BG shows physical presence is required

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu, Please accept our humble obeisances. All Glories

to Srila Prabhupada.

 

> Thank you for your lengthy reply. I'm still not sure that you are seeing

> my point, and I shall try to elucidate it shortly. I understand that you

> are saying that Srila Prabhupada established, by virtue of a letter

> written on July 9 1977, that he wanted all future initiations to be

> carried on under the 'ritvik' system. You therefore feel that any

> arguments suggesting that this might contradict sastra are simply

> incorrect, as Srila Prabhupada would not have given any order which

> contradicted sastra.

 

Suggestions of contradiction are not sufficient. We need to see some

specific sastric injunction that is broken. This we have not seen.

 

> As far as you are concerned I am simply speculating

> without any basis in sastra, or Prabhupada's own example.

 

Only when you assume that Srila Prabhupada no longer wants something to go

on, even though the last thing he said was that it was to go on. Maybe you

are correct, maybe he did not want the system to run past departure. All we

are asking for is some evidence for this. The Judge will want to see this

too you know.

 

> First of all, I do not accept that the July 9 letter established any

> system that was meant to carry on after Prabhupada departed. That's

> certainly not how I see that letter, taken in its proper context of the

> events occurring at the time it was written. In any event, letters and

> conversational instructions may be considered in the light of kala desha

> patra, they are not necessarily meant to apply for all times, places and

> circumstances. For example, there is a letter, written I think in 1972,

> stating that the world should be divided into twelve zones with twelve

> GBC's. However, that is no longer the case, and it changed even during

> Prabhupada's presence.

 

Yes and Srila Prabhupada was most unhappy about it:

 

"I have appointed originally 12 GBC members and I have given them 12 zones

for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have

changed everything, so what is this, I don't know."

(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 4/4/72)

 

You picked a bad example there didn't you? This was given in TFO, so may we

humbly suggest you read it before launching in. Even the points you make

about pariksa we already sent you answer and you seem to have just ignored.

Anyway from the above it is clear that we cannot just stop or change the

order of the guru based on our own whim or speculation.

 

> I think there may be other such examples.

 

Yes, they stopped the July 9th order too.

 

> The July 9 letter was a specific instruction from Prabhupada empowering a

> certain number of named devotees, whom he obviously trusted highly, to

> take disciples on his behalf. There is absolutely no reason to assume

> that he wanted anyone else other than those named disciples to do this

> service, certainly not from that letter, and thus it simply cannot be an

> order meant for any great length of time.

 

This is another objection that has already been answered years ago. At least

you could try answering our points, then the debate could move forward. Here

is our response for the third time on this conference alone:

 

It is sometimes claimed that since the July 9th letter only authorises the

original 11 appointed ritviks, the system must stop once the 11 persons

nominated die or deviate.

 

This is rather an extreme argument. After all the July 9th letter does not

state that only Srila Prabhupada can chose ritviks, or that the list of

acting ritviks may never be added to. There are other systems of management

put in place by Srila Prabhupada, such as the GBC, where new members are

freely added or subtracted whenever it is felt necessary. It is illogical to

single out one system of management, and treat it entirely differently from

other equally important ones. This is particularly so since Srila Prabhupada

never even hinted that the approach to maintaining the ritvik system should

differ in any way from the upkeep of other systems he personally put in

place.

 

This argument has become popular, so we invite the reader to consider the

following points:

 

1) In the Topanga Canyon transcript Tamal Krsna Goswami relates the

following question he asked whilst preparing to type the list of selected

ritviks:

 

Tamal Krsna: "Srila Prabhupada, is this all or do you want to add more?"

Srila Prabhupada: "As necessary, others may be added."

(Pyramid House confessions, 3/12/80)

 

Certainly if some or all of the ritviks died or seriously deviated that

could be deemed a 'necessary' circumstance for more ritviks to be 'added'.

 

2) The July 9th letter defines ritvik as: 'representative of the acarya'. It

is perfectly within the remit of the GBC to select or decommission anyone to

represent Srila Prabhupada, be they sannyasis, Temple Presidents or indeed

GBC members themselves. At present they approve diksa gurus, who are

supposedly direct representatives of the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus it

should be easily within their capacity to select a few name-giving priests

to act responsibly on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.

 

3) The July 9th letter shows Srila Prabhupada's intention was to run a

ritvik system 'henceforward'. Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate

managing authority in order that they could maintain and regulate all the

systems he put in place. The ritvik system was his system for managing

initiations. It is the job of the GBC to maintain that system, adding or

subtracting personnel as they can do in all other areas over which they are

authorised to preside.

 

4) Letters issued on July 9th, 11th, and 21st all indicate that the list

could be added to, with the use of such phrases as 'thus far', 'so far',

'initial list', etc. So a mechanism for adding more ritviks must have been

put in place, even though it has yet to be exercised.

 

5) When trying to understand an instruction one will naturally consider the

purpose behind it. The letter states that Srila Prabhupada appointed 'some

of his senior disciples to act as "rittik" - representative of the acarya,

for the purpose of performing initiations ...', and that at that time Srila

Prabhupada had 'so far' given eleven names. The aim of an obedient disciple

is to understand and satisfy the purpose of the system. The purpose of the

final order was clearly not to exclusively bind all future initiations to an

'elite' group of individuals ('some [...] so far') who must eventually die,

and in so doing end the process of initiation within ISKCON. Rather the

purpose was to ensure that initiations could practically continue from that

time on. Therefore this system must remain in place as long as there is a

need for initiation. Thus the addition of more 'senior disciples' to act as

'representatives of the acarya', as and when they are required, would ensure

that the purpose of the system continued to be satisfied.

 

6) Taken together with Srila Prabhupada's will (which indicates all future

directors for permanent properties in India could only be selected from

amongst his initiated disciples), it is quite clear Srila Prabhupada's

intention was for the system to run indefinitely, with the GBC simply

managing the whole thing. (The Final Order p.47)

 

Krishna Dharma prabhu, you should by now, after two and a half years, be

dealing with the above points, not merely re-presenting the objection that

inspired them. That is if you wish your contribution to have any value.

Remember TFO was actually commissioned by the GBC just so the ritvik

position could be put in one non-offensive, ad-hominem free paper. In that

way the GBC could answer our concerns more directly and economically. That

was the theory at least. If you want to participate in persuading us we are

wrong, then does it not make sense to first find out what our position is,

and then answer that?

 

> However, all this is circumstantial. The main reason why I do not accept

> that the July 9 letter could be meant to apply posthumously, as I have

> been trying to say, is because such an application would flout sastric

> injunctions, which was not the case while Prabhupada was present. Sastra

> states that one should approach a guru and test him and in turn be tested.

 

And as you have already accepted this does not necessarily involve physical

contact. It can be done through representatives as was commonly the case

with Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Please specify which shastric injunction

is being flouted.

 

> Why? So that both guru and disciple are assured of each other's

> qualifications before entering into the relationship. Why? Because, if

> either party desires, the relationship can be denied. Otherwise, why the

> need for any testing?

 

And all this testing was delegated to TP's and ritviks. Within a short time

of ISKCON's growth this observing and testing was rarely done directly by

Srila Prabhupada, as you honestly concede.

 

> This is the point of that sastric instruction.

> Therefore to satisfy this injunction there has to be the opportunity for

> either party to refuse the relationship, should they wish to do so.

 

Yes, both the TP or ritvik can refuse if the devotee is not following the

simple straight forward standards that everyone knows. As long as new

initiates were strictly adhering and the TP's gave good report, Srila

Prabhupada never refused anyone. But he did insist that the standards be

rigidly maintained.

 

> Now, during Prabhupada's presence this initially went on on a one to one

> basis between him and his disciples, but as the movement grew this became

> more and more difficult, and he therefore more and more entrusted his

> disciples to look after things. Finally, as we both know, he had enough

> trust in his disciples that he just let them do everything without even

> needing to consult him. However, he was present and in control.

 

He is still in control as long as we follow his instructions. When we stop

following we come under the control of Maya.Why do you assume that we cannot

be controlled by Srila Prabhupada's instructions just because he has left

the planet?

 

> You

> cannot say that he was not in control just because he fully empowered

> others - this is the sign of an expert manager, he gives away all the

> power but not the control. Prabhupada was still firmly in control of

> ISKCON and everything within it. One word from him and anything could

> have been changed, including the ritvik system.

 

Right, and the definition of the GBC is that Srila Prabhupada is the supreme

authority for ISKCON, and they are only allowed to follow his instructions

and spread his teachings. So according to the articles of definition for the

GBC, Srila Prabhupada is still in control. He could have stopped the ritvik

system and set up another system, but he did not. This is a simple hard

fact.

 

> Thus the sastric requirement that the guru tests his disciples was not

> flouted. Prabhupada was there and able to refuse the relationship, if he

> so desired.

 

He still can, through his representatives. Nothing is flouted, any more than

when he was here.

 

> Sure, he did not so desire while he was present, but it is

> surely a speculation to assume that this would be the case after his

> departure.

 

No, it is speculation that has gone on for the last 22 years, and you seem

happy for that to continue.

 

> You simply don't know.

 

You have not presented any evidence to us that he wanted this system changed

or stopped, so it seems it is you who simply does not know.

 

> In his absence the sastric requirement

> for pariksha cannot be properly satisfied, unless you have access to the

> guru.

 

You have just invented the above and this was already explained. I shall

once more post the answer, please read it this time, and at least respond to

our points, and not merely represent the original objection that inspired

the points:

 

It may be argued that the elimination of personal pariksa was justified

because the guru was still present on the planet. Thus, at least personal

pariksa could theoretically have occurred. However this argument has no

basis since:

 

1) There is no mention of this special get-out clause for personal pariksa

in any scripture. It would simply be an invention to fit the circumstances

after the fact.

 

2)When describing the use of representatives for personal pariksa, Srila

Prabhupada never states that they can only exist if he is on the planet.

What hitherto unmentioned sastric principle forces a limitation on the use

of representatives in certain circumstances?

 

3) As demonstrated, the need for personal (as in physical) pariksa is not a

sastric requirement. The use of representatives, such as his disciples and

books, as a substitute for personal pariksa is supported by Srila

Prabhupada. So the question of when personal pariksa may or may not be

eliminated does not even arise

 

4) That diksa was given without physical contact is itself proof that diksa

can be achieved without personal/physical pariksa.

 

5) The very fact that personal pariksa was not always undertaken, even when

it was possible to do so, proves that it can not be necessary to the process

of diksa.

 

Srila Prabhupada made it very clear what standards he expected in a

disciple; the Temple Presidents and ritviks were meant to see them

continued. The standards for initiation today are identical to those

established by Srila Prabhupada whilst he was present. So if he requested

not to be consulted whilst he was present, what makes us think he would

urgently want to intervene now? The only concern for us is to ensure that

the standards are rigidly maintained without change or speculation.

 

Please at least answer the above points before merely re-stating your

objection.

 

> It was not the setting up of the ritvik system which flouted

> sastra, but the suggestion that it be continued in Prabhupada's absence.

 

This you have failed to demonstrate; that anything has been flouted. The

agreement and testing is still done in exactly the same way as when Srila

Prabhupada was here. There is nothing in sastra preventing the use of

representatives once the guru leaves the planet. If there is please show it,

rather than your opinion that there is.

 

> Your bringing arguments that 'why should we change this one thing only?

> why not question anything else, such as guru puja etc?' appears to be

> something of a red herring which confuses the issue. None of these other

> items you mention flout sastra. It is only posthumous ritvik which does

> so.

 

No, you have not shown where in sastra a guru cannot use representatives for

testing and accepting disciples whilst physically absent. Therefore our

point is completely valid. You could speculate about any other system in the

same way as you are over the ritvik system.

