All Q's answered at www.irg.zetnet.co.uk

[Guest guest]

On 20 May 1999, Temple Calcutta wrote:

 

>

> How can you say there is no precedent if you do not compare like with like?

You never found all those previous examples of ISKCON type institutions going

back into the dawn of time did you?

>

 

You know what, it is true, I haven't found any examples, institutional or

otherwise, of anyone offering eternal rtvik initiation. I suspect that is so

because Srila Prabhupada never bothered to offer us eternal ritvikism as any

sort of credible form of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. He said he offered us everything

in his Bhaktivedanta purports, but somehow this eternal rtvik doctrine seems

to me to be conspicous by it absense. It appears to be an idea created after

his departure, because as even you have pointed out, it is presented nowhere

in any of Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

> that would still

> mean nothing in itself since acaryas can set their own precedents. This has

been explained to you now for the last time, so you need not worry it will go

on and on.

>

>

 

I guess I am now condemned not to hear the ritvik siddhanta one more time on

this conference. It seems that for a rtivik, not agreeing with rtvikism is

something very uncool.

 

In any event, the acaryas do set precedent according to time and place, but

what they are doing is applying the general principles of devotional service

which remain an eternal constant. There are no instructions that I can find

where Prabhupada differentiates between devotional service performed within an

institution, and devotional service performed without an institution.

Bhaktisiddhanata also established an institution, and neither did he mention

these particular ideas that presently seem to be finding a certain audience.

 

I have already admitted that if Srila Prabhupada wished to establish this new

system, he could have easily explained the rational for it all based on sastra

as well as devotional precedent if he so desired. After all, that was how he

taught everything else we know about Krsna conciousness. His techniques were

proven to be both successful and in line with the examples and teachings of

the previous acaryas -- so why the change now about such a critical tradition

as the theology of the siksa and diksa relationship?

 

Especially when writing his Bhaktivedanta purports, Srila Prabhupada always

consulted the previous acaryas not wishing to create something new. On the

contrary, he offered criticism about a propensity he found in his followers

for uselessly attempting to change things. I find it curious that we now have

a few devotees berating us to change everything our founder/acarya worked so

hard to establish simply based on a few phrases taken out of context from his

voluminous preaching. Apparently, their new interpretation adjusts the

understanding of practically everything else Srila Prabhupada taught us about

what it means to be a disciple.

 

That the ritvik party wishes to indulge in creating a new theology, well, that

is their perogative. Still, I can't find it in my heart to offer any sort of

endorsement, for whatever value that could be.

 

I don't mind the endless debate so much as the sadness of it all.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi