Ritvik

[Guest guest]

Could somebody here kindly tell me what Ritvik is? Thank you.

[Guest guest]

No way, there's already enough war on this planet.

Hang in there guest someone will inevitably answer your query it's just that it is usually a very hot potato. But a clearer definition of it could be 'a spiritual power of atourney.'

[theist]

But some say that signature on the power of attorney was forged.

 

Others say it had a time limit.

 

I never studied law so I don't know.I heard that ritviks were offical priests who performed ceremonies on behalf of others in vedic times.

 

I think I remeber JNdas answering this nicely before some time back.I'll see if I can find that post.

 

Hare Krsna

[theist]

This is the post fron JNdas that I spoke of.

 

A Ritvik is one of four priests partaking in a ritualistic homa. It's humorous how a completely new concept has been created around this word.

Srila Prabhupada didn't need to particularly identify a successor as the tradition already establishes the precedent. The guru-shishya relationship is spontaneous and natural. It does not require sanction from any material authority.

 

-----------

Don't be fooled by the brevity.Everything is here.

 

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

I think the guest is referring to the Ritviks among former ISKCON devotees. These are the people who argue that SP never established a guru-shisya parampara and he is the final guru. All others are mere officiating priests who can initiate on behalf of SP.

 

But, this argument seems flawed. First of all, SP emphasised so much on parampara. He was insistent that the eternal truth is passed from a guru to his disciple and so on. He never spoke [to the best of my knowledge] about someone being the final guru. Instead, he spoke about creating a society of Brahmanas, a natural consequence of which is to have initiated gurus as well.

 

SP also repeatedly spoke about how one should identify a spiritual master and how a spiritual master should accept a disciple. This implies a direct relationship between the guru and the disciple. Suppose SP is the final guru and others are mere officiating priests, as Ritviks argue, then how can someone determine if someone is fit to be a disciple, as SP is no more around in material form?

 

This seems like a big flaw in the Ritvik argument.

[Guest guest]

i agree there are many flaws in the ritvik proponants arguments.

 

i am convinced it has more to do with money then philosophy.

 

the proponents of the ritviks do not want their congregation ,which is quite wealthy ,to have an actual living guru,that might upset the flow of cash into their own coffers.

 

the ritvik philosophy is awfully convenient in that

the living guru's are all deemed as bogus, and only

the proponents of the ritvik idea are bonafide

and therefore only them should be the recipient

of donations,awfully convenient.

[ethos]

Karthik,

 

I think both sides have good philosophy.

 

Personally, I don't see the "flaw" you pointed out in your last paragraph.

 

For one thing, the parampara has been broken before under circumstances much more favorable than we have now. Also, the spiritual qualifications are already there in the scriptures by the greatest spiritual authorities like Vyasa, Krsna, Narada, and many others.

 

Now I'm not necessarily arguing as a Ritvik per se. I'm just pointing out some philosophical points.

 

Also, consider how the "authorities" or "gurus" or whatever failed to carry out Prabhupada's orders after he left; if not individually then collectively through the GBC. These debates and issues would never have come up had the "officials" continued to set an example. But Prabhupada disciples have keen discrimination for the most part and the GBC failed - as a whole - to satisfy their peers. ISKCON is a sorry shadow of its former self.

 

I know these are regurgitated arguements.

 

But recently, I personally talked with some disciples who insist that everything is in their gurus books and words because they are purely representing what Prabhupada had said, etc. And in arguing this they advised me not to read Prabhupada's books. Now these are ISKCON temple devotees "preaching" here.

 

And the people at the LA Matchless Gifts tell me people are buying and reading books from Prabhupada's disciples and not so much Prabhupada.

 

Prabhupada spoiled us all because his example was so perfect. I don't think there'll every be another Prabhupada just like I don't think there'll be another Krsna or Vyasa. I may be wrong. But presently, I don't think anyone is qualified to "change his words" or even speak in place of him. To represent Prabhupada? Yes. But Prabhupada can't be replaced. The light of the world is gone!

 

I personally tend to put my faith in Prabhupada and the Ritvik side though I don't agree with everything they say. I agree with the parampara system and serving the spiritual master; everything that Prabhupada taught. Yet I cannot ignore the warning signs.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The sat-guru can never be institutionalized. The link between a disciple and such a liberated soul is spontaneous and natural. It requires no external confirmation from governing organizations. The liberated soul does not get identified by votes or public opinion. Nor is he "certified" or "authorized".

 

The tradition of guru and shishya has existed for countless millions of years. It has carried on through many past Kali-yugas, and it has withstood the test of time. All the revealed scriptures speak unanimously in a single voice on this topic.

 

We must approach a self-realized soul and receive personal guidance from him. In the Upanishads we find examples of such fortunate souls who found liberated souls to enquire from. The Upanishads are nothing but conversations between self-realized souls and self-realizing souls. Those conversations must take place for us to develop our spiritual potential. Those ancient seekers could have simply referred to the past scriptural passages, but they knew it was not sufficient, for "the absolute truth cannot be known through study of the Vedas". Thus they approached realized souls, and humbly enquired from them about the Absolute Truth. Only personal association with a liberated saint, sadhu-sanga, has the potency to deliver factual realization to us.

 

We are each responsible for our own spiritual destinies. We are free to associate with and enquire from anyone on the planet. Do not place blame on this group or that institution. It is our own fault who we decide to enquire from, or who we decide to accept as a spiritual authority. Krishna is in all of our hearts. When He sees we are sincere He will guide us to a sat-guru, from whom we can enquire just as the seekers of the past enquired from the liberated souls.

[ethos]

JNdas, since you replied to me, I'm replying to you.

 

Now I am speaking for myself here and I don't necessarily claim it to be true for everyone. The dyncamic aspect of choice and responsibility is a major theme of the Ritvik issue.

 

I agree with your first three paragraphs. But as to the third, I must contend that you do associate with Krsna, or Vyasa or Prabhupada through their teachings. Hearing their words is absolute and a communication of minds. We experience this association even on the mundane level reading Plato or even some murder mystery. We begin to relate to the personalities. Krsna's physical presence is not required nor is the spiritual master's. Right? Prabhupada said "his" books would be the lawbooks for the next few thousand years. So there's a personal relationship to those books by everybody who can appreciate them.

 

I certainly envy the person who has found a sincere relationship with a bona fide guru. I never met Prabhupada. I wish I had. I was living in ISKCON at the time he departed from this world. My experience has been with ISKCON and their "authorities," and of this institution I have alot of first hand knowledge from all levels of management... not necessarily personally, but I have to judge for myself about authorities I haven't met from secondhand evidence just like anyone. I am not wholy satisfied with an initiating guru among them. But that's just my choice. It is certainly different for others and I respect their choice. I certainly haven't met everyone in ISKCON, what to speak of around the world. Maybe someday I'll find someone I can trust my heart to. But probably not today.

 

We certainly are responsible for our spiritual destinies to a large degree. But I don't feel like I should compromise my feelings just to be an insider. I will not accept someone who doesn't have my full faith. If I die a bhakta, that's fine with me. I don't feel I have to have an official connection or even return to Godhead in this lifetime. I'm content to progress slowly even though it may be risky.

 

There certainly is need for blame. Modern institutions tend to sustain themselves with power and not popular opinion. They tend to discount underlings - even if they are right - and answer only to those "in the loop." I personally love much about ISKCON. They have given me meaning and purpose which I otherwise wouldn't have. I attend their temples and I also work with some of their highest authorities on projects helping to promote ISKCON. Still, knowledge is not simply "positive" and there is much to criticize and rectify within ISKCON. We should not be satisfied with mediocrity.

 

I'm not looking just to criticize though. As in dealing with ourselves, we have to be honest about our shortcomings and faults to progress.

 

Not everyone has the freedom you suggest. For instance, I cannot afford to move anywhere else in the world and so I'm stuck in America where a favorite pastime is to barbecue your mother at a picknic.

 

Time and circumstances for everyone. I'll play the cards I'm dealt.

[Guest guest]

The last two weeks with us Srila Prabhupada would use the term Ritvik Acarya Transprent to the previous Acarya as

the postion he was placeing these eleven disclips in ,to acceapt disclips on his behalf after his disapperence.

It was my understanding then that these new disclips were to be the disclips of my godbrothers and ofcourse Srila Prabhupada would be thier parum guru maharaja.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja Srila Prabhupadas godbrother a Paramahumsa also refered to his disclip Srila Govinda Maharaja as ritvik acarya and when questined on this point He firmly defined ritvik as representive not just a mere priest .Srila Sridhar Maharaja then stressed that according to the degree of surrender (transprent)of the disclip impowerment will flow to him .

Srila Prabhupada simply said the same nothing new was added the facts have just been grossly misunderstood because the degree of surrender to the pervious acarya wasnt there,when it is there we see Acaryas such as Gour Govinda Maharaja and others placeing Srila Prabhupadas pure messeage in the hearts of thier disclips.

Because the surrender was lacking the impowerment of the order never took place very sadly

If this small but important point was carefully followed then the cauos could of been advioded ,in the case of many of our godbrothers within ISKCON was and still is a huge organization,greed and power for position

attacked as soon as Srila Prabhupada left the planet transperency was replaced by lac adherence to the instructions of Srila Prabhupada so much so that the oringal traditional method shown in all of Srila Prabhupadas books his teachings and the teaching of the sampadaya became vauge.

[theist]

Pita das Prabhu:"The last two weeks with us Srila Prabhupada would use the term Ritvik Acarya Transprent to the previous Acarya as

the postion he was placeing these eleven disclips in ,to acceapt disclips on his behalf after his disapperence.

 

It was my understanding then that these new disclips were to be the disclips of my godbrothers and ofcourse Srila Prabhupada would be thier parum guru maharaja."

 

This is where people get tripped up."Accept dicples on his behalf after his disappearance" and "grand disciple"

 

These statements can and have been used to support both sides.Myself I don't see a problem.Doesn't one always feel he is engaging his disciples in his guru's mission?I mean what other mission is he engaged in?So he is engaging others in service on behalf of his spiritual master.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

the argument that because you don't percieve

ISKCON gurus as being qualified,is besides the point.

 

Who are you or anyone to judge all of them ?

 

To discount the system because you see some fault with some involved,then create a new system, a new religion based

on some offensive thought towards others, is

useless.

 

 

[ethos]

Shiva,

 

The question of qualified gurus, or politicians or any leader is exactly the point.

 

The failures are there, both individually - but not all - and collectively. We should all be aware of our actions and not act blindly. Our Vedic philosophy and religious training are supposed to make us discriminate and accepting of favorable circumstances.Unfavorable circumstances should be rejected. Prabhupada described devotional life as walking a razor's edge.

 

If you follow an unauthorized or blind leader you may be ruined in the short run and most certainly ruined in the long run when our future body is decided. But that is besides the point. I mean why judge at all?

 

You are judging others now. It appears by telling others to suspend their judgement, you hope they take your judgement instead. And what is that bottom line... stop thinking for yourself?

 

Your last comments are rambling, incoherent. Discriminate devotees aren't trying to create a new system.

[Guest guest]

 

now you went and gone and done it...

 

you are so convinced you are right you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

The ritvik propagators are indeed creating a new religion,

they propose to set aside the actual teachings of

the parampara and replace them with a new teaching based on the desire to be in charge.

 

When they state that Srila Prabhupada never intended

for his disciples to follow in his footsteps and the footsteps of the entire parampara in accepting disciples,

that is a patent lie.

 

Many ,many times Srila Prabhupada states quite explicitly

that his disciples should themselves become Guru.

That is the process,anything else is a concoction designed to serve the interest of greedy ,calculating,misinforming

people with the sole desire of keeping the truth

disguised and foolishness take it's place

for monetary gain.

 

To suggest that from the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure till the end of time,no one will be qualified to

initiate disciples into the parampara,and that ISKCON

is an anomoly in the history of the parampara,that ISKCON

alone should not be involved with Guru's initiating

disciples and that the ritviks are to be initiating as surrogates is prepostorous.

 

The sincere soul can see through this charade

for what it really is, a scam, a con job,

to seperate the ignorant from their money.

[ethos]

Shiva, I have been speaking for myself. Read these threads again and you'll see it's so. I don't consider myself a Rtvik and don't even know their overall agenda. I do know that have some excellent self-evident points.

