can someone give sastric and sadhu validations for ritvikism

[Guest guest]

<<<<And if one cannot understand that

the ritvik idea is bogus and that TFO is a load of incoherent garbage, then

there is not much that can be done. But lets at least relocate the ritvik

issue to where it belongs - the garbage can.>>>>>

 

>From Deepak's reply to MCD, which is also applicable to the above:

 

***

The philosophy that Srila Prabhupada continues as the current spiritual

master in ISKCON is comprehensively explained in "The Final Order" (TFO), as

you well know. All you have to do is read it and in this way your desire to

become enlightened about Srila Prabhupada's instructions on ritvik

initiations will be fulfilled.

 

Contrary to Jahnu Prabhu's uneducated critique of TFO that it is "incoherent

garbage", ISKCON's own leading academic advisor Prof. Kim Knott stated in

the Foreword to TFO:

 

"It raises important theological questions concerning spiritual authority

and its transmission, the relationship of the disciple and Krishna's

representative, the guru, and the proper objects of devotional worship...

the profound issues it raises demand consideration at all levels. Every

devotee has a real stake in the matter."

 

So if Jahnu would like to tell the academic community that they are so

unprofessional as to recommend a work of "incoherent garbage", I'm sure they

will heed this advice from such a recognised scholar as himself.

 

It should also be noted that TFO, which was written **specifically in

response** to the GBC paper "Gurus and Initiations in ISKCON" (GII),

resulted last year in the GBC withdrawing its own GII paper, admitting in

the process that it both "stretches the truth" and is full of "lies". That

doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the GBC's philosophy on

guru-tattva, does it?************

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak,

 

Hare Krsna and best wishes.

 

>But clearly, you agree that since Srila Prabhupada's signature

>appears on the letter, then it DOES carry authority (or at least it

>did until November 14th/15th 1977, when it ceased to be applied in

>ISKCON).

 

Please don't be cutesy with me.

 

You and I have had an extensive open correspondence on the

"Initiations" conference. Anyone interested can get a copy from me.

 

I see no point in going over the same territory with you again.

 

It saddens me that while the whole world suffers for lack of Krsna

consciousness, such a bright man as you invests his valuable energy in

beating a dead horse.

 

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

 

Hoping this finds you in good health,

 

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service,

Jayadvaita Swami

 

 

-------------------

www.krishna.com/jas

-------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhuji

 

I would like to extricate myself from this discussion on this ritvik issue.

I have got advice from various quarters that the best use of my time and

energy would be to distribute SP books, preach KC and develope my own KC.

 

I am advised that it would be wrong on my part to engage my valuable human

life in this arguement anymore. As Lord Caitanya has proven arguements have

limited value as one can argue the same point from both sides and assume one

has won..

 

Also there is the famous story of two men who fought..one was thrown into

the river and still he used his hands to signal scissors..instead of

probably saving himself.

 

So i would like to follow HH Jayadvaita Maharaj's advice to you, and

restrict myself from this debate...as someone pointed out..debate is also a

form of sense gratification...atleast for a neophyte like me.

 

Kindly forgive my inability to participate in this discussion anymore...i

also feel its better to print books and magazines glorifying Krishna and His

devotees, whether they be ritvik or non ritvik adherents...

this would be better than spending money and ink and internet space

slandering people who have dedicated their life to propogate the Holy

Name....i am referring to a magazine i recently called Back to

Prabhupad..where i only saw slander of devotees....and very little of

Krishna Katha.

 

this is one of the offenses to the Holy Name.

 

all those whom i involved in some way or the other in this discussion

...please forgive me if i have offended you in any way...

thank you all dear Vaishnavas and Vaishnavis for your patience and mercy on

me.

 

thank you Deepak Prabhu for being responsible for my getting good advice

from many quarters in the process of this dialogue with you.

 

kindly bless me to spend more of my time in KC and less and less and soon no

time in non KC activities.

 

ys

mcd

 

 

Dear Deepak,

 

Hare Krsna and best wishes.

 

>But clearly, you agree that since Srila Prabhupada's signature

>appears on the letter, then it DOES carry authority (or at least it

>did until November 14th/15th 1977, when it ceased to be applied in

>ISKCON).

 

Please don't be cutesy with me.

 

You and I have had an extensive open correspondence on the

"Initiations" conference. Anyone interested can get a copy from me.

 

I see no point in going over the same territory with you again.

 

It saddens me that while the whole world suffers for lack of Krsna

consciousness, such a bright man as you invests his valuable energy in

beating a dead horse.

 

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

 

Hoping this finds you in good health,

 

Yours in Srila Prabhupada's service,

Jayadvaita Swami

 

 

-------------------

www.krishna.com/jas

-------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Jayadvaita Maharaja

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

Thank you for your best wishes.

 

> >But clearly, you agree that since Srila Prabhupada's signature

> >appears on the letter, then it DOES carry authority (or at least it

> >did until November 14th/15th 1977, when it ceased to be applied in

> >ISKCON).

>

>Please don't be cutesy with me.

 

I cannot understand why I am being "cutesy", the issue is very simple; you

say the authority of the July 9th letter is beyond question. Jahnu and

others imply it is questionable because Srila Prabhupada didn't write it.

On this point, I agree with you not Jahnu. Neither I nor "The Final Order"

ever pretend that you have been converted to the view that the letter must

continue to apply now. So what exactly am I being "cutesy" about? I am

just stating a fact.

 

>It saddens me that while the whole world suffers for lack of Krsna

>consciousness, such a bright man as you invests his valuable energy in

>beating a dead horse.

 

If I may briefly explain WHY I am investing my valuable energy in, as you

see it, "beating a dead horse".

 

I agree that the whole world, of which I am but one tiny part, is suffering

for lack of Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"People struggling for existence in the forests or cities of the material

world are not actually enjoying life. They are simply suffering different

pains and pleasures, generally pains that are always inauspicious. They try

to gain release from these pains, but they cannot due to ignorance. For them

it is stated in the Vedas: tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet. When

the living entity is lost in the forest of the material world, in the

struggle for existence, his first business is to find a bona fide guru who

is always engaged at the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

Visnu." (SB 3.15.24, purport)

 

You will note from this purport that the FIRST business of the suffering

living entity, such as myself, is to "find a bona fide guru who is always

engaged at the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu".

The GBC has offered us a variety of personalities who were supposed to

fulfil this role, but sadly fell short of the requirement. Now we learn

that the philosophical justification for appointing these personalities,

namely the GBC's "final siddhanta" paper 'Gurus and Initiations in ISKCON',

"contains assumptions and assertions that, in numerous places, do not match

the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada", "stretches

the truth" and contains "lies".

 

So as a suffering living entity, my FIRST business must to be to go back to

Srila Prabhupada's actual instructions, for by following these I can be

assured that I will only be told the truth. Similarly, other suffering

living entities can only come to Krsna consciousness once they know WHO the

bona fide guru is; for "The Spiritual Master and Krishna are two parallel

lines. You have to make your progress on these two parallel lines, you

cannot avoid one in preference of the other...If one does not get bona fide

Spiritual Master, then how he can ever understand Krishna?" (SPL Mahapurusa,

12 Feb 1968)

 

I hope this goes a little way to explaining why I believe this discussion is

not "beating a dead horse".

 

Thank you and my obeisances once again. Hare Krsna.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Since the letter never mentions Srila Prabhupada's departure (but is only

> about initiations "henceforward"), then why was it terminated upon SP's

> departure?

 

Yes, the July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik

system should be terminated. So it could be on Srila Prabhupada's departure,

in 10000 years, or never. To find out which one is true, we can either

speculate or follow the method prescribed by Srila Prabhupada's how to

understand the words of the guru:

 

"You have to corroborate whether guru, what guru is speaking, whether it is

there in the scripture; what scripture is speaking, whether that is in the

character of guru, or in the sadhu, saintly persons, or spiritual master. So

you have to always make comparison with three things: sadhu, sastra, guru."

(CC Madhya 20.119-121 lecture)

 

Not continuing the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is in

line with sadhu and sastra. All acaryas in our sampradaya stopped initiating

when they left the planet. The physical presence of the guru is required for

the initiation as I have just proven and has been shown by the acaryas by

example. Srila Prabhupada was authorized to authorize his disciples to

become diksa gurus. Srila Prabhupada many times mentioned that the disciple

becomes the guru.

 

On the other hand, a ritvik system in the absence of the guru is not

confirmed by sadhu or sastra. Srila Prabhupada was not authorized to set up

a permanent ritvik system with him as the only diksa guru. Srila Prabhupada

never mentioned such a system in his books or lectures.

 

Conclusion:

The ritvik system was to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Mumbai

 

 

Dear Deepak,

 

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

>I cannot understand why [meaning "how"] I am being "cutesy",

 

With your fortunate cultural background, I would expect you to

understand. If you don't, then Hare Krsna.

 

>If I may briefly explain WHY I am investing my valuable energy in, as

>you see it, "beating a dead horse". . . .

 

My apologies for being unclear. The "dead horse" I meant was not the

search for a bona fide spiritual master, nor the need to recognize and

address the problems in ISKCON that surround this. By "dead horse" I

meant Mr. Desai's "post-samadhi rtvik" doctrine. It was a nag to begin

with, it was philosophically dead before it could get out the starting

gate, so beating it, however forcefully, is but a sorry waste.

 

By "dead horse" I also meant the project of our arguing about that

doctrine further. You and I have discussed it at length, and, as I

wrote you, I see nothing for us to gain from trudging over the same

ground yet again.

 

>my FIRST business must to be to go

>back to Srila Prabhupada's actual instructions, for by following

>these I can be assured that I will only be told the truth.

 

Agreed. Which is what I meant when I said I was saddened to see you

beating a dead horse instead. Books like Bhagavad-gita As It Is and

Srimad-Bhagavatam offer a truth-seeking soul an unerring and perfectly

realized source of guidance. I don't have the same confidence in the

epistles of Mr. Desai.

 

Hare Krsna.