 

> I also find your arguments on 4.34 somewhat confusing. You say, 'we do

> not abandon orders on the basis of all the available evidence'. But we

> are not talking about abandoning any order, we are talking about

> understanding an order and following it properly.

 

Please tell us which words in the order we have failed to understand, please

be specific? There must be a sentence or paragraph that says something about

stopping on departure that we somehow missed. Can you please show us where

it is prabhuji?

 

> We need the examples of

> the acharyas to help us understand how to apply sastra, and all the

> examples of diksha are that it takes place between two present and

> consenting parties - and this includes Prabhupada's personal example.

 

We first need to follow our immediate acarya or we shall not understand

anything at all. Just because an identical system has not been employed

within the tiny bit of history that we know about (which incidently does not

include anything quite like ISKCON) this says nothing whatsoever about the

validity of the system. It may indicate that it is unusual, but so what? You

are misapplying sastric evidence. History is only third class evidence.

Revelation is topmost. So when the guru directly 'reveals' what he wants,

then that must be followed. Or you better have a pretty good reason to stop.

That reason you have failed to produce in our humble opinion.

 

> I hope this helps to clarify my position. Although you accuse me of

> 'endless speculation', I am in fact simply trying to properly understand

> and apply sastra, and I believe that such 'speculation' is acceptable.

 

We meant no offence. You are an intelligent person with every right to

question. But you also need evidence to back up the speculation. Remember

you are making a very, very bold claim. Out of all the systems Srila

Prabhupada set up you are singling out this one for termination. Now you may

be right, but you need to prove it on the basis of hard evidence. The

authors of TFO defined this whole argument on the basis of modifications a

and b. If you study our position you will understand why what you are saying

is irrelevant to the central issue, since you are not proving these two

modifications to the July 9th directive.

 

> I

> am not wanting to go outside of sastra, and I sincerely believe that the

> current ritvik proposal does just that. I am sorry you find my position

> 'absurd', but you have not yet shown me any sastra to support this

> assertion. I am extremely disappointed that you have felt the need to

> take ISKCON to court, which I find hard to imagine would be pleasing to

> Prabhupada. But I guess you have your reasons.

 

Yes it is sad, we did so with heavy hearts. But Srila Prabhupada set up

ISKCON as a legal entity with laws, and rules.Unfortunately we see that the

GBC are currently acting illegally. Certainly Srila Prabhupada would not

want his society derailed by illegal activity that he had not authorised.

Please read our legal brief and you will see our position is carefully

considered.

 

> One thing I appreciate is that you do not assume that Prabhupada

> considered no one to be qualified to be guru, if this is indeed what you

> are saying.

 

Our whole concern revolves around authorisation, not qualification.

 

> My feelings are that we should be free to make our own

> decisions about who to accept as guru - after all it is the disciple who

> has to accept the consequences of his decision and no one else.

 

Yes it is a big world, here in India there are an estimated 400,000 gurus.

But if someone joins ISKCON then there are certain rules, standards and

laws.

 

One rule is that all recommendations for first and second initiation be sent

by TP's to ritviks who will accept disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.

Within ISKCON there should only be one diksa guru. Outside you are right, so

much choice is there.

 

> I do not

> appreciate other parties intervening in guru and disicple relationships,

> pronouncing that gurus chosen by others are not qualified.

 

No, we are only interested in who is authorised by Srila Prabhupada.

 

> This is one

> thing I have found quite repugnant in ritvik behaviour, and I trust that

> you do not participate in it.

 

I am not sure whether you have a guru from MISS (Minimised Initiated

Succesor System) or you are aspiring for reinitiation. Sometimes, it is hard

to tell. So if after reading all the evidence on both sides you still decide

to go ahead, then you can rest assured we shall not try to come between

you'll.

 

We are both now very busy with the case, but gave you extra time since you

only came late in. We may not be able to reply so much over the next few

weeks, but we are debating your great mahajan Ajamila shortly on CHAKRA.

 

We do feel however that you would be well advised to study more closely our

position before writing any more, since it seems you are only raising points

that were specifically dealt with some time ago. Respectfully,

 

ys Adri and Madhu