Interpretation is at the heart of the ritvik controversy.

[Guest guest]

> we need to post this very quote again and again on this conference! it's

> so important for the whole ISKCON! Thankyou so much for providing it so

> quickly.

 

Yes it is a fact. Repetition is what is needed. At one point it sinks in.

 

Ys

Svarupa das

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> >When Satvarupa Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be

> >conducted after his dissapearence Srila Prabhupada responded that I will

> >appoint some of you as "officiating acarayas". Did Prabhupada not know

> >what he was saying? I believe he did want his disciples to be officiating

> >gurus not the full fledged type that are mostly discribed in our

> >literature.

> >

> >So in a sense he did want us to be Ritviks, but on behalf of who? Not on

> >behalf of Srila Prabhupada as the Ritviks wrongly assume, but on behalf

> >of the "Acarya Board" the GBC. This year the GBC in their meeting in

> >Mayapur, without using the words that I have used here, have said basicly

> >the same thing.

> >

>

>

> It seems the guru represents the disciplic succesion, working within

> ISKCON in cooperation with the GBC.

>

> I would propose the Prabhupada wanted his followers to be full-fledged,

> but didn't appoint them as such. They will show their qualifications by

> their activities and character.

 

Yes! But in the meantime we do find quite a few quotations from Srila

Prabhupada's writings where it is said that only a 100% Krsna conscious

person can really be a proper Guru.

 

Of course there are also a few quotes that say a non-liberated soul can act

as guru in the absence of a fully Krsna conscious person being available (or

for some other reasons), but isn't it true that such gurus should never be

confused with the fully self-realized Guru, who is the perfect and absolute

representative of Krsna, and whose every act and word is perfectly directed

by Krsna.

 

This point has been neglected for so many years in Iskcon, and now we are

reaping the bitter fruit of this neglect in the form of Ritviks etc.

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

>

>Yes! But in the meantime we do find quite a few quotations from Srila

>Prabhupada's writings where it is said that only a 100% Krsna conscious

>person can really be a proper Guru.

>

>Of course there are also a few quotes that say a non-liberated soul can act

>as guru in the absence of a fully Krsna conscious person being available (or

>for some other reasons), but isn't it true that such gurus should never be

>confused with the fully self-realized Guru, who is the perfect and absolute

>representative of Krsna, and whose every act and word is perfectly directed

>by Krsna.

>

>This point has been neglected for so many years in Iskcon, and now we are

>reaping the bitter fruit of this neglect in the form of Ritviks etc.

>Ys TS

 

 

I agree the real problem is revealed in your last few sentences -- devotees

presenting themselves on a level of realization that in fact they only have

a theoretical appreciation for.

 

I guess I would have to say, quite firmly, that even if a guru presents

himself as not being on the highest level of Krsna consciousness, there is

still quite a bit of potency in the guru/disciple relationship if the

practitioners are both straighforwardly honest and sincere with each other

in their Krsna consciousness. Ultimately it is Krsna who is behind the

potency of the guru/disciple relationship. Everything rests within Him.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>This point has been neglected for so many years in Iskcon, and now we are

>reaping the bitter fruit of this neglect in the form of Ritviks etc.

 

I agree with this.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> >When Satvarupa Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be

> >conducted after his dissapearence Srila Prabhupada responded that I will

> >appoint some of you as "officiating acarayas". Did Prabhupada not know

> >what he was saying? I believe he did want his disciples to be officiating

> >gurus not the full fledged type that are mostly discribed in our

> >literature.

>

>

> The problem I have with this is we have yet to see a precedent for

> officiating gurus in shastra. There are qualifications mentioned for

> gurus, but what about for ritviks? Our interpretation of Srila

> Prabhupada's directives cannot transgress shastra or previous acharyas.

> Srila Prabhupada may clearly understand what he meant, but that does not

> mean we do. The Vedas are vast, as are the commentaries of our previous

> acharyas. So if there really is a precedent, it must exist somewhere.

> Can you show a precedent for ritvik gurus from scripture?

>

> Bottom line: I will NOT accept that Srila Prabhupada is introducing

> something unauthorized by scripture.

>

> >So in a sense he did want us to be Ritviks, but on behalf of who? Not on

> >behalf of Srila Prabhupada as the Ritviks wrongly assume, but on behalf

> >of the "Acarya Board" the GBC. This year the GBC in their meeting in

> >Mayapur, without using the words that I have used here, have said basicly

> >the same thing.

>

>

> Too bad. Adridharan Prabhu also pointed this out as evidence to support

> his points. To me, because the GBC resolutions were not accompanied by

> any rigorous evidence (or even unrigorous evidence), the GBC resolutions

> with regard to every devotee's having a personal relationship with Srila

> Prabhupada seemed to be more like a method of political appeasement.

>

> What is wrong with being servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada? I

> will never consider myself directly the servant of Srila Prabhupada, just

> as much as I would never consider myself to be directly the servant of

> Krishna. That is more in line with Lord Caitanya's philosophy of gopi

> bartuh pada kamalayor dasadasa anudasa.

>

> >Unfortunately it is probably too late to reach a compromise with our

> >Ritvik friends, especially as they are so much influenced by this

> >imposter KK Desai.

>

> Even if the whole world goes ritvik, we should not compromise on following

> sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya. If we concentrate on this, ritvik will

> automatically go away.

>

> ys KKdas

 

Good points again, Krishna Kirit Prabhu.

 

It ought to be understood - by whomsoever - that the "appointment" of gurus

for ISKCON by SP didn't mean that he appointed them "uttama adhikaris". SP

said that they could do the job; and in the long run most of them couldn't.

 

In order to save embarassment for SP, my dear godbrother Trivikram Maharaj &

quite a few others try to rationalize "officiating acharya"; One senior

godbrother here in the area has been trying to rationalize it too - very

unconvincingly I might add.

 

What seems to have happend, of course in my most humble opinion (and it can

be "taken or left") is that Srila Prabhupada tried to do the best he could

in the circumstances using the old "a blind uncle is better than no uncle"

logic.

 

Guru may be on different levels; it's not that all gurus MUST be "uttama

adhikaris". SP confirms that in the NOI... That kanishtha and madhyama

gurus are inferior to uttama guru in intrinsic to the very words themselves.

 

So we should understand, and it's all quite simple, that our gurus may not

be on the "uttama" platform.

 

Now... the disciple(s) still have to respect their guru AS IF he were an

"uttama"! Here's where our Prabhu (mentioned above) and other's just can't

comprehend (or so it seems). The "less than uttama" guru is to be shown all

respect & regard (that's vaishnava & vedic culture)... but the disciples

should know where he is situated and not be enamored by the "personality

cult" which has flourished in the past and indeed still florishes in the

minds of many dreamers...

 

Trivikram Maharaj wrote a very, very nice letter a few years ago which he

circulated widely, that, in my view, "hits the nail on the head".

 

That is; "what really is missing is humility." If our gurus acted with the

utmost humility at all times - amanina manadena - then they might even

become "uttama"! This had been lacking in the character of many of those

who suffered falldowns... and God knows who else [guess the finger is

pointing at me too here! ].

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

> >When Satvarupa Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be

> >conducted after his dissapearence Srila Prabhupada responded that I will

> >appoint some of you as "officiating acarayas". Did Prabhupada not know

> >what he was saying? I believe he did want his disciples to be officiating

> >gurus not the full fledged type that are mostly discribed in our

> >literature.

>

>

> The problem I have with this is we have yet to see a precedent for

> officiating gurus in shastra. There are qualifications mentioned for

> gurus, but what about for ritviks? Our interpretation of Srila

> Prabhupada's directives cannot transgress shastra or previous acharyas.

> Srila Prabhupada may clearly understand what he meant, but that does not

> mean we do. The Vedas are vast, as are the commentaries of our previous

> acharyas. So if there really is a precedent, it must exist somewhere.

> Can you show a precedent for ritvik gurus from scripture?

 

What about the concept of a "monitor guru", Srila Prabhupada does mention

that term.

 

> Bottom line: I will NOT accept that Srila Prabhupada is introducing

> something unauthorized by scripture.

 

My bottom line is that a perfect person (A Guru as the sastra generally

discribed him) can not be created by wishful thinking, appointment, or vote,

or any other process, except that he has the actual realization or adhikary

of a fully surrendered soul. Srila Prabhupada made it very clear to us that

this was the defect of the Gaudiya Math, they tried to put forward imperfect

persons as Acaryas.

 

> What is wrong with being servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada? I

> will never consider myself directly the servant of Srila Prabhupada, just

> as much as I would never consider myself to be directly the servant of

> Krishna. That is more in line with Lord Caitanya's philosophy of gopi

> bartuh pada kamalayor dasadasa anudasa.

 

This is wanted, but we have to allow the disciples to become independently

thoughtful. If we oblidge them to think that their guru is a fully

self-realized Guru, who is the perfect and absolute representative of Krsna,

and whose every act and word is perfectly directed by Krsna, we are asking

for trouble.

 

I think that you have to admit that the neglect of this point has fueled the

rebellion of many to be against Iskcon as it is today. No?

 

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

>What about the concept of a "monitor guru", Srila Prabhupada does mention

>that term.

 

here is what SP said in this reference:

 

"13. He must not take on unlimited disciples. This means that a candidate

who has successfully followed the first twelve items can also become a

spiritual master himself, just as a student becomes a monitor in class with

a limited number of disciples." (EJTOP Ch 1)

 

I don't see here anything close to "monitor guru".

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> Also I find the management of RamanaReti compromising with

> their soft, sentimental approach to aparadis,some of this

> ritiks are STILL giving out poison propaganda, and very

> proudly walking with their chest swelling by ego, thinking

> their are wining something with out perceiving the ax is

> coming down, they are in worst Maya that any karmi actually I

> think is better to be a karmi in ignorance that and offender

> to the present gurus sincere devotees trying to serve SRILA

> PRABHUPADAS mission Yours,

> premananda goura

 

Agreed. Right to the point.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

>

>Now... the disciple(s) still have to respect their guru AS IF he were an

>"uttama"! Here's where our Prabhu (mentioned above) and other's just can't

>comprehend (or so it seems). The "less than uttama" guru is to be shown all

>respect & regard (that's vaishnava & vedic culture)... but the disciples

>should know where he is situated and not be enamored by the "personality

>cult" which has flourished in the past and indeed still florishes in the

>minds of many dreamers...

>

 

 

I think its possible some devotee might get confused with the idea that

because there was a culture within ISKCON during Prabhupada's phsysical

presence that might be viewed as a 'personality cult', then that must be

considered the essence of our relationship with him as his disciples and

sincere followers.

 

While that may be present, the essence of the eternal principle of the

guru/disicple relationship goes much deeper than that, in my opinion.

 

ys,

 

Sthita