almost say, that the more personally motivated appointed guru is, the more he will see differences, and the more he will be obsessed with "enemies of his own preferred system".

    One could almost say, that Krsna is playing with us, allowing us to create artificial differences, just so that we learn. We see so many differences, so many enemies.... But looking from distance, Srila Prabhupada's guru system (initiation by somebody, after 6 months or whatever, and then lifetime siksa from Srila Prabhupada) was active all the time. And fallen souls were taken care of nicelly, all the time, and still are. So no problem for disciples at all, they are all safe. And it will remain so. This is eternal sampradaya system, we are just misled by our motives to fight with each other. Typical kanistha separatists. One day we will learn.

    In the end, just observe your gurus (GBC appointed, ritvik-labeled or whatever...), and watch out for those, who create the most of separatist mentality - those are better to be avoided, no matter how bonafide they think they are, and no matter what is their preferred camp-label.
    • CommentAuthorKula-pavana
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    Giri-nayaka das: ...even Srila Prabhupada didn't implement traditional guru system, that we wish to expect and which we like to call traditional. Did we already mention here, that it was he who implemented ritvik system in ISKCON? :) Maybe, as you say, the reason was an "anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation." Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there is anomaly in our understanding of sampradaya? What do you think? Could it be that we are missing something, that Srila Prabhupada knew? Maybe there is more to traditional sampradaya, than we can grasp at this moment, especially after being screwed-up by neophyte wannabe kanistha self-appointed acaryas for all our years in ISKCON?
    The traditional parampara worked well for millenia and I have no doubt it will work well now. Srila Prabhupada did many things out of sheer necessity, be it authorizing young and immature disciples to accept positions of authority or giving Gayatri mantra from a tape recorder. I see it all as 'war-time expediency', not to be repeated during normal times. For normal times we have our tradition. **** Some of these 'innovations' turned out pretty bad - I mentioned the sannyasa problem earlier but there were other problematic things as well, like the gurukula projects, or the fund raising approach. I think all of these things were experiments, which have to be judged by their results in due course of time (like the sannyasa ashram issue was judged by Prabhupada in 1977).******* I really do not think for a moment that Prabhupada wanted to make himself a post-samadhi diksa guru for the future generations - he really does not say anything about it in his books - zero reference to this issue, while other subject matters are covered hundreds of times. ********Srila Bhaktisiddhanta introduced to Gaudiya Vaishnavism a very novel concept of the sampradaya: a line of siksa gurus, thus minimizing the role of diksa in the past. It was (and still is) quite a controversial approach. Outside of Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon nobody uses this system. That is why I don't think SP placed great emphasis on diksa in the future either. He knew that if the Saraswata line is to be continued, our gurus will be accepted based on the siksa line, not the diksa line. Ritvik's insistence that Prabhupada be the real diksa guru for all the devotees thus makes even less sense.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    Kula-pavana: ...You respect your guru as the 'hand of God' in your life, Krsna's representative....

    I used to think of my guru as the external manifestation of the Supersoul. Then one day he called me on the phone and talked with me about some of the issues I was experiencing at Gita-nagari. Eventually he started a topic that I had not discussed with him, and I felt amazement, "Wow, he knows this!" Then he said, "I don't know where I heard that." A few days later discovered that the other two devotees on the Community Board with me had recently called him once or twice complaining about my "offenses" and breaches of etiquette (questioning the moral integriy of their 'pure devotee" uttama adhikari guru), and that he had telephoned me on their request. (That was the board meeting where I was told, "Integrity is not a Vaishnava principle.")

    Immediately I felt like a complete ass. My friends betrayed me by deceptively intervening in the sacred relationship with my guru. These brahmanas lied to me about it before admitting that they called him, which was only one of numerous lies that I discovered. More importantly, my guru apparently lied to me about not knowing where he heard something about me. (Perhaps Krishna really made him forget the reason he called me?) In about 6 weeks time I had at least 6 brahmana devotees explicitly lie to me, including my guru, who then threatened to terminate my brahmana training unless I stopped writing (oppositerule.blogspot.com) about my experiences. (These emotional wounds have still not healed, obviously.)

    Of course everything is under Krishna's control, but it seems that sometimes the lessons are not as sweet as we might like to think. It could be a message that we can't necessarily trust everything a person says, even if he is one's guru. I eventually apologised (for what, I'm not sure) and made friends with him again, but I can't accept him with the same faith; and simultaneously he's been playing the role of guru heavier than before. I'm appreciative of his friendship and his advice, but I'm having some trouble with the guru-disciple relationship. Sometimes it's nice, but other times it makes me nervous.

    Oddly enough, lying apparently isn't considered "breaking the princples," although publicly talking about how one was hurt by others lies is a punishable offense.

  24.  
    ...that's right Pandu Prabhu,welcome to &quot; Iskcon &quot;.I know who your Guru is , I have known Him for 20 years,I lived in the same Temple as He does for a while once,He is usually quite freindly and looks and act's bonafied most of the time,but He is no guru,He is taking disciples because there are no Prabhupada disciples left in that part of the world.
    Take away the donations the Indians provide and that temple,His home base,and it would be on the reale-state market the next day.
  25.  
    Pandu das:

    Of course everything is under Krishna's control, but it seems that sometimes the lessons are not as sweet as we might like to think. It could be a message that we can't necessarily trust everything a person says, even if he is one's guru. I eventually apologised (for what, I'm not sure) and made friends with him again, but I can't accept him with the same faith; and simultaneously he's been playing the role of guru heavier than before. I'm appreciative of his friendship and his advice, but I'm having some trouble with the guru-disciple relationship. Sometimes it's nice, but other times it makes me nervous.

    Oddly enough, lying apparently isn't considered "breaking the princples," although publicly talking about how one was hurt by others lies is a punishable offense.

    Pandu-ji, the most valuable lessons in my life were all very painful. Yet I am thankful for them. They made me a better devotee and a better person. They deepened my understanding of our tradition and made me more appreciative of what I have. I have counselled many devotees who lost faith in their gurus. The answer is always the same: you have to understand guru-tattva as it is understood in our GV tradition and forget the Iskcon fairytales they were feeding you in bhakta program. ****** As to the popularity of lies and general duplicity rampant in Iskcon, this is another case of Iskcon 'yukta-vairagya' fairytales developed by the earlier generation - it must be rejected as well. In some ways taking diksa is like getting married. You do not fully realize what you are getting yourself into untill it's too late. And a divorce is not the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to take it as your lesson in life. You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    disclaimer: since i don't know any of the participants personally, everything i'm going to comment re. these happenings at gita-nagari is pure guesswork, but i'm going to try, anyway...
    --------------

    it sounds as if HH bhaktimarga m. was informed from devotees he knew quite well that you were creating a disturbance in their place, and he wanted to do the needful by telling you to quiet down, in the interest of the 'greater good.'

    that he didn't tell you where he got that information from i would consider something like a "white lie," i.e., he got information confidentially and didn't want to expose his source. (would have been better to tell you that, but there it is.)

    to judge this whole episode with something approaching objectivity, one would have to listen to all the others involved, too: the disciples of HH bhakti-tirtha m., your diksa-guru, and anybody else who might have been involved.

    i don't want to say you're not stating things truthfully, but you are obviously party in this conflict, and emotionally very much involved. this will lead you to think skewed, from your perspective--it couldn't be otherwise.

    the others, BT maharaja's disciples, were also emotionally involved, of course, with their guru having passed away not long ago when this happened, resulting in their own skewed perception.

    this looks like a pretty explosive situation, and that HH bhakti-marga tried to calm things down for the moment doesn't seem strange to me. he probably should have endeavored to get a better picture of your point of view, but obviously i don't have the slightest idea if he ever tried that, or, if not, what might have prevented him.

    i can't remember how long ago this was after HH BT's passing away, but perhaps you could have shown a little more consideration for the feelings of his disciples in this whole affair?

    i think a guru's disciples are entitled to a little emotional attachment to him, even a little over-glorification, as long as they understand that other gurus' disciples are entitled to the same leeway, and that not everybody who doesn't share their over-enthusiasm is a demon.

    it's the same with brahmacaris, who have to believe that brahmacaria is better than sense enjoyment, that becoming a grhastha is falling in maya--otherwise, how could they possibly maintain their vows?

    there has to be some allowance for this type of group-dynamic in every such group: brahmacaris, gurus' disciples, book distributors, etc. they all have to think, in some way, that they're doing the best thing, even though, from a more detached perspective, that isn't true. but if everybody walked around completely detached all the time, there wouldn't be much enthusiasm, would there?

    thing is that there has to be some basic sanity keeping things in check, particularly with the leaders of such groups; because new group members can be expected to get carried away at times, and then there has to be someone able to check that.

    from my point of view, this looks like the actual cause for the trouble you were in at that time: the place run by BT disciples, and none of the SP disciples or other senior leaders willing or able to check their "enthusiasm" when it went too far, or able or willing to take the time to explain things to you in a way you could accept.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    Kula-pavana:You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.
    The question I've had to ponder is whether initiations by 'gurus' whom Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize are initiations at all, or just a show. I know I didn't feel any burden of karma lifted, or anything like that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    well, this guru-disciple business with the karma being lifted and spiritual realization and such, depends on both, the guru's being able to do so and the disciple's surrender to the guru. you stated yourself that you were never really sure about your part in that deal...
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    "it sounds as if HH bhaktimarga m. was informed from devotees he knew quite well that you were creating a disturbance in their place, and he wanted to do the needful by telling you to quiet down, in the interest of the 'greater good.'"

    Phani prabhu,
    Actually I'm pretty sure he didn't know these devotees at all, since the'd lived at Gita-nagari for a long time, and he had only visited once in 10 years, a few weeks before this happened.

    I realize that I have a limited perspective in the issue, but a guru's job is to guide the disciple to increase his faith in the process of bhakti. However, as a result of this white lie (which, is supposed to be a harmless lie), combined with the other related events, I was so disturbed that I quit my whole sadhana for almost 2 years. The few times I reached for my japa bag made me feel ill. I couldn't forget Krishna, but I felt like He was just trying to hurt me. It was horrible.

    It started because BTS invited one unrepentant child molester to Gita-nagari (he lost his appeal of the CPT decision during this time) and glorified him so much that the devotee announced that he wanted to come live in our community. I was an elected community board member, and my wife was on the child protection team, so we felt a responsiblity to deal with this. We kept our questions low key for months, but then after BTS passed away, and I couldn't get any straight answers from his disciples, I asked publicly what his view on this devotee was, in case he had said something about it to someone. I tried to phrase it in a non-accusing way, but it was a direct question and devotees got very offended. I was threatened, condemned, and ostracized. The board members held secret meetings to impeach me, lying to me to keep them secret until they had some documents for me to sign. That meeting was when I found out that they had called Bhaktimarga.

    I regretted the timing of the issues, but it was the responsiblity of BTS and Radhanatha and whomever else invited this devotee to our community. They had to get an exemption from the CPO for him to come here, and they radically violated that limited exemption. (I'm not sure if there's an official procedure for that, or if it was just political muscle.) According to the stipulated penalties for violating his rectification plan, he should not have been allowed on ISKCON property, and the exemption was for leading one kirtan; yet he gave several classes and regularly lead kirtan. BTS disciples kept telling me that "He said he didn't do it, and Gurumaharaj said he's ok." Yet the temple president told me that he had trouble enforcing the curfew, as the devotee kept staying up late at night with the several young ladies he was "protecting."

    All this is on my blog. It's my perspective, of course, but why would I lie about it? It was political suicide, but I felt duty-bound to report what was happening. As a result, my second initiation was postponed indefinitely.

    In Caitanya Caritamrta, it's stated that "overglorification is an offense."

