Proof #2 that ritvikvada is wrong

[Guest guest]

Ramakanta wrote:

 

Dear Bhakta Mark, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Letter to: Vinode Patel -- Montreal, 6 July, 1968:

 

The best thing will be that if you can come here for some days, say, at

least for a fortnight, you can remain here with us in the temple here, and

talk with me in details before you become my disciple. Actually, I shall be

very glad to accept an educated and intelligent disciple like you, but first

of all we must meet and you should know whether you can accept me as your

Spiritual Master, or I can accept you as my disciple. This is preliminary

necessity. I am therefore requesting you to come here at least for a

fortnight, and let us understand one another.

 

 

 

 

PAMHO AGTSP

 

First of all there has to be a pure Vaishnava on earth in order to visit him

and have personal association. This young Iskcon trainee suggests you need a

living guru - no matter if this living guru is qualified or not.

I should go and visit a so called guru in order to get initiation from him

and no question is being raised if this "guru" is worth to be called guru?

So, these young 20 year old fanatic preachers of present Iskcon have no

sense of logic and come up with quotes given by Srila Prabhupada - but in a

totally different context. There should be a book published about the actual

facts what happened to so many, who even knows the exact number, of

failures, fall downs, cheatings, etc. In the material world they created all

kinds of security systems so no unqualified doctors, pilots, school

teachers, etc are allowed to cause damage in a material sense. Iskcon says

no, whoever is 5 years in the movement is automatically fit to sit on the

vyasana of the disciplic succession.

 

The exact same foolish talk is repeated by someone who was initiated by

Srila Prabhupada as "Jnana das". Finding out that this name given to him was

not relevant with his qualification, he changed that nice name into Nemi

Maharaja, at least he understood that much.

 

Quote:

The IRM's Physical Presence Phobia

http://purebhakti.com/articles/bvnemi_rtvik_part4.shtml#_ftnref18

The following paper is the third in a series of articles examining some

serious (indeed fatal) weaknesses in the Ritvik scenario, and pointing out

some essential aspects of guru-tattva. It is meant for those who are trying

to make sense of the current ISKCON GBC / Ritvik/ Gaudiya Matha polemic.

[Part One Part Two Part Three.]

 

The Ritvik system prescribed by IRM in The Final Order is based on the

supposed evidence of the "henceforward" letter of July 9th. IRM claim that

this letter instructs us that the Ritvik system should be continued after

Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. However, this is quite untrue,

because the direct meaning of the letter is quite different from IRM's

artificial interpretation. (See Part Two).

 

IRM are ignoring the rules for understanding evidence. In a court of law the

first rule for interpreting evidence is that one accepts the direct meaning.

Srila Prabhupada and our acaryas have also instructed us that we should take

the direct meaning of sastric statements, and that we should avoid indirect

interpretations wherever possible. IRM have said that we should not deviate

from Srila Prabhupada's guidelines by even a millionth of a hairsbreadth, so

they should accept this principle: "Accept the direct meaning of sastric

statements." We have to choose between on the one hand this principle that

Srila Prabhupada gave us and on the other hand the Ritvik conclusion. To

accept one is to reject the other.

 

IRM try to justify their unprecedented system by saying that it does not

conflict with higher sastric principles, but this assertion is false. The

key point here is the physical presence of the guru. SP said over and over

again that we have to approach a spiritual master. Having approached him,

one should inquire from him, and hear from him submissively in order to get

a clear understanding.1 The direct meaning of this is that one comes into

his physical proximity, but IRM avoid this direct instruction with

remarkable ingenuity: "Srila Prabhupada never taught … that this physical

guru must also be physically present in order to act as guru."2 They then

say that the purpose of approaching the guru is to get transcendental

knowledge, but we can get that from books, so no need for the physical

presence of the guru. This is an example of avoiding a direct instruction in

favour of an indirect interpretation.

 

Now, the whole Vedic tradition depends on the direct personal guidance of

the guru. Great personalities such as Vidura, Arjuna, Maharaja Pariksit,

Sanatana Gosvami, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krsna (and what to speak of

Srila Prabhupada himself) all physically approached their spiritual masters.

Hence, we cannot doubt that the natural and standard process is for

disciples to be in physical proximity with their guru. However, IRM have

literally rushed in where angels fear to tread, and have tried to abolish

this eternal process on the strength of their artificial, indirect

interpretation of a single letter.

 

It is true that Srila Prabhupada adjusted the standard process, sometimes

dealing through representatives, and even giving the diksa mantras by tape

recorder. However, he has never instructed or even suggested that we should

do the same. Therefore, we should follow the eternal process that he

describes in his books, which is that the disciple has the physical

association of the guru.

 

SP often used the expression "go to" the spiritual master, which is a direct

translation of the word abhigacchet. The direct meaning of this word

abhigacchet is that one has to physically approach the spiritual master,

which naturally requires his physical presence.

