A sincere ritvik wouldn't want Srila Prabhupada as their guru.

[Guest guest]

>> Earlier this year, Sri Madhu Pandit das told Sri Srivatsa das (Hyderabad)

>> when I was in the same room this exact thing: "A powerful diksa-guru such as

>> Srila Prabhupada CAN post-humously initiate and accept disciples. Which

>> sastra says that he cannot do so?" I thought that Madhu is a faithful

>> follower of KK Desai and therefore ascribed his words to the standard

>> pro-rtvik doctrine.

 

>Certainly (according to this logic). The rtviks "can" thus take the initiation

from the

>Deity of Krsna. Which sastra says that Krsna cannot directly

>initiate and impart the knowledge to someone? Why the need of Srila

>Prabhupada?

 

This is a real big flaw in their argument. Surely Srila Vyasadeva, who is still

present physically, should be our guru if at all there is a Ritvik argument.

After all, Srila Prabhupada "only" translated the books of Srila Vyasadeva. And

according to the ritviks, most of Srila Prabhupada's - all of Srila

Prabhupada's closly associated disciples have gone astray by not being ritviks

- so will Srila Prabhupada be more effective as a physically absent guru than a

physically present one? If he had only 5% of initiated disciples made it to the

ritvik platform (and then none of his closest disciples), what percentage have

a chance now he is physically absent - 1% or even less? I think I would try

elsewhere if I sincerely believed the ritvik arguments. If, as the ritviks

claim, he failed to train the vast majorty of his disciples in something as

basic as who gives initiation, he is not so significant as a spiritual leader,

and a sincere ritvik wouldn't want Srila Prabhupada as their guru.