BG shows physical presence is required

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajamila prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank

you for the encouragement. It is good to hear that some devotees are being

pulled back from what appears to me to be a spiritual abyss. I had not

really wanted to engage in debate with the ritviks, as I know from previous

experience that there will never be any agreement. I made a comment on a

text posted by Hari Sauri prabhu, without realising that it would be picked

up by the ritviks. I thought they were usually excluded from Com.

 

It seems the ritviks have made their assumption that Prabhupada wanted the

ritvik system to continue after his departure, and from this premise they

interpret all other evidence. I am not sure of their basis for this

assumption — I must say I find it hard to believe their primary evidence is

the July 9 letter. It is such a flimsy basis for so major an adjustment in

the traditional way that initiations have always ocurred in our sampradaya.

I can't believe that Srila Prabhupada, who was usually so meticulous and

thorough in his dealings, would leave such an important matter open to so

much doubt. You would have thought that he would have spelled it out in no

uncertain terms. Called a meeting of the GBC or something. Of course, the

ritviks think he made it clear, but the majority of devotees obviously don't

agree.

 

No doubt the arguments will rage on endlessly. 'Tarka apratistha'. I

expect (and hope) the ritviks will eventually give up trying to convert

everyone to their view, and just carry on with their own thing. However, I

at least will not be joining them. Even if the arguments seem confusing,

the results of adopting ritvik philosophy seem plain enough. During my time

as TP I have seen a number of my congregation go the ritvik way. They

rarely return - hence my labelling it an 'abyss'. It seems to be the first

step towards spiritual disaster. Believing that no one is authorised or

qualified to act as guru, they start questioning everything and everyone.

Any attempts to reason with them are hopeless, as they begin to see any

authority who differs from their view as some kind of conspiratorial demon,

probably on a 'guru trip'. Their worldview becomes tainted with a vision of

friends and enemies. In order to support their tenuous position they are

forced to level serious criticism at senior devotees. Clouding our

philosophy with obscure arguments, they become intractable, rejecting even

those devotees who worked hard to bring them to Krishna consciousness.

 

My experience is that younger devotees, usually the most vulnerable to

ritvik doctrine, rarely recover from this position. They eventually abandon

anything to do with Krishna consciousness. Surely this is the most damning

indictment of the ritvik philosophy. If it were actually what Srila

Prabhupada wanted, and therefore in line with Krishna's desire, we would

expect it to enliven and inspire devotees in their spiritual life. Actually

connecting to a bona-fide parampara is compared to taking hold of a live

wire, the spiritual energy coming from Krishna flows through. But is this

seen when devotees take to ritvik? Not in my experience. It is most often

the very opposite. And if it were not, then why should anyone object?

After all, even if we are trying to build an empire we need lots of inspired

and enlivened devotees, don't we?

 

For me the effect of ritvik doctrine is experienced simply by reading their

literature. It befuddles the brain and leaves the heart cold. In one sense

I am not surprised they have gone to court - I always thought their

documents read like legal briefs. I am left with the impression that the

writers are intent on one thing only - winning a case. To me it seems that

a very weak position is being couched in a kind of legalese in order to make

it sound authoritative. While terms like 'siksha', 'diksha', 'guru',

'disciple', 'Back to Godhead', etc, are bandied about in an attempt to

construct arguments, there seems to be little understanding of what they

mean. I don't get the feeling that ritvik writers want to enlighten me, to

share any deep realisations they may have about these profound spiritual

concepts.

 

Surely, though, this is the real issue. What is guru? What is the meaning

of the guru disciple relationship? What does it mean to deliver a disciple

back to Godhead? Sure, ritviks produce boundless quotes, but have they

deeply thought about their actual meaning? Do they have any practical

experience? I get the feeling that the authors of ritvik papers have very

little idea. If they do have any understanding they certainly fail to

convey it to me. Rather than seeing the role of guru as a difficult and

serious responsibility to which we should try to rise, they appear to think

it is some kind of instititional post, to be desired by power-hungry seekers

of name and fame. Hmmm.

 

Anyway, for what it is worth that is the way I feel. I shall therefore

ardently pray that their attempts to force ISKCON to accept ritvik doctrine

fails, as I feel sure it will. I just hope that all the legal wrangling

does not consume too much of our valuable resources.

 

your servant

Krishna Dharma das

[Guest guest]

At 4:09 -0800 5/25/99, COM: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) wrote:

>

>But you should realize that Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur did have a diksa

>guru. Just because his guru's name is not mentioned does not mean that he

>wasn't qualified.

 

There seems to be a great deal of interest in Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur's

relationship with his guru(s). Does anyone know from whom he took diksa?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi