Rtvik philosophy/Ritvik replies

August 4, 2004

achintya, siva RAJAN <suave_siva> wrote:

> Dear Krishna prabhu

> PAMHO AGTSP

> Thanks for the ritvik bashing. My reply as follows:

It is not a question of "ritvik bashing" or any other bashing.

Rather, the point is that one must have scriptural evidence for his

claims, without which his conclusions have no place in the rigorous

discourse of Vaishnava Vedaantins.

Sentimentalism to the effect "I/my guru believe in X, therefore it is

good and true until you prove otherwise," is more appropriate for the

many other Hindu forums on the internet than on a forum such as this

where certain standards of epistemology (namely, the ones Srila

Prabhupada himself advocated) are understood.

> S: How would you know if its not found in the millions of lines of

scriptures or that we are speculating? Have u read all of them or are

U speculating on that?what is your definition of scripture?

>

Shaastra means Vedas, which includes the Puraanas and Itihaasas. If

you have a problem with this definition, you are most welcome to take

it up with Jiiva Gosvaamii, who has made it clear in Sri Tattva-

sandarbha what constitutes acceptable pramaana.

As far as not knowing whether or not it is in scripture (shaastra),

you are missing the point. The point is that the burden of proof lies

on the challenger. It is ludicrous for someone to say, "I believe

this is ok, now you must accept it until you can prove that there is

explicit pramaana to the contrary."

By that sort of absurd thinking, one can justify just about any

deviation. Now think for a moment and consider:

There is no statement in the Vedas prohibiting one from watching

television.

There is no statement in the Vedas prohibiting homosexual "marriage."

There is no statement in the Vedas prohibiting dining at fast-food

restaurants.

There is no statement in the Vedas prohibiting one from accepting a

chimpanzee as one's guru.

By your logic, I can claim any of these to be acceptable behavior,

and when you object, I will say, "oh, how do you know? Have you read

all of the millions of lines of Vedas?"

Please, think things through before proposing some apasiddhaanta.

By the way, I wish it to be known to all that this posting by Siva

Rajan is a perfect example of what does not usually get posted when

moderation is being carried out. I do not allow people to post who

refuse to answer points, who take the discussion onto tangential

lines of thinking, who create strawmen and then knock them down, etc.

All of this can be seen in the particular posting I am responding to

here.

In fact, it is usually my experience that ritviks do not post here,

because the requirement to provide scriptural evidence for their

views effectively filters them out. All they can do is cite "room

conversations" or "letters," many often taken out of context. And

when you point out the problems with using such sources as shruti,

they simply accuse you of rejecting your guru. This is a perfect

example of the kind of one-pointed fanaticism we do not usually allow

here.

Another lesson to be learned here is that, in contrast to lay Hindus,

Vaishnavas do not take the bona fide spiritual master to be an

indepedent shruti onto himself. Such sentiments as, "I don't care

what the Vedas say, our guru has given the siddhaanta!" simply breeds

misunderstandings like ritvik philosophy, as well as most of the

other misunderstandings that permeate Hinduism. If some of these

ritviks had bothered to consult shaastra, they would have seen the

contradiction between the Vedic statements and what they *allege* to

be Srila Prabhupada's statements promoting the ritvik idea.

"Guru, saadhu, shaastra." It's not just a slogan. It means something.

When your understanding of one (i.e. Prabupada) is in conflict with

the other two, chances are your understanding is wrong.

August 5, 2004

achintya, siva RAJAN <suave_siva> wrote:

> HAre Krishna prabhu

>

> U are nt even answering my point. funny how u choose to delete

everything and just cite the first half of my reply.

>

That should give you some indication of what I thought of the second

half.

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I am not in the habit of

dignifying bunk with a response.

> U dont have point for point argument for my case so i suggest u

stick to your own speculative ways and let Prabhupad's instructions

>

My "speculative" way is to follow the instructions in shaastra

regarding guru-acceptance.

I have as of yet, seen no shaastric evidence of any precedent for a

post-samaadhi ritvik initiation anywhere in shaastra, ever. On the

other hand, there are plenty of statements to the contrary, that one

should accept initiation from a qualified individual.

BG 4.34 tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa.... which says

that the guru must be initiated in spiritual knowledge and a seer of

the truth.

Then there is Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12:

tadvij~naanaartha.m sa gurumevaabhigachchhet

samitpaaNiH shrotriya.m brahmaniShTham || MU 1.2.12 ||

....which says that he must be fixed in Brahman (or in other words,

Krishna-conscious) and learned in scripture. These are fairly

straightforward statements, and they preclude the possibility of

accepting initiation by proxy from an unqualified individual.

At this time, you are welcome to post here your alleged "evidence"

from the Vedas which support a post-samaadhi-unqualified-ritvik-guru-

initiation-system.

>I ahve already said so many things that SP did that were against

sruti>

No, you described several things he did which you ALLEGE are against

shruti. You have not shown the relevant shruti pramaana demonstrating

that this is so. Hence, no further response from me was indicated, as

you have not yet proven your point.

As far as the rest of your "argument," I stopped reading after about

the 10th grammatically incomprehensible accusation to the effect that

I am disloyal, disobedient, too attached to my ISKCON guru, etc.

Actually I am neither a member of ISKCON nor in any ISKCON guru's

camp - but having revealed that, I am sure you will now consider this

the basis for a new character attack. If I am in ISKCON, then I am

biased towards ISKCON, and hence anything I say is without merit. But

if I am not in ISKCON, then I am disobedient to Srila Prabhupada, and

again whatever I say is unworthy of consideration. So either way I

cannot speak sensibly to you, since my character does not meet with

your exacting standards in either case.

You might have noticed by now that I prefer to stick to hard facts

instead of subjective flights of fancy. I still await the shruti

evidence you intend to present, in the original Sanskrit,

demonstrating the validity of a post-samaadhi ritvik-guru initiation

system.

August 5, 2004

Haribol,

I suggest that we don't waste time on this issue for much longer on a public

forum like

achintya, unless ofcourse the debate is based on scriptures. If, alteast, we are

in a

position (official, I mean) in the society when our arguments will carry some

weight

towards some solution, then it can be considered useful. Those of us who are not

in

such a position should simply engage our energies in positive activities.

I have come in contact with atleast three friends, who were supporters of the

ritvik

argument, but now have given up on that issue, and are engaging nicely in KC. I

always

tell my friends to just put the issue in the back and move forward, and

encourage them

to associate with any devotee who is genuinely serving Srila Prabhupada and Lord

Chaitanya's mission. Everyone is looking for ISKCON to deliver, but

unfortunately we

are engrossed in these kinds of issues and losing focus. And, in the process we

make those who want us to go down happier!!!.

This is a request, in particular to those of us who are neophytes in ISKCON, and

are not in any official position, to just move on and seek good association.

There are enough fora wasting time on this (without sastric basis), let's not

add one more!!! Also, I also request senior devotees to not discuss this issue

on open fora and confuse those who are new to KC. We are harming everyone in the

process. Atleast, if we do nonsense in a closed place, it may affect only us,

but if we do it in open, u know...

There is so much left to do, let's cooperate to please SP and Krishna!

iys

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: