Ritviks - last warnings. Points to be discussed

[Guest guest]

Siva Rajan, I posted a message warning you to start getting to the

point, or else. I do not see that message right now, so I will be

charitable and assume it did not go through for whatever reason.

Therefore, I will take this moment to instruct you again on what

specific points are to be addressed and what you can do to avoid

losing your posting priviliges here.

 

Please note that I deleted several of your postings on this thread

after scanning them first for some semblance of philosophical

content. I kept only one of the postings in the archives because it

presented some evidence, albeit out of context, although in all

frankness that sort of posting would never have made it past

moderation either. Sorry if you do not like this, but I am not going

to allow the level of discourse to be degraded simply because some

individuals cannot comprehend basic English, spell properly, or even

communicate or understand a single coherent thought.

 

Now, here are the points you are required to address, if you wish to

continue this discussion here.

 

1) Shaastric Evidence: Shaastras means Vedas, Puraanas, Itihaasas and

other smritis that are not in conflict with shruti. I am sorry if you

do not like this definition, but it is the principle used by all

Vedaantists (including non-Vaishnava ones) for thousands of years. It

is not going to be changed for your sake. Therefore, you must provide

the shaastric evidence substantiating a post-samaadhi ritvik

initiation system, period (especially since it is your argument that

this system is consistent with shruti and smriti).

 

2) Gaudiiya tradition: You have not provided any historical precedent

for a post-samaadhi ritvik system. Of course, there is no reason a

guru can't do something unprecedented, but for it to be accepted as

bona fide, it must have some basis, in tradition at least if not in

shaastra. At the very least, it should not contradict shaastra. Where

is your evidence that a post-samaadhi ritvik system was ever used in

the chatur-sampradaayas? in the gaudiiya sampradaaya? in any

sampradaaya?

 

3) Guru's testimony: No one is denying that ACBSP setup a ritvik

initiation system. The question is whether this was supposed to

continue as such after his departure. Note the following points: (A)

Letter of H.H. Tamal Krishna Gosvami regarding "he never appointed

gurus" - this has been misunderstood to mean that no one after ACBSP

was supposed to become guru. In fact, TKG was arguing against

the "guru by appointment" idea - his point being that a qualified

person should go on to become guru, not that because one was

appointed as a ritvik while Srila Prabhupada was present, that he

could go on to become guru on the basis that this constituted

an "appointment." Please read the letter in its entirety. (B) Room

Conversations, Letters of Srila Prabhupada - many of these are

frankly ambiguous, due both to Srila Prabhupada's Indian English and

the fact that that context has (rather suspiciously) been omitted.

© Failure to address contradictory evidence: Many ISKCON writings

have quoted Srila Prabhupada to the effect that his disciples should

become gurus (one such essay is at

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/ritvik/).

Why do you ignore Srila Prabhupada's comments to the contrary of your

position, when your position is that one should look only at what

Srila Prabhupada has instructed? In order to be convincing, you need

to explain away ALL the contradictory evidence from your chosen

pramaana.

***

 

4) Politics: There are enough references in this last message of

yours which cross the line from philosophy into "politics." We are

not interested in discussing the spiritual qualifications of any

leaders in any religious organizations. This discussion must focus on

the issues, and not the history which spawned them. Political issues

belong on some other forum.

 

5) Strawman attacks: Every comment made to you usually gets a

response to the effect that those who dare question you are basically

disagreeing with Prabhupada. This kind of evasive maneuver is

unacceptable here. Especially so the arguments from you like, "I have

already shown..." when in fact you have not done so.

 

6) Agreement between authorities: It is not enough to build a case

that the guru may have endorsed something. You should also show that

it has support from "guru, saadhu, and shaastra." In other words, it

needs to be accepted by other Vaishnava lines, and it must be

endorsed in shaastra. My point earlier was that your interpretation

of Srila Prabhupada's instructions is likely wrong if it contradicts

the other two authorities. I stand behind that position.

 

Make no mistake, we can discuss the philosophical basis for the

position of guru, the relationship of gurus to disciples, etc so long

as those discussions stay philosphical and evidence-based. If you

proceed in making the same errors and omissions listed above, you

will lose your posting privileges.

 

*** for example:

 

I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide

spiritual master to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the whole

world. (SPL Madhusudana, Nov. 2, 1967)

 

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down

from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the

future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic

succession. (Los Angeles, 25 January, 1969)

 

Every one of you should be spiritual master next. (Hamburg, September

5, 1969)

 

These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I

am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting.

Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they

are being trained to become future spiritual masters. (RC Detroit,

July 18, 1971)

 

You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master.

(London, August 22, 1973)

[Guest guest]

Again I wish to state that as a general principle, the burden of

proof lies on the challenger. Post-samaadhi ritvik initiations have

not historically existed in the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, in any

Vaishnava sampradaaya, or in the Vedas and their adjunctive

literatures. Hence, it is a new institution.

 

Arguments like "this is true until you read all the millions of lines

of scripture and find me a specific contradictory pramaana" are

asinine. By the same logic, I can argue that so-and-so Baba is God,

and when challenged to substantiate it, I could reply with, "Well how

do you know it is not so, have you read all the millions of lines of

scripture?" Please, think before writing.