Post-Samaadhi Ritvik Vaada: Scriptural Considerations

[Guest guest]

Those who know me know that I have a habit of sticking my hands into

hornets' nests, and this is certainly no exception. I am starting a

thread here on the concept of Ritvik initiations, the idea that one

can take initiation from a guru no longer physicially present by

submitting onself to a representative, or ritvik, who is unqualified

himself to be a true guru.

 

I was inspired to do this by one Achintya member who, in response to

my postings regarding the Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa (which had

nothing to do with ritvik initiations), used it as a chance to launch

into a tirade against current representatives of Srila Prabhupada's

paramparaa. Why he chose this opportunity to do this was beyond me,

as I explained to that individual that we were discussing the

authenticity of Srila Prabhupada's roots rather than the current

representatives. Neverthelss, with seemingly little understanding of

the significance of the paramparaa controversy, he continued to

promote his standard pro-ritvik propaganda, complete with the URL of

an ISKCON temple that had adopted this "philosophy" as its own.

 

As many of you know, the "ritvik" initiation doctrine came into vogue

when it was felt by some that Srila Prabhupada left no qualified

disciples to carry on his paramparaa. I am not interested in

confirming or denying such allegations, as I feel that such issues

are not in the realm of discourse for cultured Vaishnavas. The bottom

line is that we look at objective, scripturally based criteria to

determine which guru is bona fide; we don't wave our hands and

dismiss gurus based on touchy-feely, sentimental considerations.

 

Rather, I want to discuss here, the scriptural version regarding

gurus and initiations and what the ramifications are for the so-

called "ritvik" initiations. By "scripture," I am referring of course

to the Vedas, which include the Itihaasas and Puraanas. Since the

controversy is often in regards to what Srila Prabhupada meant in his

various room conversations, letters, etc, the proper place to go to

seek confirmation of any doctrine is *shaastra.*

 

As we all know, a bona fide aachaarya lets shaastra speak through

him; he does not invent institutions that have no basis in shaastra

or are contradicted by shaastric considerations. To imply that Srila

Prabhupada would so contradict shaastra is to paint him as a

renegade; such a depiction is not acceptable to proper Gaudiiya

Vaishnavas.

 

Furthermore, as Achintya is a moderated forum that requires

participants to argue based on evidence, instead of whim or

sentiment, I feel that Achintya is the best place to establish the

truth of any doctrine, compared to other sites on the internet where

name-calling, sentimentalism, or fanaticism rule the day. The idea

here is that if Srila Prabhupada really meant something, it will only

come out in a place where shaastra is objectively analyzed to

substantiate it. If a rational examination of shaastra does not

produce independent verification of some theory, then that theory

must be thrown out if we are to remain loyal to shaastra.

 

My comments will follow this posting.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

The post-samaadhi ritvik doctrine holds that if no qualified gurus

are present, then initiation can be sought by a guru who is no longer

physically present via the medium of an individual otherwise

unqualified to be a guru on his own.

 

It does not take an intellectual to realize that the above theory of

the ritvik-vaadiis has nothing in shaastra to support it. Shaastras

are uniform in their recommendation that we seek out a *qualified*

and *knowledgeable* guru to help us in our spiritual progress:

 

tad viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa |

upadekShyanti te j~naana.m j~naaninas tattva-darshinaH || giitaa 4.34

||

 

tat - that knowledge of different sacrifices; viddhi - try to

understand; praNipaatena - by approaching a spiritual master;

pariprashnena - by submissive inquiries; sevayaa - by the rendering

of service; upadekShyanti - they will initiate; te - you; j~naanam -

into knowledge; j~naaninaH - the self-realized; tattva - of the

truth; darshinaH -seers.

 

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master.

Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-

realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen

the truth (bhagavad-giitaa 4.34).

 

These are Lord Krishna's own words to Arjuna, in which He recommends

that we seek out a guru, serve, and inquire from him about the

Absolute Truth. He then states that such a guru is qualified to do

this, becuase he is tattva-darshinaH - a seer of the truth. The point

that needs to be emphasized here is that Lord Krishna is advising one

to look for a self-realized (j~naaninaH) seer of the truth (tattva-

darshinaH) as a guru. Clearly, these are high standards to live up

to. An unqualified ritvik "guru" would not satisfy such standards.

Nowhere does Krishna allow for one to seek initiation from an

unqualified guru. Indeed, the notion of an "unqualified guru" is a

contradiction in terms:

 

pariikShya lokaankarmachitaanbraahmaNo nirvedamaayaannaastyakR^itaH

kR^itena |

tadvij~naanaartha.m sa gurumevaabhigachchhetsamitpaaNiH shrotriya.m

brahmaniShTam || MU 1.2.12 ||

 

pariikShya -seeing; lokaan - the worlds; karma-chitaan - obtained by

karma; brahmaNaH - a brahmana; nirveda-maayaan - renounced; na - not;

asty - is; akR^itaH - undone; kR^itena - done; tad-vij~naanaartham -

to understand that knowledge; sa - he; gurum - a spiritual master;

eva - indeed; abhigachchhet - should approach; samit-paaNiH - fuel in

hand; shrotriyam - learned in the scriptures; brahma-niShTham -

devoted to the Supreme.

 

Seeing the true nature of the higher worlds attained by pious karma,

a braahmaNa does not desire them. To learn transcendental subject

matter, one must approach the spiritual master. In doing so he should

carry fuel to burn in sacrifice. The symptom of such a great

spiritual master is that he is expert in understanding the Vedic

conclusion, and therefore he constantly engages in the service of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead (muNDakopaniShad 1.2.12).

 

The Upanishad says it clearly, in case one did not understand it from

the Giitaa: the guru is shrotriyam (learned in the scriptures) and

brahma-niShTham - fixed in Brahman, or in otherwords, Krishna-

consciousness. If the ritvik guru is not both of these things, then

he is no guru at all.

 

One would be hard pressed to find a scriptural precedent for taking

initiation from an individual who was unqualified to be a guru.

Indeed, when I challenged one ritvik-vaadii to come up with some

shaastric basis for this practice, he did a Vedabase search for the

term "ritvik" and listed every Sanskrit verse in the Bhaagavatam in

which this word occurred. But when I examined his "evidence," I found

that the word "ritvik" as referred to in those Bhaagavatam verses

referred NOT to an individual initiating in his guru's name, but

rather to an officiating priest at a sacrifice. I found such a

response laughable - had the individual in question even bothered to

read those verses?

 

Sometimes the ritviks point out to me that Srila Prabhupada had

instituted a ritvik-initiation system during his final years on

earth; this was just because it was impossible for him to be

physically present everywhere and perform the initiations himself.

The disciplies initiated through this system were his disciples. But

he still accepted those disciples; this was not a post-samaadhi

ritvik system.

 

In a post-samaadhi ritvik system, the guru is no longer physically

present to give instruction. So followers of this heresy accept the

guru's written instructions as a substitute, since a guru's written

instructions are nondifferent from his personal instructions. But if

books become the sole medium of instruction, how does the disciple

learn humility? How does he receive instructions specific for his

personality and upbringing? There is no substitute for the physical

presence of a guru, as only the physical presence of a guru can

ensure that the disciple is appropriately corrected, disciplined, or

chastised as necessary.

 

I actually quoted the above verses to a ritvik during an e-mail

discussion. His response was that while I had quoted shaastra

everywhere to prove my point, the fact that I had not quoted Srila

Prabhupada made my position very week. This is another facet of the

ritvik heresy that we must all be mindful of; they do not seem to

care what shaastra says or whether or not it contradicts their

understanding of what Srila Prabhupada has said. This is the kind of

thinking we see in contemporary, neo-Advaitic, Hindu organizations,

wherein the guru's words are given greater weight than those of the

shaastras.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

>From the previous discussion, we can therefore conclude that post-

samaadhi ritvik vaada is based on sentimentalism only. If Srila

Prabhupada left no qualified gurus to carry on the paramparaa (which

is not an issue to be debated here), then the paramparaa is dead.

There is nothing like taking initiation from an unqualified guru, as

no such thing is recognized by shaastra.