The Rtvik Conception of Guru Parampara

[suchandra]

Somehow it looks like their is some misunderstanding that devotees who go on to consider Srila Prabhupada as their spiritual master are according Tripurari Swami deviating from Prabhupada's teachings. Although it is fact that Prabhupada clearly stated that he doesnt die, some people consider him as dead and gone.

 

 

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">The Rtvik Conception of Guru Parampara </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"></TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%" colSpan=2>Written by Swami B.V. Tripurari

http://www.vina.cc/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top colSpan=2>Wednesday, 11 April 2007 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>

Q. You wrote in Sanga (Faith in Sri Guru) that candidates who had been approved by Srila Prabhupada's rtvik representatives when he was physically present were Srila Prabhupada's disciples, even if initiation rites were performed after his departure. All considered it appears to me that Srila Prabhupada evolved an entirely new system for initiation, one that did not require his physical presence. Therefore why would his position as initiating guru end at his physical departure? Doesn't your statement coupled with the report that Srila Prabhupada said that rtviks could be replaced suggest that he was speaking of a long-term initiation system, one personally designed by him to initiate disciples into his Iskcon organization after his physical departure?

 

 

A. Srila Prabhupada did not evolve or create an entirely new system of initiation. He simply adjusted some of the details of Gaudiya Vaisnava initiation in consideration of unprecedented circumstances--those of worldwide preaching. The essential commitment of surrender to Sri Guru, and the central elements of initiation (vows, mantras, names) remained the same throughout his preaching years. Neither did he intend to personally initiate new devotees via delegated representatives (rtviks) after his physical departure and onward into perpetuity. This strange notion would set Srila Prabhupada and his institution apart from every other authorized Vaisnava devotional lineage, which is something that he would never do. In a conversation that took place on May 28, 1977, Srila Prabhupada did say that after his departure his governing commissioners could be replaced. Indeed, in that conversation he said that anyone who is deviating should be replaced. If he said the same regarding his rtvik representatives, it would still have nothing to do with continuing his line of disciplic succession (parampara). Why? Because rtviks are not themselves gurus even in the presence of the guru they represent, and after the guru departs the rtviks service of officiating on his behalf--rather than being enhanced--is terminated. Overall, the words of the guru must be understood in light of the scriptural conclusions (siddhanta) he or she represents. If our guru appears to say something that is a departure from authorized Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta, we must look beneath the surface for his actual intention, one that will be in concert with siddhanta. Bhagavad-gita says, evam parampara praptam. Parampara means one guru after another, thus scripture tells us that there must be another guru after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. If at that time none of his disciples are qualified to serve as gurus, then new devotees must look elsewhere for guidance and initiation. When such devotees find a qualified guru, they have in effect found Srila Prabhupada's line in a dynamic sense.

Krsna says in Srimad-Bhagavatam, acarya mam vijaniyat: "One should know the acarya as my very self." This means that ultimately Krsna is the guru. He is the spiritual potency in all gurus and when one guru departs, Krsna empowers another to do the work of delivering the fallen souls. This is the standard, scripturally correct understanding of how guru-parampara functions. Srila Prabhupada emphasized that his credibility rested in the fact that he did not concoct anything new but rather that he strictly followed our guru-parampara. The concocted rtvik idea of parampara has no precedent whatsoever in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is simply the result of gurus after Srila Prabhupada misbehaving, mixed with misplaced emotion. No other Gaudiya Vaisnava mission is troubled by this deviant notion, only Iskcon.

 

The concocted rtvik idea of parampara has no precedent whatsoever in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is simply the result of gurus after Srila Prabhupada misbehaving, mixed with misplaced emotion. No other Gaudiya Vaisnava mission is troubled by this deviant notion, only Iskcon.

 

 

Q. In 1976 I met Srila Prabhupada and surrendered my life and soul to him, knowing in my heart that he was (and is) my eternal guru. His inspiration enabled me to regularly chant, follow the principles of Krsna consciousness, and work hard for the next ten years as an Iskcon devotee. I was not able to take formal initiation from him before he passed away but rather was initiated by an Iskcon zonal guru whom I didn't even choose. My initiating guru later fell down from Krsna consciousness altogether. Discouraged by the political atmosphere, I left Iskcon feeling that I had been cheated. Now when I visit Iskcon, if I express my feelings that Srila Prabhupada is my eternal guru I am treated like an outcast and told to get a new guru. At this point I am bewildered over this whole issue, have put aside regular chanting, and am ready to just give up. Will you give me some guidance?

A. The leaders of Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon have done a great disservice to him by promoting numerous unqualified gurus over the last thirty years. They have also vilified a number of qualified gurus, who while having an influence on Iskcon are not members. In doing so they have allowed institutional sentiment to overshadow siddhanta, and this in turn has opened the door for the newly concocted rtvik conception of guru-parampara. Although Iskcon officially opposes this conception, it is Iskcon guru misbehavior that spawned it and apasiddhanta on both sides that keeps it alive. You are one of the many casualties of this quagmire.

It is interesting to note that your particular circumstance requires careful consideration, consideration in which, arguably, sentiment may be given more weight than law. Yet according to you, Iskcon has only coldly cited the law. Seeing and serving one's guru, his entering one's heart, and then suddenly departing before granting one diksa--in my opinion this constitutes special circumstances. Add to this the abuse that you allege followed on the part of Srila Prabhupada's so-called representatives and the case becomes even more extraordinary. Knowing only what you have told me and based upon my own experience of similar circumstances that others were placed in, I would simply encourage you to continue your practice with your focus on Srila Prabhupada even though he did not initiate you. Indeed, there is no harm for you to think of yourself as Srila Prabhupada's disciple and much good could come from that.

However, I would add one important caveat to that. My advice is that you should be open to finding a highly qualified siksa guru to help you in your practice--one in whom you have natural affection and faith. The help of a siksa guru is highly recommended in scripture, and I know that after Srila Prabhupada's departure I was benefited immensely by the siksa and kindness of Pujyapada B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami. By your candor regarding the state of your practice, you have underscored my point. It is spiritual practice that is all-important--discipline combined with the grace of Sri Guru makes one a disciple.

[Further information on this subject can be found in the following Sanga: Sri Guru and His Grace]

<!--JOM COMMENT START--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="71%"></TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" align=right width="29%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Guest guest]

The ritviks have a huge misconception that the guru parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. That is the problem.

 

 

Somehow it looks like their is some misunderstanding that devotees who go on to consider Srila Prabhupada as their spiritual master are according Tripurari Swami deviating from Prabhupada's teachings. Although it is fact that Prabhupada clearly stated that he doesnt die, some people consider him as dead and gone.

 

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">The Rtvik Conception of Guru Parampara </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"></TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%" colSpan=2>Written by Swami B.V. Tripurari

[=com_content&task=view&id=146

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top colSpan=2>Wednesday, 11 April 2007 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>

Q. You wrote in Sanga that candidates who had been approved by Srila Prabhupada's rtvik representatives when he was physically present were Srila Prabhupada's disciples, even if initiation rites were performed after his departure. All considered it appears to me that Srila Prabhupada evolved an entirely new system for initiation, one that did not require his physical presence. Therefore why would his position as initiating guru end at his physical departure? Doesn't your statement coupled with the report that Srila Prabhupada said that rtviks could be replaced suggest that he was speaking of a long-term initiation system, one personally designed by him to initiate disciples into his Iskcon organization after his physical departure?

A. Srila Prabhupada did not evolve or create an entirely new system of initiation. He simply adjusted some of the details of Gaudiya Vaisnava initiation in consideration of unprecedented circumstances--those of worldwide preaching. The essential commitment of surrender to Sri Guru, and the central elements of initiation (vows, mantras, names) remained the same throughout his preaching years. Neither did he intend to personally initiate new devotees via delegated representatives (rtviks) after his physical departure and onward into perpetuity. This strange notion would set Srila Prabhupada and his institution apart from every other authorized Vaisnava devotional lineage, which is something that he would never do. In a conversation that took place on May 28, 1977, Srila Prabhupada did say that after his departure his governing commissioners could be replaced. Indeed, in that conversation he said that anyone who is deviating should be replaced. If he said the same regarding his rtvik representatives, it would still have nothing to do with continuing his line of disciplic succession (parampara). Why? Because rtviks are not themselves gurus even in the presence of the guru they represent, and after the guru departs the rtviks service of officiating on his behalf--rather than being enhanced--is terminated. Overall, the words of the guru must be understood in light of the scriptural conclusions (siddhanta) he or she represents. If our guru appears to say something that is a departure from authorized Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta, we must look beneath the surface for his actual intention, one that will be in concert with siddhanta. Bhagavad-gita says, evam parampara praptam. Parampara means one guru after another, thus scripture tells us that there must be another guru after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. If at that time none of his disciples are qualified to serve as gurus, then new devotees must look elsewhere for guidance and initiation. When such devotees find a qualified guru, they have in effect found Srila Prabhupada's line in a dynamic sense.

Krsna says in Srimad-Bhagavatam, acarya mam vijaniyat: "One should know the acarya as my very self." This means that ultimately Krsna is the guru. He is the spiritual potency in all gurus and when one guru departs, Krsna empowers another to do the work of delivering the fallen souls. This is the standard, scripturally correct understanding of how guru-parampara functions. Srila Prabhupada emphasized that his credibility rested in the fact that he did not concoct anything new but rather that he strictly followed our guru-parampara. The concocted rtvik idea of parampara has no precedent whatsoever in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is simply the result of gurus after Srila Prabhupada misbehaving, mixed with misplaced emotion. No other Gaudiya Vaisnava mission is troubled by this deviant notion, only Iskcon.

Q. In 1976 I met Srila Prabhupada and surrendered my life and soul to him, knowing in my heart that he was (and is) my eternal guru. His inspiration enabled me to regularly chant, follow the principles of Krsna consciousness, and work hard for the next ten years as an Iskcon devotee. I was not able to take formal initiation from him before he passed away but rather was initiated by an Iskcon zonal guru whom I didn't even choose. My initiating guru later fell down from Krsna consciousness altogether. Discouraged by the political atmosphere, I left Iskcon feeling that I had been cheated. Now when I visit Iskcon, if I express my feelings that Srila Prabhupada is my eternal guru I am treated like an outcast and told to get a new guru. At this point I am bewildered over this whole issue, have put aside regular chanting, and am ready to just give up. Will you give me some guidance?

A. The leaders of Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon have done a great disservice to him by promoting numerous unqualified gurus over the last thirty years. They have also vilified a number of qualified gurus, who while having an influence on Iskcon are not members. In doing so they have allowed institutional sentiment to overshadow siddhanta, and this in turn has opened the door for the newly concocted rtvik conception of guru-parampara. Although Iskcon officially opposes this conception, it is Iskcon guru misbehavior that spawned it and apasiddhanta on both sides that keeps it alive. You are one of the many casualties of this quagmire.

It is interesting to note that your particular circumstance requires careful consideration, consideration in which, arguably, sentiment may be given more weight than law. Yet according to you, Iskcon has only coldly cited the law. Seeing and serving one's guru, his entering one's heart, and then suddenly departing before granting one diksa--in my opinion this constitutes special circumstances. Add to this the abuse that you allege followed on the part of Srila Prabhupada's so-called representatives and the case becomes even more extraordinary. Knowing only what you have told me and based upon my own experience of similar circumstances that others were placed in, I would simply encourage you to continue your practice with your focus on Srila Prabhupada even though he did not initiate you. Indeed, there is no harm for you to think of yourself as Srila Prabhupada's disciple and much good could come from that.

However, I would add one important caveat to that. My advice is that you should be open to finding a highly qualified siksa guru to help you in your practice--one in whom you have natural affection and faith. The help of a siksa guru is highly recommended in scripture, and I know that after Srila Prabhupada's departure I was benefited immensely by the siksa and kindness of Pujyapada B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami. By your candor regarding the state of your practice, you have underscored my point. It is spiritual practice that is all-important--discipline combined with the grace of Sri Guru makes one a disciple.

[Further information on this subject can be found in the following Sanga: <!--JOM COMMENT START--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="71%"></TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" align=right width="29%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[suchandra]

 

The ritviks have a huge misconception that the guru parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. That is the problem.

Thanks for presenting your personal thoughts. Since you clearly base your seemingly doubtless conviction on what are the unglamorous accomplishments concerning guru-tattva of present ISKCON, Western Vaishnavas, you surely fully agree that it is clear that there wont be many who are taken in by such vanity.

[Guest guest]

I see that the moderators deleted the article that you posted and which caused me to leave this thread. Now that the article is deleted, I feel comfortable entering this thread again. Before I proceed, I'd just like to say that was a good move by the moderators.

 

Please note that I did not say anthing about the relative position of the ritviks or their opponents. All I did was state my belief that the parampara does not end with any one person. It is eternal and just as it has been going on for millions of years, will continue for the rest of time (as long as there is a material world, which seems like there will be ). Institutions may have their own problems which means that we must make adjustments to the way they are run. We cannot however change the principle itself.

 

 

Thanks for presenting your personal thoughts. Since you clearly base your seemingly doubtless conviction on what are the unglamorous accomplishments concerning guru-tattva of present ISKCON, Western Vaishnavas, you surely fully agree that it is clear that there wont be many who are taken in by such vanity.

[Bhakta Omer]

 

 

There is one thing about the ritvic theory I don't understand:

 

 

If we can be initiated by a non-physically present guru, then why Srila Prabhupada? Why not Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati or Rupa Goswami or even Lord Chaitanya himself? Why does the guru-parampara stops at Prabhupada after all these years?

 

 

[Guest guest]

LOL Bhakta Omer! This is exactly why I don't give much credibility, if at all, to the ritvik theory. The fact is one cannot simply consider himself the disciple of any Acarya that has moved on from this realm. One must approach a bonafide spiritul master and inquire from him.

 

 

 

There is one thing about the ritvic theory I don't understand:

 

 

If we can be initiated by a non-physically present guru, then why Srila Prabhupada? Why not Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati or Rupa Goswami or even Lord Chaitanya himself? Why does the guru-parampara stops at Prabhupada after all these years?

 

 

[suchandra]

 

I see that the moderators deleted the article that you posted and which caused me to leave this thread. Now that the article is deleted, I feel comfortable entering this thread again. Before I proceed, I'd just like to say that was a good move by the moderators.

 

Please note that I did not say anthing about the relative position of the ritviks or their opponents. All I did was state my belief that the parampara does not end with any one person. It is eternal and just as it has been going on for millions of years, will continue for the rest of time (as long as there is a material world, which seems like there will be ). Institutions may have their own problems which means that we must make adjustments to the way they are run. We cannot however change the principle itself.

Sorry for my shooting forward but usually debates between the living guru proponents and those who say that Prabhupada is the current link of the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya and that Prabhupada didnt order his disciples to sit as full fledged diksa-gurus on the sampradaya's vyasasana, proceed in the same fashion of endless back and forth. Since I studied the "Final Order" of Krishnakant which provides the basic teachings what all "Ritviks" consider as the truth about what actually was spoken in the last days of Srila Prabhupada when instructing his senior disciples I must say that all those many about 5000 cheated ex-disciples in European countries dont accept it the slightest, are so traumatized that they lost faith in KC as institution altogether. Prabhupada said that Vaishnavas will be on this planet for the next 10,000 years only and after that it will be impossible to practice KC on earth. So there's no what you say, "for millions of years". Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja ordered, that this disciple who successfully would preach and become an outstanding Vaishnava should be the next acarya but he didnt appoint anyone. Rupa Goswami and Lord Caitanya are not the current link, and when we consider that Srila Prabhupada is the current link then one has to consider what he exactly instructed.

Because I watched already too many so called "ritvik debates" especially Yaduraja das vs Ramakant at the deleted IRM forum I must say it is clearly the point where two disunited followers of the same religion should disassociate from each other for ever. ISKCON should go on telling new devotees: "A bonafide guru is one who doesnt fall down and if your chosen one doesnt fall down you have to find out in due course of time but meanwhile you should consider your guru as good as God and surrender your whole live".

And the ritviks should simply become expert preachers, perfect siksa-gurus and tell new devotees that their diksa-guru is Srila Prabhupada. However, since the majority of ritviks believe that present ISKCON is using Prabhupada's name to attract innocent people and at the same time Prabhupada's books say in every chapter that ISKCON is a purely transcendental movement without neophyte so called "gurus" who can fall down like in series, they dont start their own movement. But rather persist in the viewpoint of gaining back Prabhupada's movement with him in the center and that they now have to live like being forced into exile. Just like the Dalai Lama lives in exile since 45 years and for him there is no way to accept what happened in Tibet.

Martin Luther the same, he actually didnt want to start a new church, he wanted to correct the Catholic church and only some impatient followers started the Protestant church and they became entangled with too many managerial activities of their own mission without reforming the Catholics. But the two camps of ritviks and ISKCON are different since there're Prabhupada's books and in every chapter he writes about his ISKCON being a purely transcendental movement. Therefore the ritviks come to the conclusion that ISKCON cannot be left to those who even have written in their law-book as resolution: "[Action Order] RESOLVED, WHEREAS diksa-gurus within ISKCON dont require any specific spiritual qualification and the Prabhupadanugas/ritviks are banned together with their families from all ISKCON temples forever." Prabhupadanugas kicked out of Prabhupada's movement so to speak.

[Bhakta Omer]

 

Rupa Goswami and Lord Caitanya are not the current link, and when we consider that Srila Prabhupada is the current link then one has to consider what he exactly instructed.

 

 

 

I still don't really understand why Prabhubada is my link and not Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya. Prabhupada passed away before I was born. I can't see how he is more currant for me then Rupa Goswami. Why can't Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya, or any other acharya in our line, be my non physically present diksa guru?

 

[Guest guest]

Suchandra prabhu ... well written post and I agree with many of your points.

 

Bhakta Omer asks a good question in post number 8. I'd be interested to see your answer, if not for anything else but to see what the postition is of a neutral person, which you seem to be.

 

 

Sorry for my shooting forward but usually debates between the living guru proponents and those who say that Prabhupada is the current link of the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya and that Prabhupada didnt order his disciples to sit as full fledged diksa-gurus on the sampradaya's vyasasana, proceed in the same fashion of endless back and forth. Since I studied the "Final Order" of Krishnakant which provides the basic teachings what all "Ritviks" consider as the truth about what actually was spoken in the last days of Srila Prabhupada when instructing his senior disciples I must say that all those many about 5000 cheated ex-disciples in European countries dont accept it the slightest, are so traumatized that they lost faith in KC as institution altogether. Prabhupada said that Vaishnavas will be on this planet for the next 10,000 years only and after that it will be impossible to practice KC on earth. So there's no what you say, "for millions of years". Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja ordered, that this disciple who successfully would preach and become an outstanding Vaishnava should be the next acarya but he didnt appoint anyone. Rupa Goswami and Lord Caitanya are not the current link, and when we consider that Srila Prabhupada is the current link then one has to consider what he exactly instructed.

Because I watched already too many so called "ritvik debates" especially Yaduraja das vs Ramakant at the deleted IRM forum I must say it is clearly the point where two disunited followers of the same religion should disassociate from each other for ever. ISKCON should go on telling new devotees: "A bonafide guru is one who doesnt fall down and if your chosen one doesnt fall down you have to find out in due course of time but meanwhile you should consider your guru as good as God and surrender your whole live".

And the ritviks should simply become expert preachers, perfect siksa-gurus and tell new devotees that their diksa-guru is Srila Prabhupada. However, since the majority of ritviks believe that present ISKCON is using Prabhupada's name to attract innocent people and at the same time Prabhupada's books say in every chapter that ISKCON is a purely transcendental movement without neophyte so called "gurus" who can fall down like in series, they dont start their own movement. But rather persist in the viewpoint of gaining back Prabhupada's movement with him in the center and that they now have to live like being forced into exile. Just like the Dalai Lama lives in exile since 45 years and for him there is no way to accept what happened in Tibet.

Martin Luther the same, he actually didnt want to start a new church, he wanted to correct the Catholic church and only some impatient followers started the Protestant church and they became entangled with too many managerial activities of their own mission without reforming the Catholics. But the two camps of ritviks and ISKCON are different since there're Prabhupada's books and in every chapter he writes about his ISKCON being a purely transcendental movement. Therefore the ritviks come to the conclusion that ISKCON cannot be left to those who even have written in their law-book as resolution: "[Action Order] RESOLVED, WHEREAS diksa-gurus within ISKCON dont require any specific spiritual qualification and the Prabhupadanugas/ritviks are banned together with their families from all ISKCON temples forever." Prabhupadanugas kicked out of Prabhupada's movement so to speak.

[suchandra]

 

 

 

Bhakta Omer: I still don't really understand why Prabhupada is my link and not Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya. Prabhupada passed away before I was born. I can't see how he is more currant for me then Rupa Goswami. Why can't Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya, or any other acharya in our line, be my non physically present diksa guru?

 

 

 

Haribol Bhakta Omer and Deborah Pitts, thanks for taking time to post here.

I would like to answer this if you dont mind first with a counterquestion: Lets say you become a disciple of someone who says that he's a Vaishnava diksa-guru and you go through all the required steps of becoming qualified for initiation. You live as a brahmacari in his temple and surrender everything what you have. You give up all your previous material relationships and soley work for the pleasure of your guru whom you consider of being a bonafide pure representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

Then one day you come back from harinama to your guru's ashram and find the message that your guru has left with all the money, has encumbered the temple building with a high mortgage, took that money also and has left a written message: "sorry, but I'm a cheater, I cheated you all those years, now I cant go on with this charade anymore and want to openly enjoy life with my girlfriend who happens to be my disciple since 2 years, please dont try to find out where we are!"

Lets say you would have been a disciple since 7 years and all your previous material relationships are cut off. How exactly would you comment this behaviour of your guru? What would you do?

[Guest guest]

 

Lets say you become a disciple of someone who says that he's a Vaishnava diksa-guru and you go through all the required steps of becoming qualified for initiation. You live as a brahmacari in his temple and surrender everything what you have. You give up all your previous material relationships and soley work for the pleasure of your guru whom you consider of being a bonafide pure representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

 

This is exactly what disciples of Srila Prabhupada did. What kind of iron-clad assurance did they have that he was not going to cheat them? What would you think of this kind of attitude directed towards Prabhupada in 1969? What did he use to say? Just because some gurus are bogus, does not mean that ALL of them ar bogus.

 

You are concocting a new process in the name of "protecting others"

[Guest guest]

 

This is exactly what disciples of Srila Prabhupada did. What kind of iron-clad assurance did they have that he was not going to cheat them? What would you think of this kind of attitude directed towards Prabhupada in 1969? What did he use to say? Just because some gurus are bogus, does not mean that ALL of them ar bogus.

 

You are concocting a new process in the name of "protecting others"

[bhaktatraveler]

As far as a 'concept' ritvic was introduced by Srila Prabhupada. Please be clear on this. The begining of this controvercy was early 1978, just after the samadhi of Srila Prabhupada. I was in LA at that time and distinctly remember this discussion going on then, what to speak of now. Ritvic is not a knee jurk reaction to fallen souls cheating others. It is vani from Guru.

 

This comes from Guru, Srila Prabhupada. No other Gaudiya guru's previously said to do like this. So you cann't just jump around as whimsy dictates and say, let me do as I want. I can be initiated as Rupa gosvami's disciple. No, you can not because Rupa Gosvami did not say for you to do like that. Srila Prabhupada said 'ritvic, yes'. And Prabhupada's dear most Godbrother B. R. Sridara Maharaja did/said the same 'Ritvic' after His passing for the SCS Math.

 

Hare Krsna,

 

Caturbahu das Bhakti

[Guest guest]

 

As far as a 'concept' ritvic was introduced by Srila Prabhupada.

 

That is merely your opinion. all Prabhupada ever adopted was a ritvik initiation RITUAL (rite=ritvik) out of the need of the moment while he was still here. You extrapolate that need of the moment and make it into a permanent principle to be used for all time. That part is your own concoction because it contradicts both earlier statements of Srila Prabhupada, as well as our Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

Anybody who thinks that "ritvik" relates to anything deeper than the ritual does not understand what the word ritvik means and what was the function of the ritvik priests in Vedic times.

 

What is the function of an initiation ritual? Does it matter which brahmana performs that rite?

 

The "Rtvik Conception of Guru Parampara" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a ritvik-guru, only ritvik-priest. When a guru departs from this world his qualified disciples become a next link in the parampara - that is a timeless Vedic tradition and no amount of word jugglery can change it. All legitimate sampradayas follow it. Srila Prabhupada indicated many times that his disciples are the next link. Ritvik theory proponents say that Srila Prabhupada turned the Bhagavata Parampara concept of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta into a Sikh-like system of ritviks. That is why most Vaishnavas consider such a theory a concoction.

[suchandra]

 

As far as a 'concept' ritvic was introduced by Srila Prabhupada. Please be clear on this. The begining of this controvercy was early 1978, just after the samadhi of Srila Prabhupada. I was in LA at that time and distinctly remember this discussion going on then, what to speak of now. Ritvic is not a knee jurk reaction to fallen souls cheating others. It is vani from Guru.

 

This comes from Guru, Srila Prabhupada. No other Gaudiya guru's previously said to do like this. So you cann't just jump around as whimsy dictates and say, let me do as I want. I can be initiated as Rupa gosvami's disciple. No, you can not because Rupa Gosvami did not say for you to do like that. Srila Prabhupada said 'ritvic, yes'. And Prabhupada's dear most Godbrother B. R. Sridara Maharaja did/said the same 'Ritvic' after His passing for the SCS Math.

 

Hare Krsna,

 

Caturbahu das Bhakti

 

 

Thanks Caturbahu prabhu for clarification, it is of course simply amazing and leaves you speechless that there're still devotees who go on to repeat exactly what the GBC is preaching since 30 years and what is causing ISKCON's temples to become desolate, empty, closed. The demons must be really happy about this. Devotees who have read/heard all of Prabhupada's books/letters/lectures several times and this it what they have learned from Prabhupada: “if your diksa-guru falls down, dont worry, try another”.

Anyone who knows Prabhupada's teachings just a little bit finds out the opposite about guru-tattva, SB 5.5.18 November 1976, Vrindavan: "You are rascal if you are not confident that you can save him from the clutches of birth and death."

Although it says, "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master," (Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.18), the GBC resolution says, no, ISKCON diksa-gurus dont require any specific qualification to accept worship as a pope whose word is the same as the word of God.

 

 

"Cesar's wife must be above suspicion". Just like High Court judges, they are also like "Cesar's wife", they must be above suspicion. Rumors of corrupt judges officiating will turn any State into a criminal chaos. Who can deny? But this is the situation of present risky ISKCON gurus being afflicted with too many rumors of corruption - present gurus afflicted of being cut of the same cloth like 40 previous so called guru colleagues fallen into disgrace.

But still the GBC insists that new disciples should take exactly that risk of losing everything.

"One should not become a guru to cheat the disciple”, http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/761106SB.VRN.htm?i=1976

GBC's reply: “No specific qualification of a spiritual master required.”

 

 

Prabhupada: "To mislead the people in general they themselves become so-called acaryas, but they do not even follow the principles of the acaryas. These rogues are the most dangerous elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they escape punishment by the law of the state. They cannot, however, escape the law of the Supreme, who has clearly declared in the Bhagavad-gita that envious demons in the garb of religious propagandists shall be thrown into the darkest regions of hell (Bg. 16.19-20). Sri Isopanisad confirms that these pseudo religionists are heading toward the most obnoxious place in the universe after the completion of their spiritual master business, which they conduct simply for sense gratification." (Sri Isopanisad)

 

 

How to expect that Prabhupada would have agreed that "so called acaryas" as mentioned above should have taken office within his ISKCON movement? But because cheating others by pretending of being a bonafide spiritual master of the Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya cant be punished by our state laws, therefore people line up for this and think they can go on like that unchecked.

[Bhakta Omer]

 

I would like to answer this if you dont mind first with a counterquestion: Lets say you become a disciple of someone who says that he's a Vaishnava diksa-guru and you go through all the required steps of becoming qualified for initiation. You live as a brahmacari in his temple and surrender everything what you have. You give up all your previous material relationships and soley work for the pleasure of your guru whom you consider of being a bonafide pure representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

Then one day you come back from harinama to your guru's ashram and find the message that your guru has left with all the money, has encumbered the temple building with a high mortgage, took that money also and has left a written message: "sorry, but I'm a cheater, I cheated you all those years, now I cant go on with this charade anymore and want to openly enjoy life with my girlfriend who happens to be my disciple since 2 years, please dont try to find out where we are!"

Lets say you would have been a disciple since 7 years and all your previous material relationships are cut off. How exactly would you comment this behaviour of your guru? What would you do?

 

 

Well, my comment will be that this specific guru is clearly not a true one. But it doesn't mean that all the gurus in the world are not true as well. It's a well known fact that lot's of Gaurakishora das Babaji's disciples were cheaters. Does this make Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati a cheater? So this makes your question completely irrelevant.

And another thing that makes it irrelevant is that it still does not answer the question why Prabhupada? Why can't Rupa goswami or Mahaprabhu be my non physically present guru, in case of lack of a present one to be found?

I still am not convinced that the ritvik system was meant by Prabhupada to be used after his disappearance. As far as I can see it is clear that the ritviks were meant to give initiations in Prabhupadas name in times when he couldn't have been present due to his physical condition. I still don’t see here an instruction for stopping the ancient guru-parampara which we followed all through history.

BUT! If you can prove to me that Prabhupada DID instructed such a diversion from tradition, then we have a bigger problem on our hands, which is proving that Prabhupada did not diverse from the gaudia-vaishnava tradition. Or in other word's: To prove that Srila Prabhupada WAS RIGHT!

 

[suchandra]

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

 

 

Well, my comment will be that this specific guru is clearly not a true one. But it doesn't mean that all the gurus in the world are not true as well. It's a well known fact that lot's of Gaurakishora das Babaji's disciples were cheaters. Does this make Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati a cheater? So this makes your question completely irrelevant.

And another thing that makes it irrelevant is that it still does not answer the question why Prabhupada? Why can't Rupa goswami or Mahaprabhu be my non physically present guru, in case of lack of a present one to be found?

I still am not convinced that the ritvik system was meant by Prabhupada to be used after his disappearance. As far as I can see it is clear that the ritviks were meant to give initiations in Prabhupadas name in times when he couldn't have been present due to his physical condition. I still don’t see here an instruction for stopping the ancient guru-parampara which we followed all through history.

 

 

 

 

BUT! If you can prove to me that Prabhupada DID instructed such a diversion from tradition, then we have a bigger problem on our hands, which is proving that Prabhupada did not diverse from the gaudia-vaishnava tradition. Or in other word's: To prove that Srila Prabhupada WAS RIGHT!

 

 

 

I cannot prove anything, just repeat what Prabhupada says in his books, lectures, letters and then it is up to Lord Paramatma who leads us to realize spiritual truth within our heart or sometimes not, although we heard it with our ears. When a ripened fruit comes from the upper part of the tree onto the ground by the process of being handed down from a higher branch to a lower branch by persons in the tree, the fruit does not break. If you call up the tree that you want the ripened mango from someone who is far up in the top of that tree it easily can happen that when he throws the fruit downwards to you that you are not able to catch it properly and when it falls with great speed on the ground becomes damaged. Srimad-Bhagavatam is held to be the ripened fruit of the Vedic tree. And as a ripened fruit is handed down carefully similiarly Krishna installed the system of guru-parampara that way of letting to hand down the transcendental knowledge from one pure devotee to the next. Krishna says,

 

evam parampara-praptam

imam rajarsayo viduh

sa kaleneha mahata

yogo nastah parantapa

 

Thus the mercy of Krishna comes down through the parampara system, and the respect offered to Krishna is offered up through the parampara system. One has to learn to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead in this way. Thus if we want to approach God, we have to take shelter of the guru in the beginning (current link), then Krishna will be pleased.

[Bhakta Omer]

 

I cannot prove anything, just repeat what Prabhupada says in his books, lectures, letters and then it is up to Lord Paramatma who leads us to realize spiritual truth within our heart or sometimes not, although we heard it with our ears.

 

 

You have no idea how many times I've heard that argument from neo-hinduist mayavadis. "Yes, I know it's not consistent with the Vedas or with logic, but I feel it in my heart that it's true!"

 

 

Thus the mercy of Krishna comes down through the parampara system, and the respect offered to ffice:smarttags" />Krishna will be pleased.

 

 

Therefore: The parampara should not stop for the sake of ritvik initiation. That is my conclusion. I can't really see any different one yet. Sorry.

 

[suchandra]

 

 

 

You have no idea how many times I've heard that argument from neo-hinduist mayavadis. "Yes, I know it's not consistent with the Vedas or with logic, but I feel it in my heart that it's true!"

 

 

 

 

Therefore: The parampara should not stop for the sake of ritvik initiation. That is my conclusion. I can't really see any different one yet. Sorry.

 

 

 

This could be the problem, too much association with Mayavadhis lead to not even understand when Prabhupada says, here is a nice ripe mango, taste it!

Bhakta Omer: Sorry, I can't.

 

But since you clearly say "that is my conclusion", may be you should read what an ISKCON GBC, Prahladananda Swami, ISKCON guru, Minister of Sannyasa, as published in the Back to Prabhupada magazine has to say. Prahladananda Swami's words carry weight and cannot be considered to be biased!

 

 

For those who may still have lingering doubts, we invite you to read below some extraordinary claims made by HH Prahladananda Maharaja, who is a GBC-approved initiating-guru, and thus these revelations come from a source which the GBC itself promotes as being authoritative.

“Unfortunately, since the departure of Srila Prabhupäda, the GBC Body has not maintained his clear authority structure. [...] In the absence of a GBC Body that clearly represents the desires of Srila Prabhupada to preach Krsna consciousness as a unified movement, the Society remains together more on the basis of a loose confederation of initiating gurus and independent local leaders, than as a unified movement of surrendered servants."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

According to Prahladananda Swami then, the GBC has deviated continuously since Srila Prabhupada's departure in having never maintained the authority structure given by him, and currently does not represent Srila Prabhupada's desires for spreading Krishna consciousness.

 

 

No uttama-adhikaris in ISKCON

 

Having trashed the GBC body, Prahladananda Swami now turns his guns on his fellow ISKCON gurus. First he defines an uttama-adhikari as someone who is completely aware of the Supersoul (the Lord residing in the heart):

"Such an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava is in perfect touch with the Supersoul and at every moment knows the Supreme Lord's desires."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

But Prahladananda Swami does not think that such a person exists in ISKCON today:

"If the GBC Body sees someone as a self-efflugent acarya who is completely aware of the Supersoul and Srila Prabhupada's desires and instructions they can and should follow his/her instructions. No one so far has been seen in that category."

(Prahladananda Swami, Wed, 30 Aug 200614:32 +0300, emphasis added)

"To spread Krsna consciousness in the absence of an advanced uttama-adhikari Vaisnava, third-class and second-dass Vaisnavas must follow the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and learn the art of cooperation:" (Duties of GBCandGuru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006, emphasis added)

 

 

Gurus were neophytes

 

'But as with the Gaudiya Matha, just after His Divine Grace's disappearance, leading disciples disobeyed the orders of the Founder Acarya to work cooperatively under the GBC Body and, although the GBC Body met yearly, each initiating guru virtually occupied the position of an Acarya in his zone. These diksa gurus divided the world into 11 zonal Acarya regions and disunited the mission. [...] The imitation of uttama-adhikaris by these neophyte devotees undoubtedly led to their fall-downs and many subsequent problems in ISKCON."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami 2006)

 

Prahladananda Swami is referring here wherein the 11 persons appointed to act as ritviks and make disciples for Srila Prabhupada, pretended that they were actually successor Gurus to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

Bogus Zonal Acharya System still continuing today

 

“Thus in ISKCON we not only still have what amounts to zonal Acaryas in different parts of the world, such as India, but we have independent temple presidents or preachers accountable to no one but themselves."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

Here Prahladananda Swami has launched a not too veiled attack an HH Jayapataka Swami, the main guru in India, who was one of the original Zonal Acharya gurus attacked by Maharaja in the previous section. Hence Prahladananda Swami is effectively stating that HH Jayapataka Swami has been deviating continuously for the last 30 years, and that he is not strictly following the orders of Srila Prabhupada. As Prahladananda Swami further confirms:

"The main Problem is that the GBC Body is supposed to supervise ISKCON and they are not doing this service adequately. Therefore, many leaders are not acting strictly according to the directions of his Divine Grace."

(Prahladananda Swami, Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:32 +0300)

 

 

ISKCON gurus not selfless

 

"Presently the GBC Body lacks authority. Some of its leading members are initiating gurus who do not want to surrender their high degree of autonomy in the Society. Some leaders in ISKCON cooperate wich the Society only as long as they can retain their own autonomy. [...] If the GBC Body is to regain its authority, its members must become a disciplined body of devotees who are clearly selfless and en­lightened in their dedication to Srila Prabhupada's mission."

(Duties of GBCand Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

Above, Prahladananda Swami paints a grim picture of self-serving gurus whose calculated acts of co-operation are merely Machiavellian ploys to secure more autonomy and Power for themselves, rather than to selflessly serve Srila Prabhupada's mission.

 

 

ISKCON leaders are enjoyers, not servants

 

"The gurus, initiating and instructing, have important roles in ISKCON. [...] Only if the leaders sincerely try to become servants of the previous Acaryas and give up the controlling and enjoying propensities can Srila Prabhupada's mission succeed. If the leaders take up this mood, they will find infinitely more spiritual pleasure in acting as Krsna's simple instruments than in continuing even a subtle controlling mentality in trying to be appreciated as apparently empowered spiritual preachers."

(Duties of GBC und Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

Prahladananda Swami's use of the phrase "If the leaders take up this mood" indicates a hope that the gurus may one day curtail their "controlling and enjoying propensities": But why would he express such a hope unless he saw that this was predominantly their current mood? Why would Maharaja urge the gurus to give up such destructive propensities unless he could see them being exhibited?

 

 

ISKCON gurus in last snare of maya (Illusion)

Prahladananda Swami opens the section from which the previous two critiques of ISKCON's gurus and leaders are taken by noting:

"The last snare of maya is to think oneself God, or even God's pure representative, worthy to be worshiped and served by others. [...] It is an attachment that is difficult to give up."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

Seeing as Prahladananda Swami's then went on to invite ISKCON'S gurus and leaders to become selfless and give up their propensity to control and enjoy (which is fed by the receipt of worship and service by their thousands of disciples), one can only assume Prahladananda Swami believes they have indeed fallen victim to maya's"last snare".

 

 

ISKCON not really successful

 

Though even ISKCON will acknowledge that their preaching in the West has declined substantially, comfort is taken from the fact that at least in India and the Eastern Bloc countries things are faring better.

However, Prahladananda Maharaja gives a different perspective, stating that such successes are only due to temporary circumstances rather than being based on a platform that will yield permanent results:

"ISKCON sometimes takes pride in accomplishments that prove to be only temporary. [...] For example, in the former Eastern Block nations, in the absence of a strong Krsna conscious leader, a pattern is sometimes visible. After the demise of the Communist system, many people became interested in the process of Krsna consciousness and joined the temples. This resulted in a large force of preachers and a surge in book distribution. However, after some time the devotees married and had children, and then preaching and book distribution diminished [..] ISKCON's success appears to be due more to circumstances than to a viable management system that encourages long-term preaching. Another example can be seen in India, [...] again it is likely that success is due not to a viable management system, but to the unique circumstances of India."

(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

Having criticised both the GBC Body and the Zonal Acharya gurus as being deviant, Maharaja of course conveniently sidesteps the fact that he owes his own position as an ISKCON guru completely to these same deviant entities; because Maharaja is one of the beneficiaries, whereby he lined up to take his guru authorisation from this same deviant GBC body, which also contained the remaining Zonal Acharya gurus at the time. Indeed, having attacked everyone else, to cover his own position he fabricates out of thin air the following instructions:

1) "Srila Prabhupada has given us the authorization process, that all his disciples, if authorized by the GBC body, can take disciples."

(Prahladananda Swami,Wed, 30 Aug 200614:32 +0300)

 

Srila Prabhupada has never stated that "all his disciples, if authorized by the GBC Body, can take disciples." The unauthorised, current 'guru by majority vote' system was invented by the GBC as a reaction to their previous unauthorised 'zonal acharya system':

 

2) "Srila Prabhupada created the GBC Body to oversee that his teachings are properly implemented within ISKCON. These teachings direct that everyone in ISKCON, including initiating and instructing gurus, work cooperatively under Srila Prabhupada's authority system to spread Krsna consciousness."

(Duties of G8C and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

There is no teaching of Srila Prabhupada which even mentions "initiating gurus" other than himself ever existing in ISKCON, not to speak of such entities working "cooperatively under Srila Prabhupada's authority system to spread Krsna consciousness." Srila Prabhupada did, however, state that only he would remain the initiating Guru:

 

 

"The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Madhudvisa, 4/8/75)

 

 

3) "Srila Prabhupada clearly established ISKCON's system of management with Temple Presidents, Secretaries, and Treasurers, under the supervision of a GBC representative and ultimately the GBC Body. He gave no managerial position to the initiating gurus within ISKCON." (Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada could not have given a "managerial position to the initiating gurus within ISKCON", because he never ever even spoke of a plurality of "initiating gurus within ISKCON", period.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This is probably as much a devastating critique of ISKCON's current leadership, its GBC and unauthorised gurus, as anything that has appeared so far in the pages of BTP! As a fellow guru and ISKCON leader, being the Sannyasa Minister, Prahladananda Swami's words carry weight and cannot be considered to be biased! So if one of ISKCON's own gurus and leaders is stating about today's ISKCON that:

 

 

• Its governing body has been deviating for 30 years;

• Many gurus are deviating;

• None of the gurus are advanced in Krishna consciousness;

• Its leaders are enjoyers rather than servants;

• lt hardly has any permanent genuine preaching successes;

 

 

Who in their right mind is going to want to join such a movement?!

Being compromised himself, Prahladananda Swami argues that the solution to everything is simply to make the GBC much more powerful, rather than root out the underlying cause of the problem, namely severe disobedience to Srila Prabhupada; all stemming from the unauthorised removal of him as the diksa Guru of ISKCON. We have noted that Maharaja obviously cannot identify the real cause of ISKCON's malaise, since he himself is the beneficiary of its false guru System. He therefore needs to perform a juggling act which allows him to criticise all and sundry, but still ensure his own position remains intact. As we have seen, to do this he has simply fabricated the authority for ISKCON's current 'guru by GBC vote' system, to which he owes his own guru existente, out of thin air.

Though Maharaja's critique of ISKCON is welcomed, by failing to state the correct solution of accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Guru, but rather continuing to offer the same unauthorised and, by his own admission, unqualified gurus, he is simply ensuring the continued exodus from ISKCON into other deviant movements, such as the one led by Narayana Maharaja, which at least claim their gurus are qualified!

 

[Guest guest]

 

Prahladananda Swami's words carry weight and cannot be considered to be biased!

 

You mean ALL of his words carry weight and cannot be considered to be biased, or just the ones that you like, because they fit into your ritvik theory?

 

That is the problem with you ritviks - you pick selected words and statements even from what Srila Prabhupada has said, and reject all other evidence, just to maintain your ritvik theory. Then you twist the quotes you use in a way the author never intended, as evident from your "Back to Prabhupada" articles. Compared to that magazine, National Enquirer with their stories about aliens is a gold standard of responsible journalism. It is a travesty to put Srila Prabhupada's name on such a magazine.

[Guest guest]

Suchandra prabhu ... are you a ritvik? Your posts seem to strongly suggest you are.

 

The ritviks are trying very hard to project an 'empty & desolate' (in your words) image of ISKCON temples. However, the ones I have been to have been thriving. My local center is drawing such crowds on Sundays for the love feast program even in the cold winter months that the devotees are having a tough time keeping up. The question is this ... admittedly, ISKCON has its own share of problems, but why are you guys trying so hard to project an image which isn't true? Certainly, there are temples that have fallen upon difficult times but it's not the case with every temple.

 

I'm disappointed that you'd quote from the ritvik magazine BTP, which has next to nothing of nectarian value. By the article's own admission, Prahladananda Swami is not an Uttama adhikari. Yet you go on to say that he cannot be biased. You contradict yourself!

 

 

This could be the problem, too much association with Mayavadhis lead to not even understand when Prabhupada says, here is a nice ripe mango, taste it!

Bhakta Omer: Sorry, I can't.

 

But since you clearly say "that is my conclusion", may be you should read what an ISKCON GBC, Prahladananda Swami, ISKCON guru, Minister of Sannyasa, as published in the Back to Prabhupada magazine has to say. Prahladananda Swami's words carry weight and cannot be considered to be biased!

[Bhakta Omer]

 

This could be the problem, too much association with Mayavadhis lead to not even understand when Prabhupada says, here is a nice ripe mango, taste it!

 

 

While the Mayavadi may say:

"This could be the problem, too much association with Vaishnavas lead to not even understand when Shankara / Swami Vivekananda / Maharishi / Osho says, here is a nice ripe mango, taste it!"

 

 

 

 

Should I just flip a coin or what?

 

 

 

 

As for the claims raised by Prahlanananda Swami:

A nice Prabhu by the name of Gaurasundar das published an article on chakra.org which may contain a non ritvik solution. Titled: "Many are Qualified to Initiate".

But I'm afraid the system won't allow me to give you the link until I've reached 15 posts, so you'll have to find it yourself… Sorry.

 

 

[suchandra]

 

Suchandra prabhu ... are you a ritvik? Your posts seem to strongly suggest you are.

 

The ritviks are trying very hard to project an 'empty & desolate' (in your words) image of ISKCON temples. However, the ones I have been to have been thriving. My local center is drawing such crowds on Sundays for the love feast program even in the cold winter months that the devotees are having a tough time keeping up. The question is this ... admittedly, ISKCON has its own share of problems, but why are you guys trying so hard to project an image which isn't true? Certainly, there are temples that have fallen upon difficult times but it's not the case with every temple.

 

I'm disappointed that you'd quote from the ritvik magazine BTP, which has next to nothing of nectarian value. By the article's own admission, Prahladananda Swami is not an Uttama adhikari. Yet you go on to say that he cannot be biased. You contradict yourself!

