Ritvik Misconception

[theist]

I see both the present Iskcon position and the ritvik positon as making the same mistake. Trying to make the River of Life and Transcendental Understanding flow in a straight easily definable channel that you can see with you material eyes and brain.

 

Better we develop the proper eyes to follow it where it flows because this river is personal and has a mind of His own and will flow where He will and when He will.

 

"This letter..That letter... "This tape... That tape" All nonsense.

[Guest guest]

You make no sense~~

 

Chant Hare Krishna

[stonehearted]

 

"This letter..That letter... "This tape... That tape" All nonsense.

 

"I soundly defeated you!"

 

"No--I really whooped you!"

 

blah, blah . . . what a waste of time and energy.

[Guest guest]

I really never venture to this Forum, because it always gets my blood boiling from all the fools and rascals that post garbage just to wate time.

 

This Ritvik issued is not only simple to understand but it is Very simple. Here it is.

 

Prabhupada gave an order of how initiations would continue in the present and in the future. He never again changed it or altered the letter.

 

Now millions of anti-ritvik papers can be made, but who cares? The Spiritual master is the one who gives the laws, not us fallen ones.

 

Easy for the honest, hard for the foolish.

[theist]

 

"I soundly defeated you!"

 

"No--I really whooped you!"

 

blah, blah . . . what a waste of time and energy.

 

 

Next year will mark the 30th year from Srila Prabhuppad's passing and this argument is still going on. I guess such things never end in the material world. It is up to us to walk away from them.

 

I can't remember where I read BR Sridhar explain the sampradaya to be like a crooked river that can flow in any direction but that image has always remained with me. A very subtle river for sure.

[Mantrabliss]

"If we adopted the ritvik system, what would stop us taking initiation from any previous acarya, such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta?

Two things prevent this from being a bona fide option:

1. 
   
2. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and other previous acaryas, did not authorise a ritvik system to run 'henceforward'.
   
3. We must approach the current link:

"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession."(S.B. 2.9.7, purport)

It is self-evident that Srila Prabhupada is the sampradaya acarya who succeeded Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada is therefore our current link, and is thus the correct person to approach for initiation.

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">14) "In order to be the current link you must be physically present."

 

 

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Srila Prabhupada never states the above injunction.

So let us consider: Can a spiritual master be 'current' if he is physically absent?

1. 
   
2. The term 'current link' is only used in one passage in all of Srila Prabhupada's books; there is no reference to physical presence adjacent to the term. Were physical presence essential it would certainly have been mentioned.
   
3. The dictionary definitions of the word 'current' do not refer to physical presence.
   
4. Dictionary definitions of the word 'current' can be readily applied to a physically absent spiritual master and his books:

'most recent', 'commonly known, practised or accepted', 'widespread', 'circulating and valid at present'.

(Collins English Dictionary)

As far as we can see all the above definitions can be applied to Srila Prabhupada and his books.

1. The very purpose of approaching a 'current link' can be fully satisfied by reading Srila Prabhupada's books:

"...in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession." (S.B. 2.9.7, purport)

1. Srila Prabhupada also uses the term 'immediate acarya' as synonymous with 'current link'. The word 'immediate' means:

'Without intervening medium', 'closest or most direct in effect or relationship'. (Collins English Dictionary)

These definitions lend validity to a direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada without the need for intermediaries, again all regardless of physical presence/absence.

1. Since there are examples of disciples initiating when their guru was still on the planet, there would appear to be no direct relationship between current link status and physical presence/absence. In other words if it is possible to be the next current link even whilst your own guru is physically present, why should it not be possible for a departed acarya to remain the current link?

In conclusion, we see no evidence to suggest that the emergence of a current link is based on physical or non-physical considerations.

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">15) "Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers all became initiating acaryas after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so what is wrong with Srila Prabhupada's disciples doing the same?" </td></tr></tbody></table>

In posing as initiating acaryas, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples acted in direct defiance of their spiritual master's final order (to form a GBC and await a self-effulgent acarya). Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned his Godbrothers for their insubordination, describing them as useless for preaching, what to speak of initiating:

"Amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya."

(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

"On the whole you may know that he (Bon Maharaja) is not a liberated person, and therefore he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It requires special benediction from higher authorities."

(SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)

"If everyone just initiates there will be contradictory result. As long as it goes on, there will be only failure."

(SP Phalgun Krishnan Pancami, verse 23)

We can see from recent experience what havoc just one of these personalities can cause to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We would suggest respect from as great a distance as possible. Certainly we cannot afford to use them as role models for how a disciple should carry on their spiritual master's mission. They destroyed their spiritual master's mission, and are more than capable of doing the same to ISKCON if we were to allow them.

 

 

 

With regards to the Gaudiya Matha's guru system, this may be the only historical precedent the M.A.S.S. can lay claim to, i.e. that it was also set up in direct defiance of clear orders from the Founder-acarya.

 

 

 

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">16) "When Srila Prabhupada said they should not be acaryas, he meant acarya with a big 'A'. That is, an acarya who heads up an institution." </td></tr></tbody></table>

 

Where does Srila Prabhupada ever differentiate between big 'A' and small 'a' initiating acaryas? Where does he ever talk about a specific breed of initiating acarya who can head up institutions, and indicate that there is an inferior species who, through some disablement, cannot?

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">17) "It is just common knowledge that there are three types of acarya. Everyone in ISKCON accepts that." </td></tr></tbody></table>

But this idea was never taught by Srila Prabhupada, it was introduced by Pradyumna dasa in a letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami dated 7/8/78. This letter was later re-printed in the paper Under My Order, and was used as one of the corner stones of that paper's thesis on how the guru system within ISKCON should be reformed. In turn it is this paper 'Understood', that forms the basis of GII's doctrine on initiation (as mentioned in the Introduction). This paper led to the transformation of the zonal acarya system into the present day M.A.S.S.:

"I have taken this definition of acarya from the letter of August 7^th 1978, from Pradyumna to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. The reader should now turn to this letter (which I have appended) for careful study."

(Under My Order, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, August 1985)

In his letter, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya may be taken in three senses:

1. One who practices what he preaches.

2. One who grants initiation to a disciple.

3. The spiritual head of an institution who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor.

We accept definition 1, since it was used by Srila Prabhupada. This definition would automatically apply to any effective preacher, be he siksa or diksa guru.

Moving on to definition 2: Pradyumna explains that this type of acarya can initiate disciples and be referred to as acaryadeva, but only by his disciples:

"Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acaryadeva", etc - by his disciples only. Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples."

(Pradyumna 7/8/78)

This is a concoction. Nowhere does Srila Prabhupada ever describe an initiating guru whose absolute nature must only be recognised by his disciples, but not by the world at large, or even other Vaisnavas in the same line. Let us see how Srila Prabhupada defines the word acaryadeva. The following are excerpts from Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-Puja offering printed in The Science of Self Realisation (chapter 2) where he uses the term in relation to his own spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta:

"The guru, or acaryadeva, as we learn from bona fide scriptures, delivers the message of the absolute world,..."

"...when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva, or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application."

"The acaryadeva for whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the Jagad-Guru, or the guru of all of us..."

Srila Prabhupada's use and definition of the word acaryadeva is diametrically opposed to that of Pradyumna. Implicit in what Pradyumna says is that the term acaryadeva can be falsely applied to persons who are not actually on that highly elevated platform. Thus, he relativises the absolute position of the diksa guru.

The term acaryadeva can only be applied to someone who is factually 'the guru of all of us'; someone who should be worshipped by the entire world:

"...he is known to be the direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as acaryadeva."(C.c. Adi, 1.46)

In definition 3, Pradyumna explains that the word acarya indicates the head of an institution, and that this meaning is very specific:

"It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. [...] This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradaya."

(Pradyumna's letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, 7/8/78)

We certainly agree that to initiate one must first be authorised by the predecessor acarya (a point which is not even mentioned in the elaboration of definition 2) :

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master."

(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

However, what this has got to do with taking over the 'seat of the spiritual institution' is rather baffling, since Srila Prabhupada is the Acarya of an entirely separate institution from that of his Guru Maharaja. According to Pradyumna's philosophy therefore, Srila Prabhupada might only come in as a definition 2 acarya. Whatever 'strict tradition' Pradyumna is referring to, it was certainly never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, and thus we can safely discard it. Further down the page, we see exactly from where Pradyumna's insidious ideas originated:

"Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya, he usually, out of humility, takes only a thin cloth asana, not anything higher."

None of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers were authorised acaryas. One would think that genuine humility should translate into giving up one's unauthorised activity, whatever it may be, recognising Srila Prabhupada's pre-eminent position, and then surrendering to the true Jagad-Guru. Unfortunately, few members of the Gaudiya Matha have ever done this. The fact that Pradyumna cites these personalities as bona fide examples means he is once more denigrating the position of the true acaryadeva.

"Regarding Bhakti Puri, Tirtha Maharaja, they are my Godbrothers and should be shown respect. But you should not have any intimate connection with them as they have gone against the orders of my Guru Maharaja."

(SP Letter to Pradyumna, 17/2/68)

It is a shame Pradyumna prabhu ignored this direct instruction from his Guru Maharaja, and quite remarkable that his deviant views were allowed to shape ISKCON's current guru 'siddhanta'.

Thus, when Srila Prabhupada said none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be become acarya, whether he meant definitions 1 or 3 acarya is irrelevant. If they were not qualified for definition 1 then that meant they did not teach by example, which would automatically disqualify them from definition 3, and hence from initiating altogether. And if they were not qualified as per definition 3, then they were not authorised, and hence once more they could not initiate.

 

 

<table style="border: 4.5pt outset ; background: navy none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" bordercolordark="#ffff00" bordercolorlight="#ff0000" bgcolor="navy" border="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 0.75pt inset ; padding: 0.75pt;">

 

 

In Conclusion:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. 
   
2. All preachers should aspire to become a definition 1 acarya, or siksa guru.
   
3. The elaboration of Definition 2 by Pradyumna Dasa is completely bogus. It is forbidden for anyone, disciple or not, to regard the bona fide guru, or acaryadeva, as an ordinary man. And if he is, in fact, an ordinary man then he cannot initiate anyone and be referred to as acaryadeva. Furthermore there is no mention of the need to receive specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya in disciplic succession, without which no one can initiate.
   
4. Definition 3 is the only type of acarya who may initiate; i.e. one who has been authorised by his own sampradaya acarya- spiritual master. Having been so authorised he may or may not head up an institution, that is irrelevant.

Within ISKCON all devotees are instructed to become definition 1 acaryas, teaching through example, or siksa gurus. A good start on the path to becoming this type of acarya is to begin strictly following the orders of the spiritual master.

 

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">18) "It seems a small point, so how could these ideas regarding the acarya have had any noticeable adverse effect on ISKCON?" </td></tr></tbody></table>

In fact, the relativisation of the initiating diksa guru has led to all kinds of confusion within ISKCON. Some ISKCON gurus claim they are taking their disciples back to Godhead by acting as current links to Srila Prabhupada who is the Founder-acarya; and some say they are simply introducing disciples to Srila Prabhupada who is the actual current link who is taking them back to Godhead (almost ritvik philosophy). Some gurus say Srila Prabhupada is still the current acarya, others say that he is not; whilst a couple have claimed themselves to be the sole successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada. Some ISKCON gurus still believe Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successor acaryas (a myth which was recently reported as fact in the LA Times); others that he appointed 11 ritviks who were to turn into small 'a' acaryas immediately on his departure; others that it was not just the 11 who should have turned into small 'a' acaryas on departure, but all Srila Prabhupada's disciples (except the women it seems).

If we return once more to GII, we can see that the GBC is highly ambivalent towards the gurus it 'authorises'.

Whilst acknowledging the rubber-stamping of sampradaya acaryas is bogus (GII, p.15, point 6), the GBC nevertheless, in effect, performs precisely this function every Gaura-Purnima at Mayapur, year after year. We now have close to a hundred initiating gurus, all anointed with the 'no objection' stamp of approval. All these gurus are being worshipped as saksad hari (as good as God) in accordance with the GBC's own directives for disciples (GII, p.15, point 8). These initiating acaryas are heralded as current links to a disciplic succession of maha-bhagavatas stretching back thousands of years to the Supreme lord Himself:

"Devotees should take shelter of the representatives of Srila Prabhupada who are the 'current link' in the disciplic succession." (GII, p. 34)

At the same time however the aspiring disciple is sternly warned that ISKCON approval...

"...is not automatically to be taken as a statement about the degree of God-realisation of the approved guru." (GII, p.9, section 2.2)

Elsewhere we are further cautioned:

"When a devotee is allowed to carry out the "order" of Srila Prabhupada to expand the disciplic succession by initiating new disciples it is not to be taken as a certification or endorsement of his being an "uttama adhikari", "pure devotee", or to having achieved any specific state of realisation." (GII, p.15)

These gurus are not to be worshipped by everyone in the temple, but only by their own disciples in a separate place. (GII, p.7) - (Pradyumna's acaryadeva definition).

We have shown that the only type of bona fide diksa guru is an authorised maha-bhagavata; (we have also shown that the actual "order" was for ritviks and siksa gurus). Thus, to describe anyone as a current link or initiator guru, is synonymous with claiming he is a large 'A' or definition 3 acarya, an 'uttama adhikari' or a 'pure devotee'.

We would venture that it is infelicitous to approve, or 'not object' to, the creation of diksa gurus, and simultaneously disavow any blame or responsibility should they deviate. This is what's termed 'living in denial' according to modern psychological parlance. We are sure Srila Prabhupada did not intend ISKCON to be a type of lottery, or Russian roulette, where the stake is someone's spiritual life. Perhaps the GBC should refrain from further rubber stamping until they can stand one hundred percent behind those they approve. After all, every one of us stands one hundred percent behind Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide spiritual master; so such consensual recognition of personal qualification is not impossible.

GBC guru ambivalence was recently summed up quite succinctly by Jayadvaita Swami:

"The word appointed is never used. But there are "candidates for initiating guru", votes are taken, and those who make it through the procedures become "ISKCON-APPROVED" or "ISKCON-authorised" gurus. To boost your confidence: On one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorised ISKCON guru and worship him like God. On the other, it has an elaborate system of laws to invoke from time to time when your ISKCON-authorised guru falls down. One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC."

<o></o>

<table style="width: 95%; text-align: left;" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 15%; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: right;"></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"></td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 15%; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: right;"></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"></td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 15%; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: right;"></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"></td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 15%; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: right;"></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"></td></tr></tbody></table>

Newcomers to ISKCON are told that the onus is on them to carefully examine ISKCON gurus on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's books and instructions, to make sure for themselves that they are qualified to initiate. However, should such a prospective disciple come to the conclusion that none of the 'physically present' gurus on offer are up to standard, and that he wishes instead to repose his faith in Srila Prabhupada as his diksa guru, he is ruthlessly hounded from the Society. Is this really fair? After all, he is only doing what the GBC has told him to do. Should he be punished for not coming to the 'right' conclusion, especially since there is such clear and unequivocal evidence that this choice is precisely what Srila Prabhupada wanted all along?

[Guest guest]

 

Next year will mark the 30th year from Srila Prabhuppad's passing and this argument is still going on. I guess such things never end in the material world. It is up to us to walk away from them.

 

I can't remember where I read BR Sridhar explain the sampradaya to be like a crooked river that can flow in any direction but that image has always remained with me. A very subtle river for sure.

 

 

If this is it, it"s from the 3rd thread of the 4th page of the Newsletters and Journals section.

 

Sri Guru and His Grace (excerpts)

 

Devotee: How are we to understand that in the history of our disciplic succession, it appears that there are gaps where there was no initiating guru present to formally accept disciples?

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: We are not concerned with a material connection. The mediator is not this flesh and body as we generally think. In studying the development of scientific thought, we may connect Newton to Einstein, leaving aside many unimportant scientists.

 

We may trace the development of science from Galileo to Newton, and then to Einstein, neglecting the middle points. If their contributions are taken into account, then the whole thing is taken into account, and lesser scientists may be omitted. When a long distance is to be surveyed, the nearest posts may be neglected.

 

Between one planet and another, the unit of measurement is the light year; distance is calculated in light years and not from mile to mile, or meter to meter. In the disciplic succession, only the great stalwarts in our line are considered important.

 

 

Wherever we find the extraordinary line of the flow of love of God, and support for the same, we must bow down. That line may appear in a zigzag way, but still, that is the line of my gurudeva. In this way it is accepted. We want the substance, not the form.

[theist]

Thanks. You may be right. That is the whole idea anyway. My faulty mind must have filled in river for "line" and supplied other imagery as well. But the central idea remains.

 

That strikes me as the final word to this silly debate but I think too many people are attached to the argument to just let it die.

 

Time to read Sri Guru and His Grace again.

[Kulapavana]

if Prabhupada indeed gave the order on implementing non-traditional ritvik initiations in our movement, than such order in itself creates an apa-sampradaya and should be rejected by devotees loyal to the disciplic succession coming from Lord Caitanya. it is a hugely important issue, without any precedent in our tradition. to think that somehow SP would break away from our sampradaya on such important issue is ludicrous and absurd.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Actually Prabhupada instituted a number of huge breaks from tradition in our sampradaya, as did Bhaktisiddhanta. Bhaktisiddhanta is criticized by other gaudiya's for:

 

1) awarding himself sannyasa in front of a picture

2) giving sannyasa to his disciples, instead of babaji initiation

3) initiating non-brahmanas (by caste) as brahmanas with gayatri mantra, something there is no precedent in the Gaudiya line (or perhaps any line).

 

 

Some of the major changes Prabhupada did, breaking all traditions:

 

1) As a sannyasi he crossed the ocean, which is forbidden in scripture

2) As a sannyasi he performed marriage ceremonies for his disciples, something never done in the history.

3) He gave gayatri initiation to women, something never done by any acharya in any sampradaya

4) gave initiation by letter, something never done before

5) gave gayatri initiation by tape recording, again something never done before

6) appointed ritvik priests to initiate on his behalf while living, something no acharya has done

 

The list can go on and on. Prabhupada has broken from many traditions, thus this argument is not valid nor logical. If one wants to hold on to such a belief, then Prabhupada must be rejected for any one of the above changes he has instituted.

[Kulapavana]

None of the above mentioned breaks from the tradition go so completely against the vedic principles of a guru-disciple relationship and principles of sampradayic succession presented in all Vaishnava sampradayas as this so called "ritvik initiations".

 

"1) As a sannyasi he crossed the ocean, which is forbidden in scripture

2) As a sannyasi he performed marriage ceremonies for his disciples, something never done in the history.

3) He gave gayatri initiation to women, something never done by any acharya in any sampradaya

4) gave initiation by letter, something never done before

5) gave gayatri initiation by tape recording, again something never done before

6) appointed ritvik priests to initiate on his behalf while living, something no acharya has done"

 

all these fairly minor things were UNAVOIDABLE under the circumstances of SP's mission in the West. in other words: there was no alternative. as to the ritvik initiations after his departure: there was no need for such a system.

 

 

actually, the ritvik arguments are solely based on a sentiment that Prabhupada is not bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions.

[Guest guest]

 

as to the ritvik initiations after his departure: there was no need for such a system.

 

 

actually, the ritvik arguments are solely based on a sentiment that Prabhupada is not bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions.

 

The same system was running pre-departure - under Srila Prabhupada's personal guidance. Would you be so bold to say that there was also no need for such a system then? That YOU know better than HDG Srila Prabhupada?

 

Also have you any evidence for your accusation that "the ritvik arguments are solely based on a sentiment that Prabhupada is not bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions"?

[Kulapavana]

 

The same system was running pre-departure - under Srila Prabhupada's personal guidance. Would you be so bold to say that there was also no need for such a system then? That YOU know better than HDG Srila Prabhupada?

 

Also have you any evidence for your accusation that "the ritvik arguments are solely based on a sentiment that Prabhupada is not bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions"?

 

1. pre-departure system was unorthodox, but certainly authorized by SP based on the need (SP was unable to personally attend to all these matters). it is customary in all Vaishnava traditions that after guru's departure, his disciples can start initiating on their own behalf.

 

2. do you accept, that SP is bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions? pretty much all ritviks I know answer "no" to that question.

[suchandra]

 

1. pre-departure system was unorthodox, but certainly authorized by SP based on the need (SP was unable to personally attend to all these matters). it is customary in all Vaishnava traditions that after guru's departure, his disciples can start initiating on their own behalf.

 

2. do you accept, that SP is bound by the principle of adherence to the guru, sadhu and shastra in his actions? pretty much all ritviks I know answer "no" to that question.

 

Since Lord Caitanya's Sankirtan mission is in essence to world wide/globally distribute the chanting of the Holy Name in every town and village there's no such thing like "Vaishnava tradition" except Srila Prabhupada who fullfilled that order - Prabhupada is the pioneer and all others jumped on Prabhupada's bandwagon.

 

"Disciples can start initiating on their behalf...", please quote sastra about the actual qualification of a genuine diksa-guru. Why do you suggest that just any disciples should start initiating on their behalf and sometime later resign from being a genuine pure Vaishnava acarya?

For that kind of spirituality present Christianity with the confess&sin option is just fine.

Why introduce Vaishnavism with unsteady/shaky as good as God acaryas, who will accept?

[Kulapavana]

 

there's no such thing like "Vaishnava tradition" except Srila Prabhupada who fullfilled that order - Prabhupada is the pioneer and all others jumped on Prabhupada's bandwagon...

 

SP comes in the line of GV sampradaya, one of many currents in the Vaishnava tradition. there were pure devotees and qualified acharyas before SP and there will be more of them (pure devotees and qualified acharyas) in the future. your statement is just sentimentalism.

 

 

 

 

"Disciples can start initiating on their behalf...", please quote sastra about the actual qualification of a genuine diksa-guru.

 

 

 

divyam jnanam yato dadyat kuryat papasya samksayam

tasmad-dikseti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovdaih

 

<DIR>Learned scholars who are expert in spiritual affairs call the process by which divine knowedge (divya jnana) is given and sins are destroyed diksa (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.9, from Visnu Yamala)

</DIR>in other words diksa guru must be able to deliver divine knowedge and destroy sins. diksa gurus in vedic tradition were innumerable and most of them were quite "ordinary" good Vaishnavas...

[Guest guest]

 

it is customary in all Vaishnava traditions that after guru's departure, his disciples can start initiating on their own behalf.

 

Can you give a quote from Srila Prabhupada to support your 'customary' diksa guru claims?

 

As Srila Prabhupada never appointed or instructed anyone to be diksa guru for after his departure. Evidence for this claim has never been produced, indeed many senior leaders within ISKCON have conceded the point:

 

"And it's a fact that Srila Prabhupada never said "Alright here is the next acarya, or here is the next eleven acaryas and they are authorised gurus for the Movement, for the world". He did not do that." (Ravindra Svarupa das, San Diego debate, 1990)

 

Srila Prabhupada unequivocally stated that the diksa guru must be a maha-bhagavata (most advanced stage of God-realisation) and be specifically authorised by his own spiritual master. He had always strongly condemned the assumption of guruship by those who were not suitably qualified and authorised. We quote below the only passage in Srila Prabhupada's books where the qualifications of the diksa guru is stated.

 

Maha-bhagavata-srestho brahmano vai gurur nrnam

sarvesam eva lokanam asau pujyo yatha harih

maha-kula-prasuto' pi sarva-yajnesu diksitah

sahasra-sakhadhya yi ca na guruh syad avaisnavah

 

"The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 

"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru."

(C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)

 

Aside from the qualification, Srila Prabhupada also taught that specific authorisation from the predecessor acarya was also essential before anyone could act as a diksa guru:

 

"On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krsna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities."

(SP Letter to Janardana, 26/4/68)

 

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana."

(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

 

 

 

Indian man:

When did you become spiritual the leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

What is that?

 

Brahmananda:

He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.

 

Indian man:

Did it...

 

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorisation are in place. Srila Prabhupada had not authorised any such gurus, nor had he stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather, just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still 'conditioned souls', and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose themselves as guru.

[bija]

 

"In this verse Srila Rupa Gosvami advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kanistha-adhikari, madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaisnavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master. Nectar of Instruction 5 purport.

 

 

 

 

Quote by guest: Thus, according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksa guru when both the qualification and authorisation are in place.

 

 

 

From your post and reading the verses and purports to Caitanya Caritamrita you have quoted, it can be seen how kindly Srila Prabhupada has instructed us to search out a Mahabhagavata as Guru.

From the purport in CC Madhya 24.330 Srila Prabhupada says that Guru must be situated on the topmost platform. Uttama-adhikari/Mahabhagavata.

From your above quote you say, "according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksha guru when the qualification is in place."

So my question is, how are we to understand the underlined verses in the Nectar of Instruction purport that a neophyte or madhyama may also accept disciples, making sure that the candidate is not situated on a higher platform? Even if this is not so beneficial for the candidate.

Has Srila Prabhupada implemented that his followers may only accept a mahabhagavata as guru? Or, is the process not so rigid as this? I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[Kulapavana]

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

And precisely HOW did that authorization happen in the case of Srila Prabhupada? In what way did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta authorize him to be a guru and acharya? Is there a record of such authorization? and as to the acharya issue: I have never heard of SB making anybody an acharya in his mission. Have you? If so, give me some quotes, please.

[SishirSaha]

When Vana Maharaj was in Germany he gave Harinama initiation to a man called Herr Schultz who became Sadananada das (Swami). Vana Maharaj returned to India and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja was not happy with him. Not for giving initiation but for other things. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja then sent Bhakti Saranga Goswami to London to preach and said Bhakti Saranga Goswami was "preacher in charge". At Haora station Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja came to say farewell to Bhakti Saranga Goswami. In front of many devotees Bhakti Saranga Goswami asked what he should do if someone in England wanted to take diksa. In front of all the disciples Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja said to Bhakti Saranga Goswami "you can give them initiation". Bhakti Saranga Goswami initiated one Australian man who he brought back from England to meet Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja. This is in the new (unpublished) book about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja written by Bhakti Vikasa Swami.

[theist]

 

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

And precisely HOW did that authorization happen in the case of Srila Prabhupada? In what way did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta authorize him to be a guru and acharya? Is there a record of such authorization? and as to the acharya issue: I have never heard of SB making anybody an acharya in his mission. Have you? If so, give me some quotes, please.

 

I view this as an incredibly important point. I take the position that guru need not be emboddied to give such an authorization. Afterall if the disciple is not in internal and eternal touch with his guru and Krsna how can he link you up to an eternal relationship with Them?

 

So how can we be sure someone we consider guru is on this level without the offical GBC stamp of approval or some other sign visible to our material senses? Only one way, it must be confirmed by the Lord in the heart. There is NO substitute for Krsna.

 

Now it is seen that many will have been drawn into the proximity of the bone fide representative of Krsna and many may have different motives for being there. Many will have gone through all the external processes and even receive high placement in said guru's institution for preaching and be in close contact with his vapu manifestation on a daily basis etc. If we see externally it will appear as though they are the closest to the guru, truly in his inner circle, and therefore most likely to be seen as the next in line when guru enters samadhi.

 

We have seen such people claim to be guru on the order of the previous acarya. We have also seen such people rape little children and abscound with millions of dollars once exposed.

 

Was such a person then really ordered by his spiritual master to be guru or Krsna's representative in the first place? Of course not.

 

So much for trusting the material sense perception in revealing who is guru.

 

On the other hand some sincere person may have been drawn in the fold of the bone fide guru and have taken up the process of purification and is free from those horrible and demonic propensities shown in the "closest disciple". Instead of raping children and stealing millions he just continues on cleaning the floor and doing his menial duties but all the while going through the needed internal changes and surrender and in this way please his guru and Krsna.

 

Guru would have continued to bless this disciple and Krsna would have continued to enlighten him more and more even unto perfection in Krsna consciousness.

 

If guru and Krsna can rasie this soul into perfection internally, can They not also order him to become guru to others internally?

 

How would others recognize him? They remember him as the quiet one cleaning the floors and sitting in the back of the class. "Suerly he can't be guru" this will say. But someone who hears from Supersoul may indeed recognize him as Krsna's representative and become his disciple.

 

The ritviks will moan and curse this individual along with the GBC but the caravan of the parampara will just roll on in it's zig zag course picking up lost souls.

[Guest guest]

 

From your post and reading the verses and purports to Caitanya Caritamrita you have quoted, it can be seen how kindly Srila Prabhupada has instructed us to search out a Mahabhagavata as Guru.

From the purport in CC Madhya 24.330 Srila Prabhupada says that Guru must be situated on the topmost platform. Uttama-adhikari/Mahabhagavata.

From your above quote you say, "according to Srila Prabhupada, one can only become a diksha guru when the qualification is in place."

So my question is, how are we to understand the underlined verses in the Nectar of Instruction purport that a neophyte or madhyama may also accept disciples, making sure that the candidate is not situated on a higher platform? Even if this is not so beneficial for the candidate.

Has Srila Prabhupada implemented that his followers may only accept a mahabhagavata as guru? Or, is the process not so rigid as this? I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

If a guru is only offering 'insufficient guidance' he cannot, by definition, be a diksa guru, since this requires the transmission of full divya-jnana.

'Insufficient' means - not enough. It is self-evident that so-called initiating gurus who cannot help one 'advance very well' are probably best avoided altogether.

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)

 

Certainly a madhyama can accept disciples in an instructing sense, but such followers are warned:

 

'they cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.' Therefore:

 

'One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari.'

(The Nectar of Instruction, text 5, purport )

 

Why not accept this advice? Srila Prabhupada comments:

 

"At the present moment it has become fashionable to disobey the unimpeachable directions given by the acaryas and liberated souls of the past. " (SB (BBT 1987) 4.18.5)

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

And precisely HOW did that authorization happen in the case of Srila Prabhupada? In what way did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta authorize him to be a guru and acharya? Is there a record of such authorization? and as to the acharya issue: I have never heard of SB making anybody an acharya in his mission. Have you? If so, give me some quotes, please.

 

Indian man:

When did you become spiritual the leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

What is that?

 

Brahmananda:

He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.

 

Indian man:

Did it...

 

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

[aashish108]

 

Indian man:

When did you become spiritual the leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

What is that?

 

Brahmananda:

He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.

 

Indian man:

Did it...

 

Srila Prabhupada:

Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

You know, that I heard from HH Radha Govinda Swami, that Srila Prabhupada actually did tell him to carry out diksa initiations. If you know this Swami, he was a pure devotee from birth. I am sure there are other great Swamis who have been given this instruction especially....I'm sure it is also HH GaurGovinda Swami.....

[Guest guest]

 

I remember Tribhuvannath Prabhu said once that Rtvik philosophy is maya because the treasure of Krsna Consciousness is just so great...

 

Well I heard something completely different from Tribhuvanatha Prabhu on this issue, so unless it's in writing, I don't think that we should quote him (or anyone) like this. Anyone can say "so-and-so" said this or that.

[aashish108]

 

Well I heard something completely different from Tribhuvanatha Prabhu on this issue, so unless it's in writing, I don't think that we should quote him (or anyone) like this. Anyone can say "so-and-so" said this or that.

Yes, you may be right there, but I am 100% sure about my previous post inwhich HH Radha Govinda Swami was told by Srila Prabhupada that to initiate (diksa). I heard this when he was giving lecture.