I had thought about stopping initiations last year.. Indradyumna Swami

[Guruvani]

 

From the ritvik camp we hear the insistence of the reality that since Srila Prabhupada is fully accessable through his instructions. I appreciate this as truth. That said it does raise the question of why anyone needs to approach a self-appointed ritvik priest to be granted a connection to Srila Prabhupada. I believe that connection is established by hearing his instructions which he kindly left with us and following them. It seems safer to me to just ask the Lord in heart to establish a connection for us with His devotee. Surely he will according to our sincerity.

 

the making of vows as a member of ISKCON is a useful process that enforces one's vow in front of all the devotees and provides a support mechanism of being formally initiated into the Vaishnava cult and getting the help of sadhu sanga.

If one can make the grade without any formalities then that is all he needs.

The formalities are part of the ISKCON structure that lends support and peer influence to the new devotee.

In many cases it is useful. Some persons might not need any formalities.

 

The ritvik concept is an institutional device for a large institution.

It's just a formality that is part of the cult's framework.

 

Ritvik diksha is NOT mandatory. Diksha of any kind is still diksha.

Diksha is the initiation into the rules and regs and the making of vows.

Traditionally, a personal guru handled the whole process of initiation.

In ISKCON there are many devotees who are part of the initiation process which is formalized by gurus who are acting on behalf of the society of devotees who ALL HELP in training and grooming new devotees.

 

Initiation in ISKCON is a formal ceremony of bringing in new members.

It's not spiritual initiation per se.

 

Many of us were actually initiated into the maha mantra by some street preacher or temple devotee long before our formal initiation.

[Guruvani]

 

How about this as a solution? Within Iskcon the GBC has full say over initiations as to who is qualified for second intiations as a necessary step before one can serve as a pujari and get out of the personal guru as savior business altogether. That is not their arena of influence and indeed that is the sole responsibility of Krsna as Supersoul.

 

Also if someone accepts one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples as their primary focus as guru then they should establish their own scene independent of Iskcon and GBC control. They can always coordinate preaching efforts but guru must be independent of ecclesiastical influence.

 

The Iskcon body and temples established by Srila Prabhupada should maintain him as the main focus without being designated as ritvik just like before he left the earth planet.

 

I would be interested in your critique.

 

Hare Krsna

 

That would be quite practical, as the GBC had full authority to recommend devotees for initiation long before the term "ritvik" came into common use.

 

In many ways we could say that the GBC actually had more authority than a ritvik priest. The GBC were like empowered agents of Srila Prabhupada who were assigned by him to oversee the training and initiation of new devotees.

 

The ritviks were just the priests that Srila Prabhupada appointed to perform initiation ceremonies and give names for devotees that the GBC had recommended.

 

The guru system of ISKCON orginally robbed the GBC of the actual authority that Srila Prabhupada invested in the GBC.

That was not the actual arrangment of Srila Prabhupada.

 

The ritviks were meant to do the bidding of the GBC, not overpower and dominate the ISKCON authority structure.

 

There is no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever withdrew the power and authority that he had invested in the GBC.

The GBC should always be above the ritviks who were just priests designated to perform initiation ceremonies that were approved by the GBC and temple presidents.

 

This is probably not what you are saying, but this is the way I see it.

[theist]

 

This is probably not what you are saying, but this is the way I see it.

 

Not exactly but we are on the same page. basically I think we are saying the same thing but you have a little more formality in your vision which would most likely be more in tune with Srila Prabhupada's wishes then what I proposed. GBC overseeing ritvik's (generally temple presidents at that time) was clearly wanted by Srila Prabhupada and if continued in that way I can see no harm. As long as the GBC stops thinking they have control over anyone's choice of,or relationship to, their own personal guru. That would be fine as long as everyone understood their system applied to their organization and stopped the fanatical thinking that anyone outside of the Iskcon structure was a pretender or enemy of Srila Prabhupada. And that only those that went through their system could be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Personally I think the best way to proclaim yourself a disciple of anyone is through the fruits of your life as a whole and not just through the mouth and running through the formal process.

 

Anyway I am not interested in participating with Iskcon or the ritviks. Both camps have the nasty habit of bad mouthing other sangas and teachers. A trait I believe to be demonic in nature.

[Guruvani]

 

Anyway I am not interested in participating with Iskcon or the ritviks. Both camps have the nasty habit of bad mouthing other sangas and teachers. A trait I believe to be demonic in nature.

Well, I have seen plenty of bad mouthing from Narayana Maharaja, his followers and the siddha-pranali types as well, so I don't know who you would consider as being free from bad-mouthing?

Bad-mouthing seems to be universal from what I have seen.

:argue::argue:

[Guest guest]

SPL April 11, 1971

"It doesn't matter whether they are initiated or not. We are not after making initiated members...our concern in people understand this philosophy."

 

[What is the philosophy? God is a Person. God is not dead. God has hundreds and millions of Names. Remember God and never forget Him.]

 

 

 

SLP April 12, 1970

"George does not require to become my formal disciple...he has sympathy for my movement and I have all blessings for him...George may continue his meditation by keeping his mind concentrated on a picture and chant HK as long as he likes."

 

[Many others Prabhupada told them no need to become formally intiated also, famous people like Peter Burwash.]

 

 

 

from a My Space website:

"Prabhupada turned, looked me right in the eyes and said, 'Just by reading my books they are initiated." --Vaikunthanatha das

 

 

from Vishoka's website:

"When they read the book and accept it, then they are already initiated."

--AC Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

 

on getting respect from others:

SLP letter April 11, 1970

"You do not allow anyone to touch your feet, this is very good attitude."

 

 

 

So looks to me like no one needs to get initiated. Looks to me like it is optional. Seems to me as it is simply a social convention for those who require such external things, that's all.

 

Or seems that it could be useful if you want to use it as the first hoop to jump through for a future "career" in Devotional Service, such as a guru or a pujari within a certain institution. Not denigrating it necessarily, as some people's life pattern is they prefer to work within "the system" or a system.

 

 

But how can you call initiation "necessary" by even a stretch of the imagination in the parampara of Prabhupada? The predecessor to ACBSP, BSS, initiated himself into sannyasa by standing in front of a picture of a Vaisnava. So where was the piece of paper allowing him to do this? Oopsie daisy.

 

So it just it seems obvious to me that for the general garden variety of devotion there is no necessity to initiate people: either for the people's sake or your own sake, other than as a social convention.

 

"Initiate" means "begin." So Krsna knows when you began. Cuz He arranged it. Not like it's big news to Him or anything. Knows everything: not a blade of grass etc.

 

In some cultures people like an external ceremony, that's all.

[AncientMariner]

but I don't view the ritviks as evil and bound for hell even though I do very much respect both Theist and Kulapavana as being intelligent vaisnavas. I don't comment on Indradyumna as I know nothing about him so I am not going to badmouth him or offer any excessive praise to him although I do wish him the absolute best. I have no war with either camp, wish them both the best and I have seen compelling arguments for both sides using quotes that seem legit so I just don't know what to think one way or another on the whole ritvik vs. traditional gurus debate.

[AncientMariner]

"SPL April 11, 1971

"It doesn't matter whether they are initiated or not. We are not after making initiated members...our concern in people understand this philosophy."

 

[What is the philosophy? God is a Person. God is not dead. God has hundreds and millions of Names. Remember God and never forget Him.]

 

 

 

SLP April 12, 1970

"George does not require to become my formal disciple...he has sympathy for my movement and I have all blessings for him...George may continue his meditation by keeping his mind concentrated on a picture and chant HK as long as he likes."

 

[Many others Prabhupada told them no need to become formally intiated also, famous people like Peter Burwash.]

 

 

 

from a My Space website:

"Prabhupada turned, looked me right in the eyes and said, 'Just by reading my books they are initiated." --Vaikunthanatha das

 

 

from Vishoka's website:

"When they read the book and accept it, then they are already initiated."

--AC Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

 

on getting respect from others:

SLP letter April 11, 1970

"You do not allow anyone to touch your feet, this is very good attitude."

 

 

 

So looks to me like no one needs to get initiated. Looks to me like it is optional. Seems to me as it is simply a social convention for those who require such external things, that's all.

 

Or seems that it could be useful if you want to use it as the first hoop to jump through for a future "career" in Devotional Service, such as a guru or a pujari within a certain institution. Not denigrating it necessarily, as some people's life pattern is they prefer to work within "the system" or a system.

 

 

But how can you call initiation "necessary" by even a stretch of the imagination in the parampara of Prabhupada? The predecessor to ACBSP, BSS, initiated himself into sannyasa by standing in front of a picture of a Vaisnava. So where was the piece of paper allowing him to do this? Oopsie daisy.

 

So it just it seems obvious to me that for the general garden variety of devotion there is no necessity to initiate people: either for the people's sake or your own sake, other than as a social convention.

 

"Initiate" means "begin." So Krsna knows when you began. Cuz He arranged it. Not like it's big news to Him or anything. Knows everything: not a blade of grass etc.

 

In some cultures people like an external ceremony, that's all."

 

 

 

 

Really excellent quotes that help me out personally a lot. Prabhupada is so universally loveable because he even made Krsna consciousness possible for forrest dwelling recluses that have an inherent distrust for human organizations. Any even partially sane man can't help but love Prabhupada!!

[AncientMariner]

"Initiate" means "begin." So Krsna knows when you began. Cuz He arranged it. Not like it's big news to Him or anything. Knows everything: not a blade of grass etc."

 

 

 

Hahaha love your dry sense of humor. Good stuff!

[Guruvani]

 

"Initiate" means "begin."

 

 

But Srila Prabhupada used the term as a synonym for "diksha".

Diksha has a broader meaning than "begin".

 

Diksha is a process by which one is indoctrinated into spiritual knowledge, rules, regs and vows of devotional service.

[AncientMariner]

 

But Srila Prabhupada used the term as a synonym for "diksha".

Diksha has a broader meaning than "begin".

 

Diksha is a process by which one is indoctrinated into spiritual knowledge, rules, regs and vows of devotional service.

 

You are probably right but I thought that part about "Not like its big news to him or anything" was funny. I guess I can just relate to the honored guests sentiments about eccessive ceremony and pomp and circumstance etc. Not saying all ceremony is useless or anything.

[Guest guest]

And even the whole concept of "beginning" as in "initiate" is very funny. Cuz according to Gita the yogi takes up where s/he left off in a previous birth.

 

So they ought to call it the "keep on truckin' " Ceremony. Or the "as I was saying in my last life" Samskara. Or the "You go, jiva-atma!" Homa Yajna.

[Guruvani]

 

The connection with the spiritual master is called initiation. From the date of initiation by the spiritual master, the connection between Krsna and a person cultivating Krsna consciousness is established. Without initiation by a bona fide spiritual master, the actual connection with Krsna consciousness is never performed.

NOD introduction

 

So, either a lot of new bhaktas are already initiated or they HAVE no connection at all with Krishna consciousness.

Which one is it?

[AncientMariner]

 

NOD introduction

 

So, either a lot of new bhaktas are already initiated or they HAVE no connection at all with Krishna consciousness.

Which one is it?

 

 

I am guessing it is another one of those transcendental contradictions that can only be understood by the grace of Krishna?

[Guruvani]

 

I am guessing it is another one of those transcendental contradictions that can only be understood by the grace of Krishna?

My guess is that initiation takes place before the formal ceremony.

Srila Prabhupada ordered all his followers to go out and distribute the Maha Mantra. As they did this they were initiating many people into the Maha Mantra with sanction and authority.

Uninitiated devotees following the regs, chanting 16 rounds and worshiping the Lord are already initiated, just not formally.

 

I don't believe in all these rituals and formalities and they are actually a source of great perplexity to me for a spirituality that is supposed to be about substance over form.

[Guruvani]

I was actually initiated into the Maha Mantra by a tape of Srila Prabhupada that I bought at a record shop in Indianapolis near Butler University.

that was the first time I ever heard the mantra other than reading it in his books.

so, I consider that I was originally initiated into the Maha Mantra by Srila Prabhupada directly.

 

Because I see formal initiation as a ritual formality in ISKCON, I am partial to the ritvik system.

The GCB guru system of initiation is just a formal ritual as well.

Because I see initiation as a mere formality, I prefer the ritvik formality as it is less harmful than the falling down of gurus in ISKCON.

Many devotees are initiated by the books of Srila Prabhupada, so the facade of accepting some ISKCON guru seems to me to be a social function, not spiritual initiation proper.

[Guest guest]

Well, you are in a tradition where Gaudiyas believe that God came and then to convert people He decided to take up the Mayavadi vesha, to make it seem "more respectable" and to "reach more people."

 

 

 

So inherently built into the Gaudiya religion is a value system where it is deemed good to impress others with external acts and external trappings.

 

Back in LC's day, there were stylistic conventions already in place in that society, like if you dress in coral/ saffron/ peach then people associated those colors with bhiksus, homeless mendicants. Alot of attention was paid to previously estrablished cultural conventions "for preaching purposes".

 

Versus if you dress in peach/ coral/ saffron in Western Culture, it just means that is what the designers decided would be the new colors this season at the Paris Couture collections.

 

 

 

 

So it seems that some of these things like wearing external vesha, and external diksa, and external initiations are coming out of a need for some people's minds to abide by previously established social conventions.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand: speaking of external forms, cultural norms, and social traditions: in western society there were two main branches of religious traditions in place in 1965 when Prabhupada came to US:

 

Catholicism in which you have ecclestistical authority figures, a church, and a centralized bureaucracy with ecclesiastical intermediaries that administer the sacraments like Baptism and First Holy Communion. They could also excommunicate you. That was one stylistic convention already in place.

 

The second stylistic convention already in place in the US was Protestantism in which you do not need an intermediary between you and God. Therefore bypassing the priestly hierarchy, which had a previously established track record of ecclesiastical corruption.

 

 

 

So for many people initially raised as Protestants, it is quite difficult to justify buying into a belief system where an external institution and external priests have the right to legislate and legitimatize one's internal relationship with God.

 

The idea of these "initiations" by various and sundry external agents that really you don't know from Adam (or Brahma as the case may be) as being so important and necessary is a very hard sell if you come from a long lineage of ancestors where people died for this freedom to be free from ecclesiastical tyranny.

 

 

 

 

Versus if you were raised as a Catholic and to believe in the Pope, then culturally maybe it is easier for you to buy into it. I remember one sociological analysis of KC in which most of the KC converts were upper middle class ex Catholics and Jews. Not too many ex-Protestant devotees in KC.

 

So perhaps if the idea of an intermediary was an intrinsic part of your world view growing up, and/or part of the dominant culture where you live [Catholic countries] then maybe it was an easier sell, a type of spiritual "comfort food".

 

 

 

 

However for someone raised as a Protestant, and they were comfortable with most of the tenets of Protestantism, then the idea that an intermediary is necessary is an idea to them is a much harder sell. Because they were raised to understand, even from earliest Sunday School days, that one's relationship with God is private thing between you and your Maker.

 

And as they get older, Protestants are raised to very plainly see that ideas such as "there is a special holy sanctified celibate priestly class" is wrong. They are raised to see the myriad and sundry ways that this can quite easily turn into a farce. Because their ancestors died trying to have freedom from religious despots and tyrants.

 

 

 

For Protestants, just by studying western history, you can clearly see how having a theoretically pure and immaculate priestly class leads to two thousand years of corruption extant in the Catholic Church: from the practice of selling indulgences to build churches, to the Childrens' Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Popes eating off of golden plates, to at least one of the Popes having mistresses and children, and allegations of at least one Pope gave money to Hitler (written by that Pope's female assistant/ housekeeper).

 

 

 

So perhaps the idea as to whether or not it is externally necessary to join the external roster of a group and be externally initiated, and to externally accept a Guru in an external ceremony in front of others, is just a matter of individual taste cultivated early in life by cultural conditioning to some degree.

[AncientMariner]

 

Well, you are in a tradition where Gaudiyas believe that God came and then to convert people He decided to take up the Mayavadi vesha, to make it seem "more respectable" and to "reach more people."

 

 

 

So inherently built into the Gaudiya religion is a value system where it is deemed good to impress others with external acts and external trappings.

 

Back in LC's day, there were stylistic conventions already in place in that society, like if you dress in coral/ saffron/ peach then people associated those colors with bhiksus, homeless mendicants. Alot of attention was paid to previously estrablished cultural conventions "for preaching purposes".

 

Versus if you dress in peach/ coral/ saffron in Western Culture, it just means that is what the designers decided would be the new colors this season at the Paris Couture collections.

 

 

 

 

So it seems that some of these things like wearing external vesha, and external diksa, and external initiations are coming out of a need for some people's minds to abide by previously established social conventions.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand: speaking of external forms, cultural norms, and social traditions: in western society there were two main branches of religious traditions in place in 1965 when Prabhupada came to US:

 

Catholicism in which you have ecclestistical authority figures, a church, and a centralized bureaucracy with ecclesiastical intermediaries that administer the sacraments like Baptism and First Holy Communion. They could also excommunicate you. That was one stylistic convention already in place.

 

The second stylistic convention already in place in the US was Protestantism in which you do not need an intermediary between you and God. Therefore bypassing the priestly hierarchy, which had a previously established track record of ecclesiastical corruption.

 

 

 

So for many people initially raised as Protestants, it is quite difficult to justify buying into a belief system where an external institution and external priests have the right to legislate and legitimatize one's internal relationship with God.