    Mostly I think your analysis of the situation I described is very good.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    phani:well, this guru-disciple business with the karma being lifted and spiritual realization and such, depends on both, the guru's being able to do so and the disciple's surrender to the guru. you stated yourself that you were never really sure about your part in that deal...
    So what's the meaning of such an initiation ceremony?
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    yes, i've read the whole episode on your blog long ago, and i agree that it was wrong on the temple authorities part. moreover, with your wife on the CPT, you couldn't really have acted much different, even had you wanted to, considering the special circumstances.

    hard to say what i would have done in that situation; probably tried to approach somebody even higher up, on the GBC exec. comittee perhaps, not involved in the local place at all.

    i certainly don't think you are lying; i only said, to get a clear picture, we'd have to listen to the other side, too. these things are never completely black / white, there's always some gray involved.
  32.  
    Pandu das:
    Kula-pavana:You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.
    The question I've had to ponder is whether initiations by 'gurus' whom Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize are initiations at all, or just a show. I know I didn't feel any burden of karma lifted, or anything like that.
    The short answer is that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati also did not formally authorize SP to accept disciples. That formal authorization is not part of our process. When guru passes on, his disciples are free to take their own sisyas. That is the way of our tradition. ****** The initiation happens between a guru and his disciple, where the guru represents sampradaya in thought and deed, and where disciple sincerely wants that person to lead him in spiritual life. The rest is hardly relevant. This re-initiation business is making a mockery of diksa as understood from the writings of Goswamis and Vaishnava tradition in general.
    •  
      CommentAuthorphani
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008 edited
     
    Pandu das: So what's the meaning of such an initiation ceremony?

    very simple: as long as your surrender isn't there, you won't get the full benefit. i don't think surrender is often fully present at initiation. that can develop later. and if you're not going to surrender to your diksa-guru, you'll have to find a siksa-guru to surrender to, which will bring the same benefit. and yes, that siksa guru can be srila prabhupada.

    i'd consider it very dangerous, though, to have srila prabhupada as my only siksa-guru, since all feed-back from him would have to come through my inner ear, an organ i can't really trust. i feel safer with a guru who is bodily present and can beat me over the head if necessary...

    Thankful People: ccd
  34.  
    ...I suggest Pandu Prabhu serve Prabhupada's mission in what ever capacity suits Him best and stay away from Bhaktimarga Swami,there's nothing He can tell Pandu that He won't find in Prabhupada's books.BMS is GBC for Canada,he does nothing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2008
     
    Right now I just want to acknowledge that I'm getting a lot of valuable guidance and instruction from the devotees here. Thanks!
    Hare Krishna.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2008
     
    > That formal authorization is not part of our process. When guru passes on, his disciples are free to take their own sisyas. That is the way of our tradition.

    Yes. This is what ritviks can't admit since they don't (want to) know the history of GV.

    Once I wrote:

    Guru doesn't have tell each of his disciples
    personally to become a guru after his (guru's)
    disappearance. It is an timeless order of Lord
    Caitanya (yare dekha tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa, CC
    Madhya 7.128) as seen from the meeting of Sri
    Caitanya with Sarangadeva (Saranga dasa Thakura)
    recorded in Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana:

    "On one occasion, after reprimanding Devananda
    Pandita, Lord Gauranga was on His way home,
    accompanied by Srivasa Pandita, when he came across
    Sarangadeva. Lord Gauranga asked Sarangadeva why had
    never initiated any disciples. Sarangadeva replied
    that he had not found any suitable person. Lord
    Gauranga blessed him saying, "Whoever you shall
    choose as a disciple will be most suitable."
  37.  
    ...yes but what do we do about the GBC making phoney gurus ? This is the real issue in ritvik circles.Should someone be allowed to take disciples because they know they will have devotees serving them and giving them money ?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2008
     
    It's been repeatedly stated that GBC gives only a "no-objection" status. It's not "making gurus". Only a guru makes one's disciple into a next guru.

    Historically there was no GV (or V) institution to do this. To choose a proper guru was solely up to a disciple. If the disciple made a wrong choice due to not following sastra prescriptions for choosing a guru, it was only his problem. Just like if one marries a wrong partner. Ignorance is no excuse. That's life.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2008
     
    It is not uncommon for a single successor to be commonly chosen by election at a meeting of the Mahants. Formerly even a governor of the district would preside over the elections by Mahants of the successor guru in some cases. (The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India By R V Russell, R.B.H. Lai p. 104) so do Madhvas mathas have a collective say on who is an acharya of other math in the group will be. Not unusual. But unlike 'acharya' guru deal is different, guru is a relationship (on one side with samradaya and his guru, and on the other it is with his disciple). Prabhupada was very specific - he wanted all his disciples to be his successors.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2008 edited
     
    I don't think it is fair to compare choosing a guru to choosing a spouse. For one thing, the choice of a husband or wife normally remains for one lifetime, whereas a disciple is the guru's eternal servant. Huge difference. Also, in a Vedik society one's spouse is normally chosen by the parents, or so I've been told. A kanistha adhikari is expected to study the scriptures to understand what is a bona fide guru, but he is also not considered capable of distinguishing between devotees at different levels of advancement. (Seems a little contradictory.) Therefore one's choice of guru often is largely decided based on charisma, fame, etc., especially when one can choose from pool of presumably safe gurus, basically certified by a supposedly highly advanced group of Vaishnvas.

    If the GBC is responsible for objecting to potential gurus who are not qualified, then the message given to prospective disciples is that any of the authorized ("no objection") gurus are safe and capable of quickly delivering the disciple back to Godhead. Based on history it is readily apparent that this is not reliable. Yet it's considered highly offensive for a more experienced devotee to point out known or suspected faults of initiating gurus. Therefore the new devotees are often kept relatively ignorant about the potential dangers among those whom he may be considering for spiritual master. Those who are inclined to reveal such dangers to new devotees are often shunned by other devotees, which is a powerful incentive for keeping new devotees in the dark.

    It reminds me of how Mother Mahavegavati was one of the first devotees I met, and shortly after that we became neighbors. She spent hours telling me of her experiences serving under Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. If not for her guidance, my family probably would've moved to Gita-nagari in 1997 (rather than New Vrindavana) instead of in 2003, which would've made it likely that I would've been initiated by Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. Wow, I could be a guru myself right now. How's that for dangerous? Of course, I would probably receive a number of objections because I don't always 'go along to get along.'

    Come to think of it, if a guru-disciple relationship is eternal, then it seems that it would not be a matter of choice in this world, but rather revelation, unless it's like the Christian conception of eternal as having a beginning but no end. If one's guru-disciple relationship is pre-existing, then one could argue that it would be better to have it drawn by lottery and take he mind with all its faults right out of it. How can a materially conditioned soul, with the four defects, properly choose a spiritual master?

    Actually, when I first spoke to Bhaktimarga Swami about initiation, I told him that it was hard for me to understand how a materially conditioned person could take such strict vows. My reasoning was that maya was so powerful that it makes no sense that a conditioned soul could promise to properly honor such vows. It seemed to me that if maya so chose, she could bewilder me in a moment, so I would first have to become liberated before being able to honestly make such a vow. In response, Bhaktimarga told me that it's easier to keep the vows if one takes them after grhastha life is nearing completion, and he recommended that I wait 20 or 25 years to get initiated. I asked in an online devotee forum if anyone had been able to keep their vows without ever breaking them, and no one responded. After a few years I started considering that anyone can die at any moment, and I wanted my spiritual efforts to be more than just practice. I also did not know if he was suggesting that he would initiate me in 20 years, or whether I should consider a different guru. When I asked him about it, he said he would initiate me at the Rathayatra in a few months. I still didn't know how I could take such serious vows without being liberated, but I wanted so much to improve my chanting of Hare Krishna that I decided to take the chance. As it turned out, I was right, in that maya caught me several times. I'm happy to be doing pretty well now, but I know that maya is waiting to get me as soon as I forget Krishna for a moment.

    In the matter of Srila Prabhupada wanting all of his disciples to be his successors, that still leaves some important details unanswered. Each disciple may or may not become qualified, regardless of what Srila Prabhupada wants. Some obviously believe in serving him as rtviks. If a disciple is sincere, who can question his relationship with his guru, to say that he should not act as a rtvik for Srila Prabhupada if that is his understanding of what Srila Prabhupada wants?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2008
     
    > I don't think it is fair to compare choosing a guru to choosing a spouse.