 

One may say that one can "approach the spiritual master" by reading SP's

books. However, this is an indirect interpretation, and not the direct

meaning. The word abhigacchet does not mean "to read books". SP certainly

said that we should read his books, but he also said that reading books by

oneself is not enough. "Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can

one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual

master to receive the knowledge."3 "One should not proudly think that one

can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by

reading books."4 One cannot study medical books at home "by one's own

intellectual capacity. …. Similarly, Srimad-Bhagavatam, the postgraduate

study of the science of Godhead, can only be learned by studying it at the

feet of a realized soul like Srila Vyasadeva."5

 

SP emphasized the actual physical interaction between the guru and disciple

by comparing it to going to a physician,6 or going to a technician with a

machine that requires repairing.7 The direct meaning of "going to" a

physician or a technician is to physically approach them. SP also explained

that one must establish a direct, personal relationship with the spiritual

master, as one would do with an instructor in an academic establishment.8

 

SP many, many times said that we have to hear "from the lotus mouth" and

"from the lotus lips" of the pure devotee.9 He often used the phrase "aural

reception". "Vedic knowledge is called sruti, learning by aural

reception."10 "One must learn the transcendental subject by submissive aural

reception from the right sources."11 "There is no other way."12

 

One may say that reading is equivalent to hearing, but SP many times

emphasized the specific importance of the ears as receptive senses.13

"Therefore one is required to approach the proper spiritual master with

receptive ears only, and thus divine existence is gradually realized.14 "The

favor of the spiritual master is not received through any other part of the

body but the ears."15 The word "hearing" literally means that we should

actually hear. SP is not just talking about reading transcendental

literatures.

 

Of course, we should read Srila Prabhupada's books, but we should also

understand that the original Vedic process is to hear directly from the

self-realised soul. SP many times said that we have to hear the book

bhagavata from the person bhagavata.16 This is the direct meaning of SP's

statements, so it is useless to try to institute a system that dispenses

with the physical presence of the guru.

 

One may object, "We can use aural reception to hear from tape recorders."

However, SP emphasizes over and over again that we have to hear from the

spiritual master's mouth and from the spiritual master's lips. He said,

"From his mouth one has to hear,"17 but not, "From his tapes we have to

hear." SP himself contradicted the idea that the physical recordings of the

pure devotee is as spiritually potent as the pure devotee's original sound

vibration. "A gramophone machine will not do."18 "A gramophone will not

help. …. If you want to read Srimad-Bhagavatam, you must approach a person

who is life living Bhagavata."19 "Gramophone or tape record speaker, that

will not be [effective]." 20

 

SP explained that recorded sound vibration is not as spiritually potent as

the sound vibrated directly by the pure devotee because the recording is his

"separated energy".21 "The separated energy can be understood from a

practical example. I compose books by speaking into a Dictaphone, and when

the Dictaphone is replayed, it appears that I am speaking personally, but

actually I am not."22 SP said directly, "When you play back it will speak

just like I am speaking, but I am not there."23 "And when I speak directly,

that is not separated energy."24 Hence, the recording of SP is not as

spiritually potent as when SP spoke directly and personally.

 

IRM maintain that it is sufficient to read SP's books and hear his tapes,

but the direct meaning of SP's own statements nullifies this idea. IRM point

out that SP often gave initiation through representatives or by tape. This

is true, but SP does not give this in his books as a procedure that we

should follow. We have to accept the direct meaning of his statements to

find out the process that is meant for us.

 

SP describes other aspects of the guru-disciple relationship that absolutely

require the physical presence of the guru. The spiritual master has to give

the disciple personal instructions and guidance regarding service, according

to the disciple's individual situation and stage of life.25 The spiritual

master also has to be expert in engaging different devotees according to

their propensities.26 "Every one of us has got a certain amount of good

energy derived from Krishna, and when that energy is employed under the

expert direction of Spiritual Master, one's life becomes successful. That is

the secret of Krishna Consciousness."27 Mantras are to be heard directly in

the ear from the spiritual master, which also requires his physical

presence.28 It is true that SP gave initiation through tape recordings, but

he never describes this process in his books. SP could use tape recorders

when he was physically present, but that does not mean that we can use his

tapes to the same effect when he is physically absent. SP was empowered to

adjust the process for practical purposes when he was present, but he never

says in his books (or even in the "henceforward" letter) that we can adjust

the process that he has given in his books.

 

The guru has to chastise the disciple, because we cannot see the material

attachments that we have to give up. "If we actually want detachment from

this material world, we should be prepared to accept such cutting words from

the spiritual master. Compromise and flattery have no effect where strong

words are required."29 This is the natural position of the teacher,30 and it

requires his physical presence and physical communication.

 

IRM points out that many of SP's disciples had little if any direct contact

with him. This is true, but they were supposed to get guidance from

disciples who had more association, so in any case, the principle of

association was being followed. SP was physically present, and devotees were

supposed to cooperate with their authorities, who were supposed to get

direct guidance from SP.

 

IRM, in a reply to my first article, wrote, "When trying to understand an

instruction one will naturally consider the purpose behind it." Now, what is

the intention behind all these statements that Srila Prabhupada has made? It

is clearly that the disciple should have the physical association of the

guru.

 

SP instructed us that we should take the direct meaning of sastric

statements, and reject indirect interpretations. IRM have tried to justify

their interpretation of the "henceforward" letter by "proving" that there is

no need for a guru who is physically present. However, their attempt depends

on indirect interpretations throughout. Hence, according to SP's

instructions, it should be rejected.

 

IRM themselves are living proof that their manufactured process does not

work. They are using a process that is fundamentally flawed to try to

justify an original thesis (their interpretation of the "henceforward"

letter) that is fundamentally flawed. Naturally, then, every step of their

argument is also flawed, as we will show. Their "logic of the final order"

is invalid, and their conclusions about diksa show that they are clueless

about the Gaudiya process for passing on the essence of our sampradaya. All

this can only be rectified by sadhu-sanga, but IRM are unwilling to accept

either sadhu-sanga, or the conclusion that it is necessary. The cause of

IRM's confused conclusions is that they have dispensed with the association

of living bhagavatas.

 

My next paper will point out IRM's spectacular misunderstanding of the diksa

process.

 

Posted on behalf of

"anonymous"