Ritvik Debate Finally Comes To An End

[aashish108]

Does anyone have an idea as to what the below article is about?

RITVIK DEBATE FINALLY COMES TO AN END

by Madhumangal das Through extensive negotiations and the incessant preaching of our female GBC Malati d.d., the ritviks have achieved the official status of Iskcon big wigs. They were given the option to choose between regional secretaries or GBC chairmen in recognition for achieving success in their rocket-like chapati distribution.

 

http://www.vina.cc/stories/GENERAL/2006/4/ritvik.debate.ends.html

[Guest guest]

It's satire. There were one or two other articles posted on VINA around the same time that were crude attempts at satire. All were bylined "Madhumanagal das" (after Krishna's funny friend).

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Who do you believe, Rochana dasa intrepretation?

 

OR

 

BR Sridhara Maharaja, B.P Puri Maharaja, Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Maharaja, Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, All of Iskcon Gurus, entire Gaudiya Vaishnava Community?

 

Take your pick?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Who do you believe, Rochana dasa intrepretation?

 

OR

 

BR Sridhara Maharaja, B.P Puri Maharaja, Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Maharaja, Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, All of Iskcon Gurus, entire Gaudiya Vaishnava Community?

 

Take your pick?

 

Just for the record, Rochan Das has his own interpretation different from the Ritviks.

 

The problem is this topic really can't be discussed without offending someone's feelings. Some will try to answer these questions based on numbers and how high people's flags are presumed to be flying.

 

One side will use as their evidence, "How can you disagree with Swami XYZ." This is just sentiment, and it forces the other side to show the defects in Swami XYZ's understanding. This naturally results in the first party being offended and then accusing the otherside of offending Swami XYZ. The real fault lies in the foolish person who says "How can you disagree with Swami XYZ," as it is not a scriptural evidence but blind sentiment based on the assumption that Swami XYZ is infallible.

[theist]

What is his position? I had come to believe it may be similar to mine although I am sure more developed. Stated simply, I agree Prabhupada's vani is complete and available right now through his teachings. Taking those teachings to heart by sincere practice is all the initiation anyone needs to become Krsna conscious.

 

Which means I feel no need to have an offical initiation ceremony performed by an approved Iskcon guru or an offical ritvik priest. I avoid both camps do to there propensity to sling mud at each other and anyone else who disagrees with them.

 

JNdas, do you know Rocana's position?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

I feel no need to have an offical initiation ceremony performed by an approved Iskcon guru or an offical ritvik priest. I avoid both camps do to there propensity to sling mud at each other and anyone else who disagrees with them.

 

Yes that is pretty much my thoughts on the matter too. If people wish to be initiated by either 'camp' that is their concern - but I don't think it's bad if people say 'I don't need to do that I can perforn my sadhana without that formality' -

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

JNdas, do you know Rocana's position?

Here is his position:

 

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/church_of_rtvik.doc

[Guest guest]

 

Yes that is pretty much my thoughts on the matter too. If people wish to be initiated by either 'camp' that is their concern - but I don't think it's bad if people say 'I don't need to do that I can perforn my sadhana without that formality' -

 

 

Yep I am definetly with both you guys. I originally leaned towards ritvik because it seems like a safer path in the Kali-yuga with all the guru falldowns at least with the ritvik you get connected to Prabhupada. But some of the ritviks, although I do respect them are a little too hardcore on some stuff, and I have seen them take unjustified shots at devotees that seem to be pretty sincere people. Both sides have decent arguments in my opinion but I choose to remain on the sidelines and take the position that everything you need is in Prabhupada's books and I am not a person that is real big on formalities to begin with.

 

-D.B. Cooper Jr.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

I think if people become ritivks then people will start making own rules up, (because of lack of pure devotees (?). Or people loosing respect for them. Then people may even introduce new rules, maybe even meat-eating. Who knows. Then it becomes like a farce and Parampara is lost.

[theist]

 

Yep I am definetly with both you guys. I originally leaned towards ritvik because it seems like a safer path in the Kali-yuga with all the guru falldowns at least with the ritvik you get connected to Prabhupada. But some of the ritviks, although I do respect them are a little too hardcore on some stuff, and I have seen them take unjustified shots at devotees that seem to be pretty sincere people. Both sides have decent arguments in my opinion but I choose to remain on the sidelines and take the position that everything you need is in Prabhupada's books and I am not a person that is real big on formalities to begin with.

 

-D.B. Cooper Jr.

 

"at least with the ritvik you get connected to Prabhupada."

 

Here is the danger in my view. They present themselves as able to connect you to Prabhupada via one of their initiation ceremonies. I do not believe that for a second just like Iskcon's intiations are supposed to connect you to the Parampara I don't believe that for a second either. In that I see little difference between them.

 

To be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada one must follow the discipline that Srila Prabhupada taught and that will come to mean facing the internal changes from being a lover of matter into a lover of Krsna and all other living entities. Far more than a name some beads and a ceremony. That is the real connection.

[Guest guest]

The book Bhagavata points to the person Bhagavata and visa versa. We need good company. The fallacy is that there is no person who embodies the teachings and in whose heart Krsna's shakti resides. If we think like that then what chance to we have? If so many devotees are reading books, chanting and living a life filled with devotion yet none can inspire us then what chance do we have? It is not a matter of 'form'ality or ceremony - it is a heart transaction. When we begin to get closer to Krsna through chanting his name offeselessly we will begin to see that Krsna is manifesting himself in so many ways to help us. We will recognize him in his form, his name, his devotee, his energy, etc.

 

I can't be the judge of anyone else - I have to be true to myself and follow my own heart and all others must do the same. What I came to realize many years ago (for myself) was that if there were no devotees who were qualified to help me and who themselves had been transformed by their association with pure devotees then I would have to live an empty life believing in something that bears no tangible fruit. That was at a point in my life where I had no trust or belief in any devotee and yet I thought I believed and trusted in Krsna. My house of cards came tumbling down when I realized that I couldn't possibly believe in and trust Krsna and at the same time not believe and trust in his devotees.

 

There are tangible stages of progress along this path of bhakti. Rupa Goswami has given us a nice verse to show us the way - first some beginning faith, then sadhu sanga, bhajana kriya, anartha nivritti, nistha, ruci, asakti, bhava and prema. These are the stages of development along the path. If we don't find that any one devotee is there who has some ruci or some semblance of bhava then what is our prospect? Shall we pray to Krsna for good company and the guidance of an advanced vaishnava who has some feeling and he won't answer such a prayer? He has no shakti? What we desperately need but are afraid to admit is a person who emodies the teachings, who makes it real and in whom we can see our highest ideal and greatest prospect. If we really want to progress, we need a guide who has followed the path and has developed to a high stage of bhakti. That sadhaka in whom Krsna's shakti resides can share that shakti with others in a very tangible way.

 

For me the connection with Sri Guru has nothing to do with ceremony or formality. For me I know that a devotee with genuine feeling for Krsna has some feeling for me and because of that I know Krsna has some feeling for me. It is very personal - not at all a ceremonial or ecclesiastical affair. When Sri Guru shares his/her heart with you then you will know it is not a matter of ceremony or formality - that is there, just like a person goes through a formal wedding ceremony to publicly declare what is already there in the heart. Connection with Sri Guru is two sided. We have our heart to share and he/she has his/hers to share with us.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

The fallacy is that there is no person who embodies the teachings and in whose heart Krsna's shakti resides.

Actually that is not what they teach at all, and perhaps that is a problem with these discussions. No one even listens to what the other people say, and then they try to put forward their view on top of everything else. It's the same thing like Danavir accusing Rochan of being a Ritvik and then running off. Just imagine what you want them to teach so that it's easy to debate with them, and then defeat these made up arguments.

 

The ritviks teach that Prabhupada gave an order on how initiations should be carried out, and they believe that order should be followed. It does not mean that there are no pure devotees, or that one should not receive association with pure devotees.

 

Some of them further extend this idea, that if someone was really a pure devotee, then they would abide by the instruction they believe Prabhupada gave on initiations.

[vijay]

 

Some of them further extend this idea, that if someone was really a pure devotee, then they would abide by the instruction they believe Prabhupada gave on initiations.

 

If there were a pure devotee and he interpreted the instruction differently to these conditioned souls then he would be rejected as impure. Holding on to such prerequisites to judge purity is a fallacy. Our (mis/)qualifications to judge purity and the symptoms of one who is pure is clear in sastra, no more speculative additions are needed.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

If one accepts the premise that Prabhupada did in fact instruct for initiations to be carried out in X manner, then it would follow that other pure devotees would properly understand Prabhupada's instruction and implement it.

 

Thus your argument is invalid, as all it does is question their original premise, which is where any debate starts anyway. In other words, it hasn't added anything of value to the logical analysis of a system of thought, it simply questions the root belief itself.

 

 

If there were a pure devotee and he interpreted the instruction differently to these conditioned souls then he would be rejected as impure.

Furthermore, your statement is based on the assumption that their interpretation is wrong and that no pure devotee would agree with their conclusion.

 

The points they offer are simple:

 

1) Prabhupada gave an instruction.

2) Pure devotees who follow Prabhupada will follow his instruction.

 

Your argument can just as well be twisted back: What if a pure devotee comes who interprets Prabhupada's instruction as being for rtivik initiations, will the GBC accept him as pure and agree, or call him impure?

 

Your answer would be that a pure devotee would not concoct a system of ritvik initiations, therefore he cannot be pure. And their answer will be that a pure devotee will not disobey Srila Prabhupada's personal instruction and go against his ritvik order.

 

You can make your argument more absurd as well: If there were a blue grasshopper incarnation of Krishna who said ritvik is the only way, what would Vijay do? Would he accept the blue grasshopper as Krishna and follow the ritvik system or would he consider him an ordinary blue grasshopper.

 

In otherwords you are presuming so many things, and only after making those unsubstantiated assumptions does your argument have any substance at all. You presume there will be a pure devotee who would disagree with these people, then you presume that Prabhupada did not want a ritvik system, and finally you presume that no pure devotee accepts the ritvik system. These are all unproven assumptions, without which your statements are meaningless. If in logical debate everyone is allowed to state their unproven assumptions as facts, then anyone can establish anything.

 

So you can see that logically it is a meaningless argument, as it offers nothing further in terms of analysis of the system of thought, but just attempts to project your opinion over theirs.

 

I am not saying you are wrong or right, but that you are not logical.

 

To make it more clear, a similar absurd argument along your same line of thought: What if a pure devotee came who interpreted Prabhupada's instructions not to eat meat to mean we should actually eat meat every second day, would these conditioned souls accept him as pure and follow or reject him as impure.

 

This may sound foolish to you, but this is exactly what you said, just change the words around.

[Kulapavana]

 

The ritviks teach that Prabhupada gave an order on how initiations should be carried out, and they believe that order should be followed. It does not mean that there are no pure devotees, or that one should not receive association with pure devotees.

 

Some of them further extend this idea, that if someone was really a pure devotee, then they would abide by the instruction they believe Prabhupada gave on initiations.

 

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.

 

I think both of the above arguments (by Vijay and Kulapavana) as well as Pankaja's argument given in another thread illustrate clearly that such debates are based solely on sentiment rather than logic.

 

Pankaja's argument was how can you not accept view X, as Swami A, Swami B and Swami C all support it. This is another example of a sentimental argument. Perhaps all those Swamis are right, but that isn't a logical argument to debate with. The other side can also (and has) given a list of Swami's who support their view (from Sri Vaishnava and Madhva sampradayas who have endorsed the Ritvik system as authorized).

 

I will see if I can locate those statements, to see how actual traditional vaishnavas who have been brought up studying siddhanta surrounded by acharya's their whole life, have reacted when shown the Ritvik system. They never said it was a deviation from Vedic culture, or that Swami's X Y and Z don't support it. It is interesting, if for nothing else, to see their cultural acceptance of such a possibility.

[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 things were UNAVOIDABLE under the circumstances of SP's mission in the West.

[Kulapavana]

 

I think both of the above arguments (by Vijay and Kulapavana) as well as Pankaja's argument given in another thread illustrate clearly that such debates are based solely on sentiment rather than logic.

 

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.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

all these things were UNAVOIDABLE under the circumstances of SP's mission in the West.

That's just your opinion. The fact is gayatri diksha has never been given to women by acharyas, but Prabhupada did it. He broke the tradition and started his own tradition that is followed today. This was completely avoidable by simply following tradition, by following his own guru maharaja Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. He did not follow his guru, he did not follow tradition. Instead he chose to break tradition and start his own tradition.

 

It is obvious that this was avoidable, thus your statement is proven false. Would you care to admit it or go around in circles? These debates can never end because no one admits when they are proven wrong by logic.

 

 

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.

I am not trying to defend the ritvik position, but just show your logical falacies. If you have other logical arguments you can present them. But the three arguments given in this thread fall apart without trying.

 

As pointed out above, Prabhupada has departed from scripture many times. And when it is pointed out, you will say, "oh, that wasn't essential" or "that wasn't so important." This is where honesty in debate becomes a factor. You have to admit when your logical argument falls apart. You state Prabhupada would never depart from scripture. Now I have proven factually that Prabhupada has departed from scripture in at least six ways. Rather than acknowledge this fact, you say the ritviks are sentimental...

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here are some of the statements from Vedic acharyas in other sampradayas that I had mentioned above. Those who have studied anything about Sri Vaishnavism and Madhva siddhanta will know these names immediately, as they are very prominent leaders of these sampradayas:

 

Interview with Rangapriya Swami

 

Question: According to Srila Prabhupada's letter of July 9th, 1977, if we accept Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru and receive initiation from the ritviks, is this system in accordance to sastric principles, what is your holiness' opinion?

 

HH Rangapriya Swami: It appears from the system of initiation that Srila Prabhupada has proposed in his letter of July 9th 1977, that he wished to remain the diksha-acharya, vanquish sinful reactions of the disciples, take the responsibility of delivering his disciples and this way continue the parampara through the rtviks. This is a new system. Since such new systems have been created in the past by the acaryas, it appears that Srila Prabhupada desired such a system. This is our humble opinion and it is not in violation of any shastric principles.

 

Question: Do we have to fear that the Parampara will stop if we follow the ritvik system?

 

HH Rangapriya Swami: By this system we do not have to fear that the parampara may stop. The rtviks belong to his parampara. The new disciples also belong to his parampara. Who ever follows his instructions also belong to his parampara. His books will represent him; his peeta (the sacred seat) will represent him; his sandals will represent him; his murtis will represent him.

 

Question: If we ask the new disciples initiated by this system, 'Whose disciple are you?" what should they say?

 

HH Rangapriya Swami: They should say, 'Srila Prabhupada is my guru.' Others can be called ritviks and can be respected for their seniority.

 

Question: As long as ISKCON exists, can this system be followed?

 

HH Rangapriya Swami: Yes, there is no problem.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Letter from Rangapriya Swami, Sri Vaishnava Acharya:

11.1.99

 

I have acquainted myself with the life and message of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada including his message in the letter of July 9th, 1977. I also understand there is some controversy going on among the disciples of the great guru regarding the positions of the diksha guru and officiating acharyas called rtvik acharyas who give diksha as deputees of the original acharya, even as Prince Bharata officiated as the ruler on behalf of Sri Rama's padukas.

 

In this connection, keeping in view the spirit of Srila Prabhupada and the continuation of the great tradition given by him, we recommend that the office of the rtvik acharyas should continue as intended by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada's system accords a unique position to the acarya by declaring that he should be a Master Yogin, who takes upon himself the spiritual responsibility of the disciples including the destruction of all their sins and deserves worship due to Bhagavan Himself.

 

The rtvik acharya continue the line of HH Srila Prabhupada, and he should be accorded reverence in accordance with his contributions. But he should not be considered as an object of meditation and worship. Nor should he be considered as infallible. He should be appointed by the governing council and give diksha as a deputee of Srila Prabhupada without violating the letter and spirit of his message.

 

The rtvik system propounded by Srila Prabhupada does not violate in anyway the shastras' injunctions.

 

Signed. Rangapriya Swami.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Letter from Sri Lakshmi Tatachar (Tattacharya), Sri Vaishnava director of Melkote Academy of Sanskrit Research, and Acharya:

 

Prof. M A Lakshimtatachar,

 

Jan 30th, 1999, Academy of Sanskrit Research

 

Respected Madhupandit ji,

 

Humble Pranams. Before writing this letter let me introduce myself as a Sayamacharya belonging to the family of Anantanpillai otherwise known as Anandacharya who was one among the simhasanadipathis appointed by Ramanuja himself to initiate disciples into Srivaishnavism. Further I have also continued the same tradition as I am initiating many into Srivaishnavism in the name of my revered acharya Sri U. Ve. Alwar Tirumala Iyengar Swami who was the 34th successor in the Acharyapurusha parampara. I have also enclosed herewith my bio data, which gives some information about my educational and philosophical background.

 

Now, I learn that there is some discussions are going in ISKCON regarding succession. The bone of contention is whether Ritviks appointed by HH Srila Prabhupada could be considered only his representatives or should they be considered as acharyas themselves as they are initiating the disciples into the Hare Krishna movement.

 

I have very carefully gone through the letter of HH Srila Prabhupada, which was issued on July 9th 1977.

According to me this letter has five parts.

 

1. In the changed circumstances permission to certain disciples to act as ritviks - as his representatives.

 

2. Specific names of these who can act as ritviks - representatives of Srila Prabhupada

 

3. Change of procedure

 

4. Stress on the point that after initiation from the ritviks appointed by HH Srila Prabhupada they are considered to be disciples of HH Srila Prabhupada only.

 

5. The action to be taken to include the names of the initiated in the disciples book of HH Srila Prabhupada only.

 

The letter categorically makes it clear that the eleven Ritviks can never claim acharyaship as they are the only representatives of HH Srila Prabhupada. They are like the instruments in the hands of acharya for the sake of initiation. The letter stresses again and again that the initiated are the disciples of HH Srila Prabhupada only. Refer to these statements:

 

1. Ritvik - Representative of the Acharya for the purpose of performing initiations.

 

2. Ritviks - These representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada

 

3. The newly initiated devotees are the disciples of HDG Srila Prabhupada.

 

4. The name of the newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him/her to Srila Prabhupada to be included in HIS DIVINE Grace's "Initiated disciples book."

 

There are several such instances in Sri Vaishnava Parmapara (tradition). Take the example of Sri Ramanujacharya himself who was the foremost amongst the Srivaishnavacharyas. He was initiated into the Srivaishnava texts and secrets by five great acharyas who are the disciples of Acharya Yamuna. That is why is called Panchacharya Pradarshita.

 

Though he was a disciple of these five Acharyas, just like the Ritviks appointed by HH Srila Prabhupada ji, these ritviks never claimed that they were the 'Acharyas' of Ramanujacharya. On the other hand it seems Yamunacharya had seen Ramanuja only once in Kanchipuram when he was studying with Yadava Prakasha and he also showered blessings on Ramanujacharya from a distance. Very interestingly; Ramanucharya mentions Yamunacharya and offers obeisances to him in his benedictory verses found in the beginning of the Vedartha sangraha. This shows that Acharya Ramanuja is considered to be a sishya of Yamunacharya only.

 

Besides the very concept of Ritvik has a special significance here. In the olden days there would be a Yajamana who could engage Ritvik, Adhvaryus etc., for the performance of sacrifice. These people after performing the sacrifice would get some dakshina. But the net result of the sacrifice would go to the Yajaman himself, as he was mainly responsible for the performance. The ritviks were entitled only to initiate disciples into the Hare Krishna Movement. But the disciples thus initiated by these representatives are always considered to be the disciples of Srila Prabhupada only. Since he is the yajamana who has engaged these ritviks for the performance of initiation.

 

Again I have to stress that the letter makes it amply clear that the disciples thus initiated by the representatives of Srila Prabhupada are only the disciples of Srila Prabhupada only, not of the representatives.

 

I also want to confirm that this system can continue perpetually even in the physical absence of HH Srila Prabhupadaji

 

as it has continued in Ramanujas tradition as any person initiated by any acharya has dasyanama like Lakshmittathacharya Ramanuja Dasa though Ramanuja passed away long ago.

 

 

Hope, Madhupandit Dasaji, I have made my point clear.

 

 

With warm personal regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

Lakshmi Tatachar (Signed)

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Interview with Sri Lakshmi Tattacharya:

 

(Can an acharya who is not physically present give diksha?)

ISKCON devotee: Our point is that although Srila Prabhupada is not physically present, that does not in any way stop the validity of his continuing to be diksha guru.

 

Sri Tatachar : Definitely. That is my view.

 

ISKCON devotee: Can the absence of a physical body limit the functioning of the acharya, in terms of Srila Prabhupada being able to impart knowledge and take karma of the disciples? Can Srila Prabhupada do this now?

 

Sri Tatachar : Just because somebody has a physical body, can he take your karma? Is he competent to do it? The presence or the absence of the physical body is not the criteria to take away the karma of a particular person. On the other hand, it depends on the devotion of the disciple and the grace of the acharya. Say for instance, Srila Prabhupada's guru was not there when Srila Prabhupada was present. Do you mean to say that they are not capable of taking the karma of their disciple?

The interesting thing is (quotes a verse in Sanskrit from Yatindra vimsati composed by Sri Manavala Mamuni of Sri Vaishnava sampradaya, who appeared nearly 200 years after Sri Ramanuja).

 

ISKCON devotee: So what is the import of this statement?

 

Sri Tatachar : That means though the guru is not physically present, he can take away all the karmas of the disciple. That is the potency of the acharya. In that way, it is not important whether the acharya is alive with a physical body or not. That is not important.

ISKCON devotee: One of their objections is that it stops the parampara.

 

Sri Tatachar : How does it stop the parampara? These ritviks will further appoint ritviks.

 

ISKCON devotee: There is a provision for that. Prabhupada says more can be added when necessary.

 

Sri Tatachar : More can be added and these ritviks will initiate all of them into the Hare Krishna movement and Srila Prabhupada will be their guru. What harm is there? Because the very word 'ritvik' has a special significance here. What do you mean by ritvik? A person who performs this particular duty. Suppose a king performs a sacrifice he is considered a yajaman. Even now wealthy people organise for us, Sudarshana homa. Probably in your place also. So that person is called a yajamana. When we came to your place Madhu Pandit Das was the yajamana. He didn't perform the sacrifice. He engaged all these people - Venkatesh and I came and many other people came and we performed the homa. After performing the homa we were given dakshina. So our relationship ends there itself. Because we had received the dakshina for the service we had rendered. But the end result goes to whom? To the yajamana only. Similarly, these ritviks get some dakshina from the persons whom they initiate. Once that is done their work is over. But the result that such and such a person is a disciple of such and such a guru goes to SP. That's why the word ritvik is used here. Otherwise he would have used a different word. And he would have stated that these are my sishyas, these sishyas are here afterwards considered to be the gurus to succeed me. "He is my successor," he didn't say that.

 

(Does the rtvik system violate any Vedic principles of guru parampara?)

ISKCON devotee: You have compared the arrangement in the Sri sampradaya with that of the rtvik arrangement that Srila Prabhupada has directed us to follow. (He also supervised the running of this system from July to November, 1977). In rtvik system, there is an important difference. Here Srila Prabhupada is not giving any guruship to the rtviks...

 

Sri Tatachar: Yes, that is right, that is what we see from the letter also.

 

ISKCON devotee: In the event of the rtviks being representatives only and not being gurus, is there a violation of any shastric principle or is it violating any spiritual...

 

Sri Tatachar: No, it is not violating. On the other hand, it supports what I have stated. In the case of Sri Ramanuja, I have stated that he appointed 74 simhasana-adhipatis and made them gurus. In spite of that we owe our allegiance to Sri Ramanuja only.

 

ISKCON devotee: You are saying that in spite of being some sort of guru, you are the disciple of Sri Ramanuja only?

 

Sri Tatachar: Yes, definitely. That is why we say that we are Sri Ramanuja dasan only. I have to say, adiyen madhura kavi Lakshmi Tatacharya Ramanuja dasan, when I prostrate before anyone. Sri Ramanuja dasa is the common thing found in all the Sri Vaishnavas, though we have been initiated by one of the simhasana-adhipatis appointed by Sri Ramanuja himself who were considered to be gurus. In spite of this we are expected to state that we are disciples of Sri Ramanuja only.

 

ISKCON devotee: In our case it is clear that Srila Prabhupada did not give any guruship...

 

Sri Tatachar: So it is all the more clear and imperative because Srila Prabhupada mentions very clearly in the letter that these are rtviks. That is why I have given the meaning of the rtviks - this word comes from the rig veda. The rtvik is a sacrificer who is appointed by the yajamana. Suppose you are the yajamana, you can appoint me as the rtvik and this rtvik performs the role of a priest on behalf of the yajamana. This may happen when the yajamana does not know the vedic rituals or even if he knows and if he is not in a position to perform this role, then he may appoint a rtvik.

 

So he will perform the sacrifice and give dakshina to the rtviks...Who gets the result of the sacrifice? It obviously goes to the person who has engaged these rtviks and sent money for the sacrifice, the yajamana.

 

The word rtvik is very significant. That is why Srila Prabhupada was so clever to say that they are only rtviks and not acaryas. So the result goes to Srila Prabhupada only.

 

 

(Again, will the parampara stop?)

ISKCON devotee: In the Bhagavad Gita, Srila Prabhupada gives the guru parampara - Brahma, Narada, Vyasa...and so on till Srila Prabhupada. In the rtvik system, who comes after Srila Prabhupada?

 

Sri Tatachar: Srila Prabhupada himself. Only the rtvik system continues and Srila Prabhupada is the guru.

 

ISKCON devotee: When that happens, is the parampara not stopping?

 

Sri Tatachar: No. What can be done? Srila Prabhupada has not appointed an acharya. The parampara continues through a chain of rtviks.

 

(Is authorization essential to become an acharya?)

ISKCON devotee: One final question is that for somebody has to become an acharya, how important is it for him to receive an authorisation to take that post from the previous acharya? In this case, there is an authorisation to continue to as a ritvik and ritvik alone, there is not authoriation to function as guru. How important is it to receive an authorisation?

 

Sri Tatachar: It is very much necessary to receive an authorisation. Without an authorisation you cannot do. Generally what happens in the Srivaishnava parampara, they were always worried about the succession ( Tamil sloka). Who will be the successor to take care of the propagation of this system? When the acharya was about to pass away, he would nominate a person to take care of the panth and hold the mantle thereafter. That is how it has been done. That is why even in the Srivaishnava parampara, while giving sannyasa, he cannot take sannyasa on his own. The acharya will give the sanyas and say that here afterwards he will be the mathadipathi.

 

ISKCON devotee: That means authorization is a must.

 

Sri Tatachar: IT IS A MUST

 

ISKCON devotee: To become a guru or a mathadipathi or a peethadipathi

 

Sri Tatachar: Yes, yes, yes. Otherwise I am very sure that SP would have used another word altogether instead of 'ritviks'. 'These are my successors' - no problem. He never said 'successors'. Again and again he stresses 'these are my representatives only', 'they are only expected to initiate them, ultimately all of them are my disciples only, not the disciples of others'.

[vijay]

 

Furthermore, your statement is based on the assumption that their interpretation is wrong and that no pure devotee would agree with their conclusion.

 

 

I think you've over analysed my statement, the statement wasnt for or against the ritvik system, the point was any pre-requiite on a pure devotee having to follow our impure interpretations of a debated order is a fallacy. There are plenty of other explicit criteria prabhupada has set to recognise purity. Simple.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Interview with Sri Bannanje Govindacarya, Madhva scholar.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Meaning of diksha is to give adhikara in a mantra or any system or in a faith. Who can give initiation? In fact if I want to initiate somebody into gayatri, I must be a realised person. Gayatri sakshatkara is the first requirement for a diksha guru. Siddhi or perfection. Mantra siddhi. Otherwise one cannot give mantra diksha to others, according to shastra. So simply giving Diksha and canceling and taking again another diksha - that is all ashastric, not according to shastra... So this is the problem when we institutionalize a faith. We have to face all these problems, because when you institutionalize faith then all the institutional and organizational problems enter and all the organizational problems will come. Actually according to shastra, none of these swamis can initiate... No swami unless he has attained sakshatkar or mantra siddhi he cannot initiate. That is what....told was correct. Unless he has that power to take the sishya into that height, that elevation, initiation becomes a mere mechanical procedure. It has no meaning. If I want to initiate you I must be able to bring you to that plane and you must be able to meditate upon that mantra and that power should be given. Initiation is not mere mechanical procedure. That is a transformation of a power, mantric and spiritual power and a person who has actually no spiritual power how can he give spiritual power to a sisya. It cannot be claimed by a mere post or institutional powers. Initiation is totally different.

 

ISKCON devotee: The point is the 11 ritviks, only on the assumption that Prabhupada is not on the planet they stopped continuing to be ritviks. Is that correct or wrong? We are saying, " you don't have an explicit order. A clear order of the acharya is needed to become a diksha guru. Srila Prabhupada made a system-you stopped the acharya's order!" We are questioning. They are not able to justify that. So are they correct in their justification or wrong?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No...do they claim that they are no more ritviks?

 

ISKCON devotee: They say that they are no more ritviks. They are regular gurus. Regular gurus means, as I told you the definition, according to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, it is very serious thing. It is a very big thing.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes. See that is why I have told this is clash between the organization and the spiritual practice. When the spiritual practices become institutionalized, then the institution has certain... it is totally left to the ...you are correct. There is no letter or there is no resolution, any orders. In an institution anything can be changed. The governing body is there and by majority they can vote and they can have a resolution. They can change anything. According to rules and regulations. But that is left to the organizational rules and regulations. That is what I have told, according to shastra, the religious or spiritual part of diksha - giving diksha, a person who has siddhi - siddhapurusa can give diksha to others. Otherwise it has no meaning at all. It is not a mechanical thing.

 

ISKCON devotee: So their another argument is that because it is not normal, according to tradition just like son becomes father, it is natural. So naturally disciple becomes guru. This is also natural. So we have become gurus. So if we follow ritvik, because it is non traditional, not in the sampradaya, we stopped practicing it. Is it really apasampradaya? To follow acharya's ajna?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Is it apasampradaya means here in other sampradayas, particularly in the vaishnava sampradaya or the madhva mutts, their mantra diksha is to be taken by a living guru. It is a tradition. Strictly speaking, diksha even here when a swami gives mantra or upadesha to a disciple, the inner concept is that the living guru is not the real guru. Madhvacharya is there in his body and through living guru the spirit, actually the original spirit of Madhvacharya, the original spirit of living guru that is what is functioning. That concept is there. But a diksha living guru is a must in tradition. It is there. That is why they say apasampradaya. See in all other sampradayas diksha swekara from a living guru is generally accepted in all... see it is in practice even in Madhva mutt.

 

ISKCON devotee: So Prabhupada appointed these ritviks to do the external aspects of the diksha, like gving mala, spiritual name, etc These are to be done through a living ritviks. So ritviks are living. But the roles are defined and the real aspect of the diksha, giving transcendental knowledge and taking the responsibility of delivering the disciple, Prabhupada continues to do it. In that sense is it apasampradaya?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No we cannot say that. Because what is sampradaya? Sampradaya is again a constitution- a spiritual institution. And it is followed by centuries and centuries by the sisyas. So any system that is in practice for more than 100 years, it becomes sampradaya!

 

ISKCON devotee: Now since no acharya in the past has formed an international society...

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes, that is why I have told you, sampradaya means also, it is a spiritual constitution, which should not go against the spirit of vedic teachings. That's all.

 

ISKCON devotee: So is the ritvik system, taking mala, name, etc from living ritviks and considering Srila Prabhupada as the diksha guru, violating vedic spirit?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No no nothing, nothing. That is not that...

 

ISKCON devotee: This ritvik system, where Prabhupada in his absence where they act, you know these ritviks as his representatives, and giving, conducting this ceremony while still Prabhupada as the diksha guru, if this process if we continue, is it violating any vedic sastra?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: You see it can be done like this. Everybody must take diksha before the vigraha of Prabhupada

 

ISKCON devotee: Prabhupada murthi's are kept everywhere in ISKCON temples.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: You have a temple of Prabhupada, and before Prabhupada himself, no others can give diksha and these people provide name and mala. The diksha should be in the presence of Prabhupada's vigraha. That will be better. That would be better. There will be no problem. Just to avoid problems, see so many gurus, they will leave peeta (the sacred seat), they are falling down. Just to avoid this, you take initiation before Prabhupada's vigraha.

 

ISKCON devotee: We are actually not saying that this should be practiced because of a reaction for the fall down of gurus. Even if the gurus are not falling down we are saying you should still follow this because it is the acharya's ajna.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes, I have simply told... This can also be avoided. No, that is not the only reason because in fact that is my concept. People ask me who is your guru. I have been taught by so many swamji's . I have not been initiated into sanyasa. That is different. People ask me, "You are being an eminent scholar, who is your guru." Then I used to say, "Madhvacharya is my guru. None else." I don't accept anybody else as my direct guru. Even now if I have got any doubt, I put the question before Madhvacharya and he must send the message, the answer to my mind and I don't ask anybody! So this is a very powerful practice. Taking initiation from mula guru. See these people are instruments, to provide this and that, what ever is required.

 

ISKCON devotee: For that we are saying, we will respect them and ...

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: If that vision is created, it will be a very powerful, very good system. There will be no controversy. All the problems will be avoided.

 

ISKCON devotee: Will this stop the parampara? They claim that this will stop the parampara.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Why? Taking initiation from mula guru and following the parampara. How can it be stopped?

 

ISKCON devotee: This is one of their objections. You can't take from a departed acharya because it will stop the parampara. So who will continue the parampara? That is what they are asking.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: See Guru parampara means, now here is Madhvacharya, (pointing to the disciplic succession listed in Bhagavad Gita As It Is) and then this swami, and his swami, like that 31 swamis are there. So this parampara will be there. Everybody is disciple of guru, Prabhupada. Prabhupada and his disciple, his disciple, his disciple - this parampara will not be there. That is alright.

 

ISKCON devotee: That is what Pejavar Swami said, "Peeta parampara (the succession of the sacred seat of the institutional head) will not be there. But upadesha parampara will continue..."

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: There is no problem in that. It is there in practice in Madhva mathas because the guru initiates the disciple. When that tradition is not there, Prabhupada himself is the initiating or diksha guru, then his matha parampara will not be there.

 

ISKCON devotee: But will that not stop the parampara?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No, no how. No question of stopping. Parampara does not stop. All this in an institution, all seniority, junior swamis, who is to become President, something, this and that. All those problems will arise. Managerial problems and institutional problems may be there but in spiritual practice there is no problem. Here there are two aspects. One is external - institutional, managerial problems. When you build an institution, there should be some constitution, some managerial....

 

ISKCON devotee: That Prabhupada has said GBC is the ultimate managing authority...

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: And this should not be mixed up with the spiritual practices. It is different.

 

ISKCON devotee: Now they show the principle, they quote, many places where Prabhupada expressed himself, "I want each of my disciples to become gurus."

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Anybody can become guru. He can teach vaishnava siddhanta to the masses and he can become guru. To become guru... Giving diksha is not the only method of becoming guru. If I want to become guru, I must teach my disciples and I am guru. My students are there. They give respect to me. They say he is my guru. He taught me this omkar. That is all. Without knowing ... Guruhood should come through his knowledge and his practice.....I mean tapasya. It cannot be demanded.

 

ISKCON devotee: In other words siksha. You can always be siksha guru.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: I can teach others. But diksha guru....well, unless I have that power I cannot give diksha to others. So again how can I claim that I have that power. "You don't have that power. I will give you that power..." It is all again a controversy. There is no end to this controversy.

 

ISKCON devotee: According to Madhva siddhanta, can a mahabhagavatha fall down? Uttam adhikari, mahabhagavatha?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: The question is irrelevant. Because if he is a mahabhagavatha, he cannot fall. If he falls down he is not a mahabhagavatha. What is the definition of mahabhagavatha? First we have to know that. According to the Bhagavata purana, a person who has practiced the vaishnava system according to Maha Srimad Bhagavatha and has reached certain level. Then if he is mahabhagavatha, he cannot come down. He cannot fall down. Sometimes it happens, even realised souls have prarabhdha karma. That is also told. Even the realised souls who have seen Narayana face to face, eye to eye, Vishnu sakshat kara is there, after realisation also due to prarabdha karma also some people may fall down. That is there in the scriptures.

 

Generally mahabhagavatha cannot fall down. Its very rare - some earth breaking instances. You leave it, it's only for argument sake.

 

ISKCON devotee: Do you agree that one can become guru only on the order of his guru? Or can he just become guru? How can he become guru? - giving diksha. Prabhupada says that it is a rule that he has to get an order to continue the parampara. What do you say?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Through guru parampara giving initiation is in practice in so many systems. In Madhva system it is there, in Shankara and Ramanuja system. In all the systems now the person who is authorised to give initiation comes in the peeta (sacred seat of the institutional head). Whoever comes in the peeta is authorised to give. That tradition is there now. And in fact, this is just a managerial system, administrative system. Just to solve the administrative problem, they have adopted this method. Strictly speaking, in the spiritual field anybody can initiate who is siddha purusha and even if not entitled by guru. Traditionally this is not accepted. If I am a mantra siddha, I need not have a sanction from my guru or any tradition. I can initiate anybody. This is sastric. But there are two things - institutional systems is that only the peeta-adhipati (the person presiding over the peeta) guru can initiate. That is the system in the Madhva mutts. In fact only siddha purusa can initiate and he need not be a siddha purusa who has come in the traditional way in the peeta.

 

ISKCON devotee: But he has to be authorised.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: He is authorised.

 

ISKCON devotee: If he is a siddha purusa, automatically the authorisation will be there for him.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes, yes. That's what I am saying. If he is not siddha purusa, though he is there in the peeta, lineage, according to sastra he is not authorised. But the present system accepts that he is guru! But according to the sastra, he need not come in the peeta, if he is a siddha purusa and he is realised, he can give diksha to anyone. There is no sanction of tradition that is necessary to accept him as guru. The only requirement for diksha is I must be a realised person, siddha purusa of that mantra which I am giving you. If it is Vishnu mantra, I must be siddha in that Vishnu mantra or Narayana mantra or whatever it is. This is not only giving mantra upadesa but this is accepting somebody into the fold of a certain system. Then some system must be there. Its again institutionalisation. Some system. Then whatever the tradition says that is to be accepted to accept him into this fold. So all the other sampradayas accept that there is a guru paramapara in the peetas and they are entitled to give diksha. According to sastra anybody can give mudra dharana. I can give mudra to my children. But according to the present practice in the mutts, sampradaya system, they do not accept it. They say, "Only we have the authority. Only we have the authority. We can give mudra dharana. But nobody else..." Some of our swamis say, "These people belong to Uttaradi mutt, they belong to Pejawar mutt.." and so on. Again there is division. "And you cannot take vaishnava diksha from some other swami. I am your mula vidya guru. You take diksha from me." No it has become a social right. Spirituality has nothing to do with this. This is again the present plight of the muttas. There are two things. One is the social aspect of traditional acceptance, another is spiritual practice.

 

ISKCON devotee: That's interesting. So we understand that the spiritual component of diksha Prabhupada retains for himself.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes that is what I am saying. It is safe. If we accept the spiritual diksha is Prabhupada, if we accept that then so many problems will be solved.

 

ISKCON devotee: According to our Governing Body themselves, they agree that they cannot deliver the souls back to Krishna. It is Prabhupada only that much they agree. The only thing is they don't want to give Prabhupada the post of diksha guru. Of course now the siddhanta is diluted so much because of the lack of qualified diksha gurus that they are saying that even a kanistha adhikari or madhyama adhikari can become guru. But Prabhupada cannot become diksha guru. His only disqualification is that he is not present with us.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: In other sampradayas they say that only living guru can give diksha. Therefore they are also claiming the same thing. In other sampradayas the diksha guru must be a living guru. He cannot give diksha with his spiritual body, non material body. He must give with his gross material body only - that tradition is there. This is not siddhanta or apasiddhanta. Tradition is a social system. It is nothing to do with the spiritual. Society accepted this just to have a control on disciples from the peeta or matha. Swami should have certain control of the disciples. So they have accepted certain rights - they are his copyrights! So that he can have certain control over the society. This is a social system presently accepted by the spiritual priests. Philosophy and practice have nothing to do with it.

 

ISKCON devotee: I cannot claim to become regular guru - for that I have to provide evidence. These are the only two questions we are asking them.

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Spiritually you are correct. For the organizational system if there is any thing to be done, that is left to you. I don't know. If there is any social problem it has to be set right.

 

ISKCON devotee: In short, is the ritvik system against any vedic system?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: It is neither vedic nor non vedic. Just to have an international contact, Prabhupada himself created this system and he is the final authority. It is not against the preaching of the vedas.

 

ISKCON devotee: So Prabhupada can remain a diksha guru and these people can conduct just like the ritviks?

 

Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: That can be done. There is no problem in this system. Because it is an international institution it is natural that all the people may not be scholars in sastras or sanskrit. But they will be managerial heads. That is why it is inevitable to accept Prabhupada as diksha guru. It is essential thing to accept him as diksha guru and these are the instruments.