 

No, I dont belong to any faction, but since there're more ex-Iskconites/Iskcon-victims living outside of ISKCON than there're devotees within ISKCON and quite a lot who claim of being ritviks/Prabhupadanugas, it is surely foolish to brush them under the carpet just like that with a flip of your left hand. I didnt write that article but the article says that Prahladananda Swami cannot be biased and I also didnt say that Prahladananda Swami is not an uttama adikary. Anyway just wanted to find out what is the feedback here at audarya since the Back to Prabhupada magazine isnt published online.

Gaurasundar prabhu's article to make one's career as spiritual master for Bhakta Omer from chakra.org:

 

Many Are Qualified to Initiate

by Gaursundar das (Denver, Colo.)

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succMar25_07_02.html

 

Posted March 25, 2007

 

ISKCON seems to operate within the realms of inequality. As a devotee since 1979, I find it disconcerting that the GBC is going against guru, shastra and sadhu concerning recognition as a leader in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Who came up with the rule that you had to be voted into the sannyasa ashram? This is between the guru and his or her disciple. Such a rule is directly against shastra.

For the sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada, I salute you, but why are only direct initiates of Srila Prabhupada allowed to initiate devotees into spiritual life? There are certainly many others in the movement who possess the necessary qualifications. In the shastras there are many examples of a guru telling disciples to go out and initiate people as Srila Prabhupada instructed his direct initiates to do. Today's gurus should be telling their qualified disciples to do the same. If this is not done then ISKCON will certainly stagnate.

What we are doing is sending a message to everyone who joins that you cannot ever advance spiritually enough to help spread the movement until the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada have all gone back to Godhead. Unfortunately, some direct initiates may find themselves in a different situation than they expect; perhaps they will have to be born back into this movement and feel left out for their whole lifetime. Hopefully, they will not get molested by demon-like scum that claim to be disciples of Srila Prabhupada but are simply disciples of the lower modes of ignorance and darkness. Think about it; wake up. This movement is not about spreading power, money and fame.

[Guest guest]

Dear Suchandra prabhu ... got it. Thanks for clearing that up. ISKCON has gone through it all. I'm sorry that so many had to bear the brunt of it. But hopefuly, we can all cooperate and take this movement forward.

 

 

No, I dont belong to any faction, but since there're more ex-Iskconites/Iskcon-victims living outside of ISKCON than there're devotees within ISKCON and quite a lot who claim of being ritviks/Prabhupadanugas, it is surely foolish to brush them under the carpet just like that with a flip of your left hand. I didnt write that article but the article says that Prahladananda Swami cannot be biased and I also didnt say that Prahladananda Swami is not an uttama adikary. Anyway just wanted to find out what is the feedback here at audarya since the Back to Prabhupada magazine isnt published online.

Gaurasundar prabhu's article to make one's career as spiritual master for Bhakta Omer from chakra.org:

 

Many Are Qualified to Initiate

by Gaursundar das (Denver, Colo.)

 

Posted March 25, 2007

 

ISKCON seems to operate within the realms of inequality. As a devotee since 1979, I find it disconcerting that the GBC is going against guru, shastra and sadhu concerning recognition as a leader in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Who came up with the rule that you had to be voted into the sannyasa ashram? This is between the guru and his or her disciple. Such a rule is directly against shastra.

For the sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada, I salute you, but why are only direct initiates of Srila Prabhupada allowed to initiate devotees into spiritual life? There are certainly many others in the movement who possess the necessary qualifications. In the shastras there are many examples of a guru telling disciples to go out and initiate people as Srila Prabhupada instructed his direct initiates to do. Today's gurus should be telling their qualified disciples to do the same. If this is not done then ISKCON will certainly stagnate.

What we are doing is sending a message to everyone who joins that you cannot ever advance spiritually enough to help spread the movement until the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada have all gone back to Godhead. Unfortunately, some direct initiates may find themselves in a different situation than they expect; perhaps they will have to be born back into this movement and feel left out for their whole lifetime. Hopefully, they will not get molested by demon-like scum that claim to be disciples of Srila Prabhupada but are simply disciples of the lower modes of ignorance and darkness. Think about it; wake up. This movement is not about spreading power, money and fame.

[Guest guest]

Firstly the Ritvik issue is being officially debated between Yaduraja Prabhu (IRM) and Ramakanta (GBC)

 

You can keep up to date on this debate as it is on this forum.

 

I am hearing nothing but 'straw man' arguements in this thread by the anti-Ritvik proponents and am still shocked no one has even read the official IRM position paper 'The Final Order'.

 

I know that as people are using the classic straw man ' why just Prabhupada, why not Rupa goswami?' . THIS HAS BEEN ANSWERED AND DEALT WITH IN 'THE FINAL ORDER' BACK IN 1997!!!!!!

 

I find it amazing that devotees have made up there minds on this issue WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTANDING BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE!! The lack of knowledge on the IRM's position is shocking, yet devotees have made up there minds while they do not even fully understand the Ritvik arguement.

 

At least understand the Ritvik position THEN make up your minds, that would be fair enough.

 

Until this time these three points have remained unrefuted:

 

a)Prabhupada established himself as the Sole Diksha Guru of Iskcon back in 1966.

(That is the status quo therefore does not need to be proven as it is just that...the status quo)

 

b) Prabhupada gave no instruction for anyone to replace him as The Sole Diksha Guru of Iskcon.

(Gave no instruction for a Zonal Acharya Deviation (Guru hoax Pt 1) Nor gave any instruction for the current bogus MASS system where Guru's are simply 'voted in' by a majority vote. (Guru hoax pt 2)

 

c) Therefore Prabhupada remains the Sole Diksha Guru of Iskcon.

 

Again Prabhupada being the Sole Diksha Guru of Iskcon is the system which was up and running while Prabhupada was still present, therefore does not need to be proven. Without an order to teminate this system, the status quo remains. To those who say that this system should have been illegally dismantled, LET THEM PRODUCE THE ORDER TO TERMINATE IT. Good luck...the order does not exist.

 

This is all that is needed to prove this point. I do not need to even mention the fact that the July 9th Letter states the very same thing. Numerous devotee's witnessed Prabhupada say it was the system for the future. Hansadutta admitted the Rtvik system was to go on post samhadhi, TKG confessed that Prabhupada only authorised the ritvik system. The GBC contradict each other constantly when it comes to justifying WHEN the order was given, WHO it was given to, and WHEN Prabhupada actually gave the order.

 

Please go to ww.iskconirm.com and read every debate that has taken place between the GBC and the IRM on this matter where even Jayadvaita Swami (who wrote the most powerful anti Ritvik paper compared to anyone else) was completely defeated by Krishnakant.