 

The idea of these "initiations" by various and sundry external agents that really you don't know from Adam (or Brahma as the case may be) as being so important and necessary is a very hard sell if you come from a long lineage of ancestors where people died for this freedom to be free from ecclesiastical tyranny.

 

 

 

 

Versus if you were raised as a Catholic and to believe in the Pope, then culturally maybe it is easier for you to buy into it. I remember one sociological analysis of KC in which most of the KC converts were upper middle class ex Catholics and Jews. Not too many ex-Protestant devotees in KC.

 

So perhaps if the idea of an intermediary was an intrinsic part of your world view growing up, and/or part of the dominant culture where you live [Catholic countries] then maybe it was an easier sell, a type of spiritual "comfort food".

 

 

 

 

However for someone raised as a Protestant, and they were comfortable with most of the tenets of Protestantism, then the idea that an intermediary is necessary is an idea to them is a much harder sell. Because they were raised to understand, even from earliest Sunday School days, that one's relationship with God is private thing between you and your Maker.

 

And as they get older, Protestants are raised to very plainly see that ideas such as "there is a special holy sanctified celibate priestly class" is wrong. They are raised to see the myriad and sundry ways that this can quite easily turn into a farce. Because their ancestors died trying to have freedom from religious despots and tyrants.

 

 

 

For Protestants, just by studying western history, you can clearly see how having a theoretically pure and immaculate priestly class leads to two thousand years of corruption extant in the Catholic Church: from the practice of selling indulgences to build churches, to the Childrens' Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Popes eating off of golden plates, to at least one of the Popes having mistresses and children, and allegations of at least one Pope gave money to Hitler (written by that Pope's female assistant/ housekeeper).

 

 

 

So perhaps the idea as to whether or not it is externally necessary to join the external roster of a group and be externally initiated, and to externally accept a Guru in an external ceremony in front of others, is just a matter of individual taste cultivated early in life by cultural conditioning to some degree.

 

 

 

I think that sums it all up exactly.

[Bhakta Harry]

 

Bhakta Harry,

 

How many times does something have to be repeated to you before you 'attempt' to understand?

 

Anyways, let me try one more time that others have already tried ... where is the proof that Srila BhaktiSidhanta authorized Srila Prabhupada to be initiating Guru?

 

Srila Prabhupada's word is the proof. Do you have a problem with that?

[Bhakta Harry]

 

I don't read posts from bhakta harry. he is set on his opinion and doesnot even care to listen to others. Plus he spits venom on a regular basis, which makes interacting with him worse then speaking to a dead stone. A dead stone at least doesn't spit poison.

 

Hell, babe, you seem to me, to be very good at doing the very thing you accuse others of doing.

[Bhakta Harry]

 

From the ritvik camp we hear the insistence of the reality that since Srila Prabhupada is fully accessable through his instructions. I appreciate this as truth. That said it does raise the question of why anyone needs to approach a self-appointed ritvik priest to be granted a connection to Srila Prabhupada. I believe that connection is established by hearing his instructions which he kindly left with us and following them. It seems safer to me to just ask the Lord in heart to establish a connection for us with His devotee. Surely he will according to our sincerity.

 

I agree with some of your points. The 'authorized' ritvik is a priest who performs the ceremony on behalf of the initiator.

Srila Prabhupada left us specific instructions to continue with this system. May I remind you that ISKCON was founded to implement Srila Prabhupada's instructions, not what you think or believe. In other words unless you can substanciate what you think or believe with quotes from Srila Prabhupada. Then I'm sorry to say that these beliefs & thoughts of yours have little relevance to the discussion.

[Guest guest]

 

I agree with some of your points. The 'authorized' ritvik is a priest who performs the ceremony on behalf of the initiator.

Srila Prabhupada left us specific instructions to continue with this system. May I remind you that ISKCON was founded to implement Srila Prabhupada's instructions, not what you think or believe. In other words unless you can substanciate what you think or believe with quotes from Srila Prabhupada. Then I'm sorry to say that these beliefs & thoughts of yours have little relevance to the discussion.

 

Prabhupada's "specific instruction" was a list of 11 ritvik priests. He left no similarly specific instruction as to whether (or if so, how) additional ritviks could be appointed. He clearly wrote that if you wanted ritvik initiation, you had to approach the person nearest you on the list of 11 ritviks.

 

At present, I don't think Bhagavan, Bhavananda, Harikesa, Ramesvara or Satsvarupa are giving any kinds of initiations. Hridayananda and Jayapataka will give you initiation, but if you dare call it a ritvik initiation they will blast you, so if you approach them you'll have to lie about your true intentions. Kirtanananda I don't know about.

 

So you pretty much have no choice but to approach Hansaduta for your ritvik initiation, if you are serious about following Prabhupada's clear order. But after Hansadutta dies, it will require just as much mental speculation to justifiy an ongoing ritvik system as has been required to justify the present GBC guru system.

 

Of course, just as the ritviks say it's OK to approach Prabhupada for initiation even though he is dead, maybe they will say it's OK to approach Hansadutta for ritvik initiation even though he is dead. For that matter, since Prabhupada authorized Jayatirtha and Tamala Krishna to act as ritviks, why can't a priest today perform a ritvik initiation on the authority of Jayatirtha in the name of Prabhupada? To say Prabhupada's authorization of Jayatirtha ended at Jayatirtha's death would be to admit that other elements of the ritvik philosophy are inconsistent and must fall.

[Guruvani]

One thing to remember is that the "ritvik appointments" were not really "appointments", as Srila Prabhupada referred to them as "recommendations".

He said he would recommend some disciiples to act as officiating acharyas or ritviks.

He did say at one point that the GBC could extend that list later as they needed to.

In the original ritvik recommendation tape Tamal asked if Brahmananda could be a ritvik and Srila Prabhupada said no, but that if he rectified his falldown (of eating meat in Africa) that the GBC could add him later.

It is there on the tape of the actual appointments.

That tape is almost uncirculated, but it does exist.

I heard that tape back in 1982.

Dhira Krishna Swami had a friend at the archives who smuggled him out a copy, even though Tamal gave strict orders that the tape should not be distributed.

The July 9th appointments were actually recorded on tape, not just on the documemt.

On that occasion Srila Prabhupada did say that the GBC could extend the ritvik list in the future.

NOD Introduction:

 

The author of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, very humbly submits that he is just trying to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world, although he humbly thinks himself unfit for this work. That should be the attitude of all preachers of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, following in the footsteps of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. We should never think of ourselves as great preachers, but should always consider that we are simply instrumental to the previous ācāryas, and simply by following in their footsteps we may be able to do something for the benefit of suffering humanity.

 

So, the concept of ritvik being an instrument of Srila Prabhupada is quite in line with the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami.

The idea of being "guru" seems to step a little beyond the concept of being an "instrument" of the previous acharya.

The ritvik system is based upon this idea of Srila Rupa Goswami that he is simply an instrument of his spiritual master and not actually the spiritual master himself.

[Guruvani]

 

Prabhupada's "specific instruction" was a list of 11 ritvik priests. He left no similarly specific instruction as to whether (or if so, how) additional ritviks could be appointed.

That is not correct.

On the appointment tape Srila Prabhupada did mention that the GBC could extend the list in the future as they needed to.

It is well known fact to anybody that was around ISKCON back during that time.

It is on the tape also.

Have you heard the ritvik appointment tape?

Apparently not.

 

The fact that Srila Prabhupada said the GBC could extend the list in the future shows clearly that he expected the ritvik system to continue on in ISKCON even after he was gone.

[theist]

 

Well, I have seen plenty of bad mouthing from Narayana Maharaja, his followers and the siddha-pranali types as well, so I don't know who you would consider as being free from bad-mouthing?

Bad-mouthing seems to be universal from what I have seen.

:argue::argue:

 

That may be true. But let us avoid bad mouthing Narayana Maharaja and his disciples and students. Rare is the soul that is completely freed from the propemsity to critcize others. And it is from such a person that we should hear krsna-katha and not the camps that congregate around him for whatever reason. Too often these camps are formed of personality cult members who enjoy ralying around their own special flag. I avoid camps.

 

I would have found it most fitting to associate with Prabhupada's disciples that only chanted, played Prabhupada lecture tapes and specifically kept pRabhupada in the forefront. But because those that claim to do this (ritviks) have become addicted to criticizing others, even vehemonently, I am prevented for seeking shelter at their assemblies.

 

Good association is best. But no association is better than bad association.

[AncientMariner]

My problem is even if both the traditionalists and the ritviks or either one of them is bonafide I would still have a natural inclination to avoid both groups just because I am spiritually lazy and to be honest on a Sunday afternoon I would much rather kick back in a reclinable chair and watch the NFL rather than go out into the world and try to convince everyone that life is suffering and the only way out is to call on the name of God. On balance however I do feel sympathetic to the Krishna Conscious Movement and anyone with any sort of common sense can recognize the great accomplishments of Prabhupada.