 

--ys, js

[Guest guest]

Dear Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja,

 

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

 

Thank you so much for your comments. This is very nice here to hear from

Sril Prabhupada's disciples' comments. We want to hear as much as possible

from the SP's disciples. But already almost all of the SP's disciple gave

clear opinion against the ritwik mayavada. This is just those who are

inimical to ISKCON joined together to work against got nothing just a dead

horse. Using this let them prove to the world without throwing any mud on us

that they are genuine. Krishna knows who is good who is not, Srila

Prabhupada knows. Those who really please Krishna and His dear devotee will

come out sucessfully.

 

Your servant,

Vaikunthapati Das

[Guest guest]

> This is just those who are inimical to ISKCON joined together to work

> against got nothing just a dead horse.

 

Those who do not respect Srila Prabhupada's disciple do not respect Srila

Prabhupada. Those who do not respect ISKCON do not respect Srila Prabhupada.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Jayadvaita Maharaja

 

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

 

Thank you for replying. Yes, I appreciate that you do not wish to "trudge

over the same ground yet again", but since you have yet again attacked the

"post-samadhi ritvik doctrine" in this, your latest email, I feel obliged to

respond once more. Please forgive any perceived impertience on my part, I

assure you I am only interested in rigorously examining the arguments.

 

 

>>I cannot understand why [meaning "how"] I am being "cutesy",

 

>With your fortunate cultural background, I would expect you to

>understand. If you don't, then Hare Krsna.

 

What I meant was, I cannot understand why the sensitivity on your part when

all I have done is stated a number of documented facts:

 

1) Jahnu and others question the authority of the July 9th letter.

 

2) You state that the letter's authority is beyond question.

 

3) I state that you agree the letter's authority is beyond question, but

only up to November 14th/15th 1977, a date which is not even mentioned in

the letter as you yourself have conceded:

 

>I reject that the letter is Srila Prabhupada's "final order" about how

>initiations should be conducted >after his departure (a subject the letter

>never mentions).

 

4) You say I am being "cute". Sorry, I'm just pointing out everyone's

(differing) position on this issue.

 

 

>By "dead horse" I meant Mr. Desai's "post-samadhi rtvik" doctrine. It was a

>nag to begin

>with, it was philosophically dead before it could get out the starting

>gate, so beating it, however forcefully, is but a sorry waste.

 

With respect, I do not find this an intellectually satisfying argument;

rather, it is just another anti-ritvik diatribe. If you could prove to me

that there is a philosophical justification for terminating Srila

Prabhupada's July 9th letter on his physical departure, then I would agree

that this whole issue is over, dead and buried, and I would gladly leave the

old horse to rest in peace. But since there is no mention in the letter of

Srila Prabhupada's departure, as you have admitted, then this naturally begs

the question: WHY was the directive terminated on his departure? You might

as well have terminated it on Christmas Day since this date is not mentioned

in the letter either (sorry, that WAS being a bit cutesy of me).

 

My understanding is that the order of the spiritual master should be be

followed until it becomes impossible to follow, or until the spiritual

master himself changes or terminates the order. This is both logical and

sastric:

 

“Therefore Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that "I accept the order of My

spiritual master in toto, without any interpretation, without any argument,

without any understanding. Whatever he has said, it is all right." This is

acceptance of spiritual master. "Oh, I accept spiritual master, but I don't

accept your order"—this is not acceptance of spiritual master…the process is

that you cannot change the order of spiritual master. You cannot argue.” (SP

Lecture, February 2nd, 1967)

 

“The purport is that those who are intelligent, they take the message from

the spiritual master — whatever he says. And one has to execute that

particular order without any deviation. That will make him perfect. There

may be different orders for different disciples, but a disciple should take

the order of the spiritual master as his life: "Here it is, the order. So

let me execute it without

any deviation." That will make him perfect…You cannot deviate the order of

the spiritual master by an inch if you really want success.” (SP Lecture,

February 2nd, 1967)

 

The physical departure of Srila Prabhupada does not render the July 9th

letter impossible to follow, as it was specifically set up to operate

WITHOUT his physical involvement. Similarly, it cannot be un-sastric to

receive diksa from a physically absent guru if this is the instruction of

the guru (in this case Srila Prabhupada, as instructed both in his July 9th

letter and his Last Will and Testament; the latter obviously being

applicable for after his physical departure, and in which it is stated that

all future directors of Srila Prabhupada's properties in India, which are

meant to last for the lifetime of ISKCON, can only be "my initiated

disciple").

 

Please forgive any offences. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

Deepak

 

_______________

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Guest guest]

PAMRO AGTSP!

 

> >If I may briefly explain WHY I am investing my valuable energy in, as

> >you see it, "beating a dead horse". . . .

>

> My apologies for being unclear. The "dead horse" I meant was not the

> search for a bona fide spiritual master, nor the need to recognize and

> address the problems in ISKCON that surround this. By "dead horse" I

> meant Mr. Desai's "post-samadhi rtvik" doctrine. It was a nag to begin

> with, it was philosophically dead before it could get out the starting

> gate, so beating it, however forcefully, is but a sorry waste.