    This one, just like other comparisons, is not meant to be 100% fitting but to illustrate some aspects of the issue.

    >A kanistha adhikari is expected to study the scriptures to understand what is a bona fide guru, but he is also not considered capable of distinguishing between devotees at different levels of advancement. (Seems a little contradictory.)

    No, kanistha needs help always.

    >Therefore one's choice of guru often is largely decided based on charisma, fame, etc., especially when one can choose from pool of presumably safe gurus, basically certified by a supposedly highly advanced group of Vaishnvas.

    In this case a disciple didn't do his homework. No-objection cannot replace individual choice based on sastra rules.

    siddhanta alasa jana anartha to chade na, jade krsna bhrama kori krsna seva kore na

    "One who is lazy in properly understanding the Vaisnava philosophical conclusions can never become free from anarthas, the unwanted bad habits and philosophical conceptions that impede devotional service. One who mistakes Krishna as belonging to the material plane can never render actual service to the Lord." (BSST, Prakrita Rasa Shata Dushani)

    The argument that 'this guru may fall down in the future' is objected against by SP (RC, July 11, 1973, London):

    Father Tanner: Hm. But, you see, knowledge and attainment aren't the same thing. You know, I may know that it is wrong to be an alcoholic, and maybe I am not actually, physically an alcoholic, but it doesn't mean to say that interiorally I have cleansed myself of all addiction. The fact that you are not drinking for a year doesn't mean to say that you have overcome the intoxicant urge if that is in you, although you know it is wrong.
    Prabhupada: No, this argument is not very strong. Just like one foodstuff, freshly made, it is fresh. But if somebody argues that if it remains four days more, it will become bad, that is surmisation. Now it is fresh. We take it fresh. What will happen in future, that is no consideration. In future, everyone may fall and everyone may become elevated. But we have to take his present situation, what he is at present.

    >Yet it's considered highly offensive for a more experienced devotee to point out known or suspected faults of initiating gurus. Therefore the new devotees are often kept relatively ignorant about the potential dangers among those whom he may be considering for spiritual master. Those who are inclined to reveal such dangers to new devotees are often shunned by other devotees, which is a powerful incentive for keeping new devotees in the dark.

    Consulting senior Vaisnavas is not wrong. If someone claims so he should provide necessary quotes. But if the senior Vaisnava points out only faults, there's a problem with him, the guru he refers to or both and more info is needed.

    >Wow, I could be a guru myself right now. How's that for dangerous?

    Both guru and disciple are responsible for their actions. Trying to avoid this responsibility by inventing various ways and means won't work in the long run.

    Imho, this general tendency to protect people from this and that is an aspect of Western modernistic materialistic paradigm and it only makes things worse and is easily abused. But that's offtopic here.

    >Come to think of it, if a guru-disciple relationship is eternal, then it seems that it would not be a matter of choice in this world, but rather revelation, unless it's like the Christian conception of eternal as having a beginning but no end. If one's guru-disciple relationship is pre-existing, then one could argue that it would be better to have it drawn by lottery and take he mind with all its faults right out of it.

    Two possibilities: Either it's a new relationship or a continuation from the past. But which one it is is hard to determine without things like regressions, advanced astrology, etc. which may not be 100% reliable.
    'Pre-determined' doesn't imply doing anything and everything. Where is dharma and karma?

    >How can a materially conditioned soul, with the four defects, properly choose a spiritual master?

    He cannot - see above. Therefore it's said that Krsna gives a guru and the guru gives Krsna. To get a genuine guru is a matter of sukriti.

    >Actually, when I first spoke to Bhaktimarga Swami about initiation, I told him that it was hard for me to understand how a materially conditioned person could take such strict vows.

    Imho, in that case one shouldn't take diksa because of a lack of determination. It's better to take siksa from seniors, serve them and thus develop this determination.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2008
     
    >My reasoning was that maya was so powerful that it makes no sense that a conditioned soul could promise to properly honor such vows. It seemed to me that if maya so chose, she could bewilder me in a moment, so I would first have to become liberated before being able to honestly make such a vow.

