Rtvik philosophy. Please help.

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

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

 

I know one devotee who's following rtvik philosophy. We've started an

argument on that philosophy, but I'm not sure I'll be able to defeat

him. If someone could help me, please reply. The devotee's not too

learned, but he believes rtviks and all the nonsense they talk. I

believe that being defeated in our argument, he'll leave the camp he's

in and join that under the flag of pure gaudiya-siddhanta.

 

Just to begin: his points were: 1) he asked me to prove that his

philosophy is apa-siddhanta; 2) Srila Prabhupada didn't tell his

disciples to become diksa-gurus.

 

My first reply will be an answer to his first point. I'm going to

write to him that an acarya can change something in the practice, but

he doesn't change essential points. Whereas ritvik philosophy claims

that Srila Prabhupada can be our diksa-guru. If it were true, that'd

mean that Srila Prabhupada changed guru-tattva. However he couldn't do

it. Otherwise it would be a deviation.

 

That's all I can tell him. But I don't know where to find the sastric

ground for my answer (e.g. sastric reference on the need of a living

guru).

 

Please help.

 

--

Your servant,

Dennis. dennis_s

[Guest guest]

I don't see what the problem here is. It isn't your job to prove that

every mental speculation that one can come up with is not found in

any of the millions of lines of scripture. That would be absurd.

 

Rather, the burden of proof is on the challenger to show that his

idea is substantiated by shaastra. There is no question of accepting

post-samadhi ritvik initiation when there is no scriptural evidence

for such an institution. Your friend's belief is pure sentiment until

he can prove otherwise.

 

It isn't enough to say, "but my guru said so...." Well, if your guru

said it, then where is it in shaastra? If he said it but it is not in

shaastra, or even worse, contradicted by shaastra, then the "guru" is

speculating. If he attributes such ideas to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami,

then ask him why he follows a guru who teaches what is contradicted

by shaastra?

 

Unfortunately, it is a fact that too many people are all too

comfortable with following deviant ideas on the alleged grounds

that "Srila Prabhupada said so..." This is unfortunate - devotees

should see the guru as the transparent via medium through which

shaastra is revealed, and not an independent shruti unto himself. If

they were to see properly, they would learn to question the

scriptural basis of things which they think Srila Prabhupada said. If

they did that, they might realize that Srila Prabhupada in fact never

said such things!