>

> By "dead horse" I also meant the project of our arguing about that

> doctrine further. You and I have discussed it at length, and, as I

 

whoever this "deepak" is, he should know that he is favored by HH Jayadvaita

Maharaj who has given his valuable time responding to his (deepak's)

whatever texts (i don't read them) hoping it would help deepak see the

things from right perspective, but most unfortunately, looks like deepak

believes more in kkdesai than in Srila Prabhupada's teachings, or that he

doesn't seem to have read / heard Srila Prabhupada enough with proper

attitude / from right source like most other rtvik-maya vadis, or that he

has committed serious vaisnava offenses like most other rtvik-maya vadis,

and so his intelligence has been covered by ignorence.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bbd

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If you could prove to me that there is a philosophical justification for

> terminating Srila Prabhupada's July 9th letter on his physical departure,

> then I would agree that this whole issue is over, dead and buried, and I

> would gladly leave the old horse to rest in peace. But since there is no

> mention in the letter of Srila Prabhupada's departure, as you have

> admitted, then this naturally begs the question: WHY was the directive

> terminated on his departure?

 

It was Srila Prabhupada's instruction that the ritvik system is to be

terminated on his departure. The proof is following facts. (If you don't

agree with any of following statements, please tell me.)

 

Before Srila Prabhupada appeared, the system was that the disciple becomes

the next diksa guru. This is confirmed by sadhu and sastra.

 

During ten years Srila Prabhupada described the system where the disciple

becomes the next diksa guru. So he did not change the system.

 

When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system (not on July 9th, but

already before that date), the ritvik system was supposed to be terminated

on Srila Prabhupada's departure and some of the disciples were supposed to

become the next diksa gurus.

 

On July 9th Srila Prabhupada made a little change in the ritvik system,

namely that 'henceforward' the temple presidents should send the

recommendation for initiation to one of the representatives instead of Srila

Prabhupada. The July 9th letter does not mention all the things in

connection with initiations that have not changed (e.g. chanting 16 rounds,

four regulative principles, etc.). The July 9th letter does not give any

information when the ritvik system (which was introduced already before)

should be terminated. So the ritvik system was still to be terminated on

Srila Prabhupada's departure.

 

Srila Prabhupada gave the instruction not to change anything. This includes

that the ritvik system was to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

 

Now why do the ritvikvadis want to change that?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

As I mentioned previously, I can only physically discuss with one person at

a time, and unless HH Jayadvaita Maharaja has appointed you to reply on his

behalf, I will wait to see if Maharaja replies to my e-mail. If he wishes to

bow out, then I will re-engage with your good self.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

>"Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)"

><Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

>"Deepak Vohra" <dv108 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>, "Initiations in ISKCON"

><Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

>RE: can someone give sastric and sadhu validations for ritvikism

>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:27 +0100

>

>Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> > If you could prove to me that there is a philosophical justification for

> > terminating Srila Prabhupada's July 9th letter on his physical

>departure,

> > then I would agree that this whole issue is over, dead and buried, and I

> > would gladly leave the old horse to rest in peace. But since there is

>no

> > mention in the letter of Srila Prabhupada's departure, as you have

> > admitted, then this naturally begs the question: WHY was the directive

> > terminated on his departure?

>

>It was Srila Prabhupada's instruction that the ritvik system is to be

>terminated on his departure. The proof is following facts. (If you don't

>agree with any of following statements, please tell me.)

>

>Before Srila Prabhupada appeared, the system was that the disciple becomes

>the next diksa guru. This is confirmed by sadhu and sastra.

>

>During ten years Srila Prabhupada described the system where the disciple

>becomes the next diksa guru. So he did not change the system.

>

>When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system (not on July 9th, but

>already before that date), the ritvik system was supposed to be terminated

>on Srila Prabhupada's departure and some of the disciples were supposed to

>become the next diksa gurus.

>

>On July 9th Srila Prabhupada made a little change in the ritvik system,

>namely that 'henceforward' the temple presidents should send the

>recommendation for initiation to one of the representatives instead of

>Srila

>Prabhupada. The July 9th letter does not mention all the things in

>connection with initiations that have not changed (e.g. chanting 16 rounds,

>four regulative principles, etc.). The July 9th letter does not give any

>information when the ritvik system (which was introduced already before)

>should be terminated. So the ritvik system was still to be terminated on

>Srila Prabhupada's departure.

>

>Srila Prabhupada gave the instruction not to change anything. This includes

>that the ritvik system was to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada's

>departure.

>

>Now why do the ritvikvadis want to change that?

>

>ys Ramakanta dasa

>

>-----------------------

>To from this mailing list, send an email to:

>Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

_______________

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!

http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

[Guest guest]

Mumbai

 

 

Dear Deepak,

 

Hare Krsna.

 

>With respect, I do not find this an intellectually satisfying

>argument. . .

 

You are right. What I wrote was not an intellectually satisfying

argument. Nor an argument at all, nor meant to be. It was an opinion,

a value judgment. And so of little consequence.

 

The arguments (including the ones in your latest e-mail) we have

already covered, in extenso, in our correspondence. Again: Anyone

interested in that correspondence--a 91K text file (25K zipped)--can

request it from me.

 

>Please forgive any offences.

 

None taken.

 

Best wishes again. Hare Krsna.

 

--js

 

 

PS:

 

You write:

 

>I state that you agree the letter's authority is beyond question,

>but only up to November 14th/15th 1977, . . .

 

Really, I've had enough.

 

But. . . shall we be clear about what I state? Just to clarify--and

this doesn't call for an answer. . .

 

I agree that the letter's authority is beyond question. And I hold

that its authority is permanent.

 

What's at issue is not the authority of the letter but the intentions

some people have ascribed to it.

 

Thank you. Goodbye. Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> As I mentioned previously, I can only physically discuss with one person

> at a time, and unless HH Jayadvaita Maharaja has appointed you to reply on

> his behalf, I will wait to see if Maharaja replies to my e-mail. If he

> wishes to bow out, then I will re-engage with your good self.

 

It seems that Jayadvaita Maharaja is not very inspired to continue the

debate with you. On the other hand I am ready to discuss with you (or any

other ritvikvadi). So I suggest you try to defeat my argumenents that I have

recently posted in this forum.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Ramakanta prabhu wrote:

 

"It was Srila Prabhupada's instruction that the ritvik

system is to be terminated on his departure. The proof

is following facts. (If you don't agree with any of

following statements, please tell me.)"

 

Before I disagree, could you qualify your statements

with RELEVANT quotes from Srila Prabhupada. So that we

can understand your position better.

 

 

thanks

 

 

ysmsd

 

 

 

 

--- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich -

CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

 

> Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> > If you could prove to me that there is a

> philosophical justification for

> > terminating Srila Prabhupada's July 9th letter on

> his physical departure,

> > then I would agree that this whole issue is over,

> dead and buried, and I

> > would gladly leave the old horse to rest in peace.

> But since there is no

> > mention in the letter of Srila Prabhupada's

> departure, as you have

> > admitted, then this naturally begs the question:

> WHY was the directive

> > terminated on his departure?

>

> It was Srila Prabhupada's instruction that the

> ritvik system is to be

> terminated on his departure. The proof is following

> facts. (If you don't

> agree with any of following statements, please tell

> me.)

>

> Before Srila Prabhupada appeared, the system was

> that the disciple becomes

> the next diksa guru. This is confirmed by sadhu and

> sastra.

>

> During ten years Srila Prabhupada described the

> system where the disciple

> becomes the next diksa guru. So he did not change

> the system.

>

> When Srila Prabhupada introduced the ritvik system

> (not on July 9th, but

> already before that date), the ritvik system was

> supposed to be terminated

> on Srila Prabhupada's departure and some of the

> disciples were supposed to

> become the next diksa gurus.

>

> On July 9th Srila Prabhupada made a little change in

> the ritvik system,

> namely that 'henceforward' the temple presidents

> should send the

> recommendation for initiation to one of the

> representatives instead of Srila

> Prabhupada. The July 9th letter does not mention all

> the things in

> connection with initiations that have not changed

> (e.g. chanting 16 rounds,

> four regulative principles, etc.). The July 9th

> letter does not give any

> information when the ritvik system (which was

> introduced already before)

> should be terminated. So the ritvik system was still

> to be terminated on

> Srila Prabhupada's departure.

>

> Srila Prabhupada gave the instruction not to change

> anything. This includes

> that the ritvik system was to be terminated on Srila

> Prabhupada's departure.

>

> Now why do the ritvikvadis want to change that?

>

> ys Ramakanta dasa

>

>

-----------------------

> To from this mailing list, send an email

> to:

> Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Before I disagree, could you qualify your statements

> with RELEVANT quotes from Srila Prabhupada. So that we

> can understand your position better.

 

We could reach the conclusion faster if you tell me which statement from me

you do not agree. (It does not make much sense for me to provide quotes for

statements that you agree with.)

 

BTW. Please send your replies to <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> only,

except if you don't want them to be posted on the forum.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Now that Jayadvaita Maharaja has finally decided to bow out, I will now turn

my attention to the statements you have made to me previously:

 

"I am ready to discuss with you (or any other ritvikvadi). I suggest you try

to defeat my argumenents that I have recently posted in this forum."

 

Very well, let us proceed meticulously one point at a time since you seem

very sure of your position.

 

You said:

 

(1)

"Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct

application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the

assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and that

he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives which

would later be made sense of telepathically." (9 January 2005)

 

 

You also said:

 

(2)

"Yes, the July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik

system should be terminated." (7 January 2005)

 

Thus, according to your first quote the July 9th directive has enough

information to enable the correct application of Srila Prabhupada’s

instructions. Hence:

 

IF the directive was meant to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada’s departure,

then it would HAVE TO SAY this – since enough information would be needed to

ENABLE correct application of the instruction (this follows from your first

quote (1) above).

 

Conversely, if the directive was NOT meant to be terminated, then it would

have NO information regarding "when the ritvik system should be terminated.”

 

Now, looking at the directive, you have agreed that it does “not give any

information when the ritvik system should be terminated.” (in your second

quote (2)).

 

Thus SINCE the directive contains NO information regarding its termination,

then by your two statements, we can conclude it should not be terminated.

 

(It can also be additionally noted that since the directive was issued to

ISKCON for application in ISKCON, if ISKCON ever ceased to exist, then the

issue of executing the directive does not even arise).

 

 

Ys

Deepak

 

_______________

Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Very well, let us proceed meticulously one point at a time since you seem

> very sure of your position.

 

Can we please start at the begining of my argument.

 

Before the statement you quoted I wrote following:

 

"Srila Prabhupada very well knew that he did not mention the permanent

ritvik system in his books or lectures. He also knew that it is not

mentioned by sadhu and sastra. And he knew that he gave the instruction to

compare the guru's words with sadhu and sastra. Therefore, as tri-kala-jna,

he knew that in the future his disciples will compare the July 9th letter

with his books, sadhu and sastra, and conclude that the permanent ritvik

system is not what Srila Prabhupada intended.

 

So if Srila Prabhupada had wanted to introduce a new initiation system, he

would have stated that in the July 9th letter, or in an accompanying

document."

 

Do you agree with above?

 

> You said:

>

> (1)

> "Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct

> application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the

> assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and

> that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete

> directives which would later be made sense of telepathically." (9

> January 2005)

 

Krishnakant said that. I just copied it from his website.

 

> Conversely, if the directive was NOT meant to be terminated, then it would

> have NO information regarding "when the ritvik system should be

> terminated.”

 

If the July 9th directive was not meant to be terminated, then it would have

said so because before July 9th the ritvik system was meant to be

terminated. See also my other argument (January 11) and my proof that for

initiation the physical presence of the guru is required (January 6). Maybe

we should discuss these arguments first.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>>Very well, let us proceed meticulously one point at a time since you seem

>>very sure of your position.

 

>Can we please start at the begining of my argument.

 

Yes, I am starting with your message addressed directly to me, dated January

7. I will go through each argument ONE POINT AT A TIME, so please be

patient and let us try not to skip from one point to another. You started

your 7 January message to me thus:

 

>Yes, the July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik

>system should be terminated. (7 January 2005)

 

You then stated two days later on 9 January:

 

>Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the correct

>application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on the

>assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and

>that he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives

>which would later be made sense of telepathically. (9 January 2005)

 

When I cited the above quote from your 9 January message, you responded

thus:

 

>Krishnakant said that. I just copied it from his website.

 

Since you have not placed this statement from Krishnakant in quotation

marks, nor referenced it as a statement you have extracted from "The Final

Order", then I assume it forms part of your argument in your 9 January

message, and that you therefore agree with it.

 

So given the above, and BEFORE we jump to the next part of your message of 7

January, please just stick to answering my point below:

 

According to your 9 January statement above, the July 9th directive has

enough information to enable the correct application of Srila Prabhupada's

instructions. Hence:

 

IF the directive was meant to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada's departure,

then it would HAVE TO SAY this - since enough information would be needed to

ENABLE correct application of the instruction (this follows from your 9

January statement).

 

Conversely, if the directive was NOT meant to be terminated, then it would

have NO information regarding "when the ritvik system should be terminated."

 

Now, looking at the directive, you have agreed that it does "not give any

information when the ritvik system should be terminated." (7 January).

 

Thus SINCE the directive contains NO information regarding its termination,

then by your two statements, we can conclude it should not be terminated.

 

I look forward to you either agreeing with this point, or not agreeing and

giving a valid reason why, BEFORE we move on to your next point in your 7

January message, viz:

 

"Not continuing the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is in

line with sadhu and sastra. All acaryas in our sampradaya stopped initiating

when they left the planet. The physical presence of the guru is required for

the initiation as I have just proven and has been shown by the acaryas by

example."

 

 

Ys

Deepak

 

_______________

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I wrote "Can we please start at the begining of my argument". It seems you

misunderstood my request. Please do not take the beginning of my argument of

January 7 and immediately skip to the end of my argument of January 9.

Either you start at the beginning of the January 7 argument and go through

it until its end, or you start at the beginning of the January 9 argument

and go through it until its end. Let us try not to skip from one point to

another.

 

In the January 9 argument you skipped following statements. So I assume you

agree with them. If you don't agree with one of them, please tell me.

 

"Srila Prabhupada very well knew that he did not mention the permanent

ritvik system in his books or lectures. He also knew that it is not

mentioned by sadhu and sastra. And he knew that he gave the instruction to

compare the guru's words with sadhu and sastra. Therefore, as tri-kala-jna,

he knew that in the future his disciples will compare the July 9th letter

with his books, sadhu and sastra, and conclude that the permanent ritvik

system is not what Srila Prabhupada intended.

 

So if Srila Prabhupada had wanted to introduce a new initiation system, he

would have stated that in the July 9th letter, or in an accompanying

document."

 

(BTW. The last sentence is also from Krishnakant, just modified a bit).

 

In my argumentation the statement you quoted ("Srila Prabhupada always gave

enough information ...") is dependent on above statements. If you do not

agree with above statements, then the statement you quoted does not apply.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>Please do not take the beginning of my argument of

>January 7 and immediately skip to the end of my argument of January 9.