    So do we have a vicious circle here? My understanding of maya is different. She's not a 'predator ready to jump on us at any moment' but it's us who invite her to influence us by turning away from Krishna (kRSNa bahirmukha haNA bhoga-vANchA kare nikaTa-stha mAyA tAre jApaTiyA dhare).

    Another of my realizations is that the widespread idea of 'fighting maya' is a misconception. We can't fight her since she's 'duratyaya'. Only Krishna - and esp. Radha - can help us. After all, Sri Radha is Adi Shakti, the origin of Maya shakti.
    Also blessings of Vaisnavis, esp. advanced ones, are a powerful protection from maya. Otoh, offenses against them is a sure way to falldown. Unfortunately, we don't lack examples.

    >I know that maya is waiting to get me as soon as I forget Krishna for a moment.

    That's how KC works, by free will. Either: Krsna bahirmukha >> maya comes. Or:
    Krsna sevonmukha >> bhakti comes.

    >Each disciple may or may not become qualified, regardless of what Srila Prabhupada wants.

    Then it's up to prospective disciples if they choose him or not. See above.

    >If a disciple is sincere, who can question his relationship with his guru, to say that he should not act as a rtvik for Srila Prabhupada if that is his understanding of what Srila Prabhupada wants?

    Anyone who simply points out that post-mortem ritvikism is against g-s-s.
  43.  
    post-mortem : L. after the death, source Webster's collegiate dictionary
    •  
      CommentAuthorabhiram
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2008
     
    god... this thread is longer than the bhagavad gita...
  45.  
    ...gbc bhagavad gita or ritvik bhagavad gita ?...;)
    •  
      CommentAuthorabhiram
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2008
     
    boring bhagavad gita... :)
    • CommentAuthorbirball
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     
    Hare Krishna
    Please note that you must delete that comment,which states that "birball",is a "THANKFUL PEOPLE".
    What I will like to say is that KULA PAVANA must read all of Srila prabhupada's Instructions carefully before blabbing his/her mouth about the ritvik issue.He/She is like a blind person leading the blind.

    Have you studied the July 9,1977 Directive from Srila Prabhuapda,to ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS and The GBC.Have you studied Srila Prabhupada's Last Will and Testament.Are you aware that a Forensic Laboratory found the May 28,1977 Appointment Tape to be Bogus.Where are ALL the Missing Tapes that the GBC cannot account for.How conveniently these tapes that give conclusive evidence of the existence of THE RITVIK SYSTEM,that was approved by Srila Prabhupada vanish in thin air.Can Kula Pavana account for all these details.
    Please contact me at :"birball@yahoo.com",and we can discuss this matter,in details.
    Please DELETE the comment:"THANKFUL PEOLPE"
    Thanks
    Leal Birball
    =============================
  48.  
    birball: What I will like to say is that KULA PAVANA must read all of Srila prabhupada's Instructions carefully before blabbing his/her mouth about the ritvik issue.He/She is like a blind person leading the blind. Have you studied the July 9,1977 Directive from Srila Prabhuapda,to ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS and The GBC.Have you studied Srila Prabhupada's Last Will and Testament.Are you aware that a Forensic Laboratory found the May 28,1977 Appointment Tape to be Bogus.Where are ALL the Missing Tapes that the GBC cannot account for.How conveniently these tapes that give conclusive evidence of the existence of THE RITVIK SYSTEM,that was approved by Srila Prabhupada vanish in thin air.Can Kula Pavana account for all these details.
    Hare Krishna, Prabhu, I have studied the above referenced materials in detail and I am tired of repeating the same arguments again for every new participant in these discussions. Read my posts and address their contents if you like. The 'appointment tape' is not as you say 'bogus'. There are possibly parts of it that were removed or edited, yet clearly Prabhupada's voice is there and he is appointing some of his disciples to initiate. And the claims that 'missing tapes' contain all the ritvik evidence Prabhupada wanted to implement is about as funny as a 10 year old student claiming a dog ate his homework... I have no problem with devotees believing in ritvikvada. Just be a real Vaishnava at the same time. That is the important part.

101 to 148 of 148

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Questions Top of Page
 
Powered By ISKCON Tech