 

If you assume me to ba a Rtvik proponent you are wrong. I simply refuse to accept dogma. And it is dogma to simply follow with blind faith or ascribe attributes to leaders they don't actually have.

 

I think you're over the top with your conclusions, but I will not pursue it. YOU seem to be against ISKCON and the Rtviks. Why even argue these points then?

[Guest guest]

 

I'm not against ISKCON,just the ritviks.

 

sorry if i offend.

 

Dogma has nothing to do with it.

 

The ritviks disregard the religion that they profess to teach.

It is that simple.

If they want to teach what they teach,fine,just do not

claim to be following the teachings of Srila Prabhupada

and calling all others bogus.

State the truth,they have a different philosophy then that of the Caitanya parampara, that is fine,just don't hide

behind some bogus made up conclusions in order to hide the real reasons they preach what they do.

 

they should come out and say that they do not care about

the Gaudiya vaisnava tradition,and that they are following their own path.

I have no objection to that.

[Guest guest]

The whole ritvik confushion has really baffled me how so many have become confushed over something that was repeatedly taught and spoken about in all of Srila Prabhupadas instructions.

I have to think of Srila Prabhupadas story to us about the wife sending the husband out to get gheee and he changes buying ghee to buying oil and then oil to buying water because he had heard that each were of a purer quality.

He finally returns back to his wife with water instead of ghee and explains it is of much purity.

She then ask him but can I cook with this?

Now its not very hard to understand why we were told this story ,these days at least

 

[ethos]

Shiva, again, I don't know the Rtvik position. I wasn't even aware that they were so organized as to have an official doctine or whatever.

 

Your response below is "in your face". I don't have any reason not to believe you, but I would like a little more supportive explanation before I'm convinced your criticisms are right.

 

It seems alot of us agree that there have been "management problems" and even that Prabhupada was the one who never failed us.

 

But beyond these aspects, where do the Rtviks really diverge? What is the different philosophy and made up conclusions they propagate? This is the original question beginning this thread.

[Guest guest]

 

hmmmm...

they believe that ISKCON was to be facilitating initiating only as surrogates for Srila Prabhupada,

that nobody was to become a Guru with his own disciples.

 

[Guest guest]

 

SP also repeatedly spoke about how one should identify a spiritual master and how a spiritual master should accept a disciple. This implies a direct relationship between the guru and the disciple. Suppose SP is the final guru and others are mere officiating priests, as Ritviks argue, then how can someone determine if someone is fit to be a disciple, as SP is no more around in material form?

 

This seems like a big flaw in the Ritvik argument.

 

SP never met the vast majority of his thousands of disciples, and therefore never had a direct relationship with him as you understand it. So are you saying SP broke his own 'rule'? SP, in fact, states the opposite:

 

"It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons NOT directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life." (SB 3:31:48, purport)

 

SP left the selection of candidates for initiation to the ritviks, even when he was physically present! And this was the system to continue in ISKCON for the future:

 

Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, whoever you consider deserves. That will depend on discretion.

 

Tamala Krishna: On discretion.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Tamala Krishna: That's the first and second initiations.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Hmm!

(July 7th, 1977)

[Kulapavana]

 

hmmmm...

they believe that ISKCON was to be facilitating initiating only as surrogates for Srila Prabhupada,

that nobody was to become a Guru with his own disciples.

 

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'

(Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2 Dec 75)

[Guest guest]

You're wasting your time Prabhu. These ritviks have had their intelligence stolen away. Nothing you say is going to make them understand. All the Vaisnava aparadha they commit will only make them more inane.

 

 

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'

(Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2 Dec 75)

[Kulapavana]

many ritviks are very sincere devotees who deeply care about SP and his mission. it is mostly a reaction for the nonsense done in Iskcon by the "zonal acharyas".

[Guest guest]

I keep hearing about this "zonal acarya" problem on this forum. What was that system and what went wrong with it?

 

 

many ritviks are very sincere devotees who deeply care about SP and his mission. it is mostly a reaction for the nonsense done in Iskcon by the "zonal acharyas".

[theist]

The zonals. Now there is a subject for you. Someone should right a book on it so this travesty doesn't get forgotten and repeated. The *zoned out 11*. How much damage they did is impossible to even estimate. Essential for understanding the ritviks.