 

I did indeed start with the very first line of your January 7 argument:

 

"Yes, the July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik

system should be terminated."

 

I am asking you that since you state that the directive gives NO information

about when the ritvik system should be terminated, then WHY was it

terminated? You yourself AGREED in your message of January 9 that the

directive contains ALL the information necessary for it to be applied

correctly within ISKCON (obviously your statements of Jan 7 and Jan 9 are

linked since they both deal with the contents and applicability of the July

9th directive, hence there is no question of "skipping" from one argument to

another). The only information the July 9th letter does NOT contain is:

 

a) That it should be terminated

b) When it should be terminated

 

Yet you are arguing:

 

a) That it should be terminated

b) When it should be terminated

 

This is illogical. It is also un-sastric, since Srila Prabhupada states

that we cannot change a direct order from the spiritual master, not to speak

of deviating from it even an inch:

 

“Therefore Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that "I accept the order of My

spiritual master in toto, without any interpretation, without any argument,

without any understanding. Whatever he has said, it is all right." This is

acceptance of spiritual master. "Oh, I accept spiritual master, but I don't

accept your order"—this is not acceptance of spiritual master…the process is

that you CANNOT CHANGE the order of spiritual master. You cannot argue.” (SP

Lecture, February 2nd, 1967)

 

“The purport is that those who are intelligent, they take the message from

the spiritual master — whatever he says. And one has to execute that

particular order without any deviation... You CANNOT DEVIATE THE ORDER OF

THE SPIRITUAL MASTER BY AN INCH" (SP Lecture, February 2nd, 1967).

 

 

Srila Prabhupada also gave many other instructions to be applied within

ISKCON. No one is arguing that THESE instructions should also terminate on

the physical departure of the acarya. So why have you picked on the one

dated July 9th 1977?

 

You then state:

 

>Not continuing the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is in

>line with sadhu and sastra.

 

In light of the above quotes from Srila Prabhupada about NOT changing or

deviating from the order of the acarya; and given that whatever the bona

fide guru speaks is already in line with sadhu and sastra (“Scripture means

what is accepted by the saintly person. And spiritual master means who

follows the scriptures. So things equal to the same thing are equal to one

another. This is axiomatic truth.” – Oct 18th 1968); and given that, as you

have conceded, there is no mention in the July 9th letter AT ALL of Srila

Prabhupada’s departure – then HOW is terminating the order for ritvik after

Srila Prabhupada’s departure “in line with sadhu and sastra”?

 

I will be happy to move on to your next January 7 argument - "All acaryas in

our sampradaya stopped initiating when they left the planet. The physical

presence of the guru is required for the initiation as I have just proven

and has been shown by the acaryas by example" - once you tell me on WHOSE

authority you deem it fit to terminate an order from Srila Prabhupada, given

that the order itself contains NO information that it is temporary, and NO

information that it should be terminated; and also given the fact that Srila

Prabhupada himself did not issue a countermanding order to discontinue the

ritvik system he established . Thank you.

 

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I am the only person who can tell you how to understand my argument. If you

have doubts, you can always ask me if you have correctly understood it.

Please do not speculate.

 

> I did indeed start with the very first line of your January 7 argument:

>

> "Yes, the July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik

> system should be terminated."

 

Do you agree with that statement?

 

If you agree, then please continue with the next statement in my January 7

argument. Don't skip statements. And don't jump to my January 9 argument and

use a statement from there removing it from the context.

 

Otherwise, if you don't agree with above statement ("Yes, the July 9th

letter..."), then prove why it is wrong.

 

> I am asking you that since you state that the directive gives NO

> information about when the ritvik system should be terminated, then WHY

> was it terminated?

 

I am the wrong person to answer this question. Further, Srila Prabhupada's

instruction is independent of what happened afterwards.

 

> You yourself AGREED in your message of January 9 that the directive

> contains ALL the information necessary for it to be applied correctly

> within ISKCON (obviously your statements of Jan 7 and Jan 9 are linked

> since they both deal with the contents and applicability of the July 9th

> directive, hence there is no question of "skipping" from one argument to

> another). The only information the July 9th letter does NOT contain is:

>

> a) That it should be terminated

> b) When it should be terminated

 

also not contained:

 

c) That it should not be terminated

 

 

Here is again my argument:

 

1) The July 9th letter does not give any information when the ritvik system

should be terminated.

 

2) So it could be on Srila Prabhupada's departure, in 10000 years, or never.

 

3) To find out which one is true, we can either speculate or follow the

method prescribed by Srila Prabhupada's how to understand the words of the

guru:

 

4) "You have to corroborate whether guru, what guru is speaking, whether it

is there in the scripture; what scripture is speaking, whether that is in

the character of guru, or in the sadhu, saintly persons, or spiritual

master. So you have to always make comparison with three things: sadhu,

sastra, guru." (CC Madhya 20.119-121 lecture)

 

5) Not continuing the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is in

line with sadhu and sastra.

 

6) All acaryas in our sampradaya stopped initiating when they left the

planet.

 

7) The physical presence of the guru is required for the initiation as I

have just proven and has been shown by the acaryas by example.

