Ritviks - last warnings/ Don't waste our time please

[Guest guest]

So far, all you did was post some interviews with Sri Vaishnava and

Maadhva scholars regarding the concept, although how much was

revealed to them and how much they are aware of the issue in detail

is unclear. It is interesting that although you distrust other

Vaishnavas, scripture, and everything other than Prabhupada, still

you will go outside of Prabhupada to try and get the support you

need.

 

Even here, your "evidence" is somewhat lacking. After skimming

Bannanje Govindacharya's interview on the matter, all I found from

him were some comments to the effect that a guru must be qualified

before giving diksha, and even then he always represents the gurus

before him -- none of which points to post-samaadhi ritvik initiation

per se. Everyone should agree with that. He also made some point to

the effect that a guru should not be "institutionalized" -- again,

nothing particularly controversial there. If BG said something more

specific, one can feel free to quote it to me. But be aware that BG,

although well known in his sampradaaya, is not very orthodox. One of

my friends who met with him can attest to the fact that he eats

onions and garlic, for example. Furthermore, he was the "technical"

advisor for the Madhvaachaarya film which came out years ago, and

which contains numerous historical errors (as I can attest to, having

seen it in its entirety).

 

There was also an interview with one "Sri Rangapriya Swami." Again,

we do not know anything about what was revealed to this individual,

or what his prejudices are. He may endorse a "ritvik" system based on

his impression that Western gurus can never be qualified. In any

case, his opinions on the matter are hardly conclusive because (a) he

gives no shaastric evidence, (b) he merely claims that such a system

is in accord with shaastra, with no further explanation whatsoever,

and © we cannot be sure his opinions are not based on racial

prejudice, and (d) he gives no historical precedent from within his

own sampradaaya for such a system.

 

Finally, there was an interview with one Sri Tatachar, Sanskrit

Academy Director. This letter, in which he allegedly endorses post-

samaadhi ritvik vaada, is quite likely a forgery. Reasons: He uses "-

ji" and "Srila" in his writings. Guess what? Those honorifics are not

used in South India. In fact, "Srila" is exclusively used by

Gaudiiyas only; no one else has even heard that particular title.

 

Furthermore, the examples given in that letter of Raamaanuja's

precedent are not very convincing. They show that a shishya can have

many shiksha gurus and one diksha guru. Furthermore, Raamaanuja's

disciples are known as *his* disciples, and not as the grand-grand

disciples of Yamunaachaarya. If post-samaadhi ritvik vaada was the

intention, then why don't contemporary Sri Vaishnava aachaaryas refer

to themselves as representatives of Yamunaachaarya instead of as

disciples of their specific diksha gurus? The argument that, "Well

Raamaanuja was qualified, so even though he got ritvik initiation, he

was able to have his own disciples, as were his disciples, his

disciples's disciples etc..." is ludicrous. Who makes the decision as

to whether someone is qualified to be a guru or only a proxy-guru?

For that matter, where is the evidence that Yamunaachaarya wanted his

disciples to be only ritivik-gurus after his departure? Raamaanuja

may have his own reasons for invoking Yamunaachaarya's name as his

guru - but without proof positive that his shiksha gurus were

supposed to be ritviks only, ritvik-vaada cannot be reliably known to

be one of them. And if Raamaanuja is a disciple of Yamunaachaarya

only (he isn't - Sri Vaishnava literature names all of his gurus

including Yamunaachaarya), and Yamunaachaarya's disciples were

supposed to be ritvik gurus only, then by that logic, Raamaanuja

being his disciple should also be a ritvik-guru. But historically it

is not so.

 

But in the end, even if all these scholars endorse post-samaadhi

ritvik vaada for ISKCON and not for their own traditions, the point

remains that there is no shaastric support for such an institution.

This is the point that is ultimately damning for your argument in

support of post-samaadhi ritvik initiation.

[Guest guest]

We have been more than exemplary in our patience.

 

(1) You have been challenged to demonstrate the shaastric evidence

for a post-samaadhi ritvik system. Although you managed to hurl many

abuses at me, you still have not done so.

 

(2) You have been challenged to demonstrate how accepting post-

samaadhi ritvik initiation from someone who is not qualified to be a

diksha guru, does not contradict pramaanas like BG 4.34 and Mundaka

Upanishad already quoted. You still have not done so.

 

(3) You were asked to show an historical precedent in the Gaudiiya

sampradaya for a post-samaadhi ritvik system. You still have not done

so.

 

(4) You were asked to show a precedent in any sampradaaya for such a

system. You still have not done so. (I realize this point may be

arguable based on the example given of Raamaanuja)

 

(5) You were asked to explain away the evidence by Srila Prabhupada

in which he indicates that he expected his disciples to become gurus.

You still have not done so.

 

(6) You were told that you misrepresented Tamal Krishna Gosvami's

letter on the issue, and it was expected that you would admit this

and retract that "evidence." You still have not done so.

 

>From the above, one can conclude that honesty of presentation and

shaastric evidence are not priorities for you or those you represent.

Despite the principle that diversity of opinions enriches this forum,

given the above, I am not clear on what value your dishonest,

evasive, and tangential arguments add to this forum. When one can

argue quite logically for a contradictory opinion, it is interesting

and delightful to hear. When such arguments become akin to the

braying sounds of the muuDhas described in Srila Prabhupada BG 7.15

purport, then it becomes a problem.

 

Again, I am going to delete your last posting on the grounds that it

violates several Achintya List rules. Furthermore, I am removing your

posting privileges for the time being until you can learn to follow

those rules.

 

However, just to demonstrate that I am interested in debating the

issue, I will post the links you gave in that posting here:

 

"Your questions are all explicitly dealt with and defeated here:

http://www.iskconirm.com/tfo.htm

 

For your ignorant claim that there is such other tradition in other

sampradayas

:

http://www.iskconirm.com/other_sampradaya_scholars_support.htm

 

And any other QnA regarding RITVIK :

www.iskconirm.com"

 

Please, if anyone else has doubts and wants to discuss this point,

feel free to do so here. Let us have a civil disagreement, but one

that is based on some semblance of loyalty to shaastra.

 

yours,

 

K