 

8) Srila Prabhupada was authorized to authorize his disciples to become

diksa gurus.

 

9) Srila Prabhupada many times mentioned that the disciple becomes the guru.

 

Conclusion:

The ritvik system was to be terminated on Srila Prabhupada's departure.

 

To refute this proof you have to prove that one of the statements 1 to 6, 8,

or 9 is incorrect.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> You yourself AGREED in your message of January 9 that the directive

> contains ALL the information necessary for it to be applied correctly

> within ISKCON.

 

You are trying to defeat my argument by using an unproven statement (from

Krishnakant) which I do not agree with.

 

(The fact that I quoted the statement does not mean that it is true or that

I agree with it. That was your speculation. Sorry.)

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>You are trying to defeat my argument by using an unproven statement (from

>Krishnakant) which I do not agree with.

 

>(The fact that I quoted the statement does not mean that it is true or that

>I agree with it. That was your speculation. Sorry.)

 

 

1) On JANUARY 9TH, Ramakanta said:

 

>Therefore, as tri-kala-jna, he knew that in the future his disciples will

>compare the July 9th letter with his book, sadhu and sastra, and conclude

>that the permanent ritvik system is not what Srila Prabhupada intended.

 

>So if Srila Prabhupada had wanted to indroduce a new initiation system, he

>would have stated that in the July 9th letter, or in an accompanying

>document. Srila Prabhupada always gave enough information to enable the

>correct application of his instructions. He certainly did not operate on

>the

>assumption that his Temple Presidents were all mystic mind readers, and

>that

>he therefore only needed to issue fragmented and incomplete directives

>which

>would later be made sense of telepathically.

 

Here Ramakanta Prabhu quotes the statement which he claims he never agreed

with as part of his response to my argument. He uses the statement to make

an argument by linking it to his previous statement where he states "the

permanent ritvik system is not what Srila Prabhupada intended."

 

Nowhere does Ramakanta claim here that he is writing something that is any

different to the hundreds of other statements he has written in his own

name, which we assume he does agree with, or that he does not believe what

he is actually writing.

 

2) On JANUARY 14TH, Ramakanta said:

 

>It seems that Jayadvaita Maharaja is not very inspired to continue the

>debate with you. On the other hand I am ready to discuss with you (or any

>other ritvikvadi). So I suggest you try to defeat my arguments that I have

>recently posted in this forum.

 

Note Ramakanta mentions "my arguments that I have recently posted in this

forum", which of course includes the statement in question above which

Ramakanta had posted just 5 days previously. Ramakanta clearly refers to it

as "MY arguments".

 

3) On JANUARY 17TH, referring again to the statement in question, Ramakanta

said:

 

>Can we please start at the beginning of my argument. Before the statement

>you quoted I wrote following:

 

Again, Ramakanta Prabhu refers to the statement in question as being part of

"my argument." Ramakanta says later that Krishnakant had originally written

that statement and he (Ramakanta) had copied it, but he does not say that he

disagrees with it. On the contrary, he has already referred to it as being

part of "MY argument".

 

4) On JANUARY 18TH, referring again to the statement in question which

Ramakanta Prabhu claims he never agreed with, he states:

 

>Please do not take the beginning of my argument of January 7 and

>immediately skip to the end of my argument of January 9.

 

Again Ramakanta refers to the statement in question as being the "end of MY

argument."

 

Ramakanta also goes on to state quite specifically HOW the statement he

claims now he never agreed with, actually applies as part of his argument:

 

>In my argumentation the statement you quoted ("Srila Prabhupada always gave

>enough information ...") is dependent on above statements. If you do not

>agree with above statements, then the statement you quoted does not apply."

 

The above of course cannot be true if Ramakanta never agreed at all with the

statement in question.

 

5) On JANUARY 19TH, again referring to the statement in question which I had

quoted, Ramakanta says:

 

>And don't jump to my January 9 argument and use a statement from there

>removing it from the context.

 

Again Ramakanta says the statement in question is "MY January 9 argument."

 

6) Now after having written the statement in question as part of an

integral reply on January 9th, in exactly the same manner he has written

every OTHER statement he had made which we assume he DOES agree with, and

then having referred to the statement in question as "MY argument" another

FIVE times in the next 10 days, Ramakanta Prabhu now expects us to believe

that he never agreed with the statement in question:

 

>You are trying to defeat my argument by using an unproven statement (from

>Krishnakant) which I do not agree with. The fact that I quoted the

>statement

>does not mean that it is true or that I agree with it.

 

Since Ramakanta posted, referred to and used the statement in question in

the same manner he has written everything else, and very clearly claimed it

as being "MY argument", then by his statement above it now means that the

REST of his arguments do not have to be "TRUE" either - since he clearly is

in the habit of writing things which not only does he not agree with, but

which he also accepts do not have to be true.

 

Ys,

Deepak

 

_______________

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!

http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

My arguments use statements from Srila Prabhupada, from me and from others.

I can use a statement from others even if I do not agree with it (especially

if it is Krishnakant's statement), if it serves the proof.

 

Now you can either end the debate with me and concede that you are unable to

refute my proofs, or you can continue to try to refute my proofs.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa