Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

There are at least 6 different groups of ritviks that are splinter groups of ISKCON. They all have different explanations and argue inbetween. Which one you want to hear and why? ys

ALL if possible, well Srila Prabhupada did mention that the only way you could effectively preach to people was to know their philosophy too... and after all, charity starts at home

I do not think anyone should preach to ritviks..whatever kind you are:

I do not think they have a philosophy, just an interpretation of it.

I will look Vedabase for the expression charity starts at home.

lol i dont think Prabhupada said "charity starts at home" its just a common phrase, i have many friends who are on the ritvik root, many of whom are childhood friends whom ive met after years, ritviks are people too

reason i say ritviks are people to is because, they live among us and are not beyond preaching...

diksha initiation is like getting married
GBC wants us to marry to one of the specific personalities they choose (arranged marriage?)
Ritviks had a bad marriage experience or look at all the many divorce cases and tell you to have a platonic relationship.

GopalGuru prabhu, If you are sincere in your endeavor regarding the ritviks, go to The Bhaktivendatas web-site. As I have explained in a prior thread, check out the site. It will certainly explain in great detail what the ritviks contentions and conclusions are. The other site is Krishna.org., also well explained.

I dont know if you will find this helpful or not- but I found it interesting when I heard it. Ravindra-Svarup Prabhu gave a class called "The Hidden History of ISKCON" Its a four part lecture and most of what he said isnt really a secret. But much of it is interesting and worth listening too. He discusses a bit about how the Ritvik thing got started in the fourth part- but I totally recommend listening to all of it. http://www.rsdasa.com/lectures.html

My knowledge is incomplete but heres my two cents anyway: The main focus on being Ritvik is that Srila Prabhupada had a meeting (which was recorded) and gave the instruction that all initiations be done in a Ritvik way. Meaning that the chosen persons are not actually initiating disciples but are present on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, even after Srila Prabhupadas passing. So if you are Ritvik, for example, Srila Prabhupada would be your guru, and Devamrtia Maharaj would be your godbrother.

From this there are many conspiracy theories, the biggest one being that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned (again according to a recorded conversation). Another issue that is not exclusive to ritviks but usually tied to it, are the books changes.

Ive heard some other stuff, but these are the major things I think. Most of which I think can be explained in a logical way but Ritviks are pretty die-hard about their beliefs and cannot be swayed. I try not to keep their company too close.

Srila Prabhupada used the ritvik system because he had to. There were so many people joining and he wanted to concentrate on translating books, so he deputized some of his disciples to initiate on his behalf. However, that system is no longer relevant as there are qualified devotees to accept disciples on their own account, which is a standard practice in all Vaishnava sampradayas.

In a dire emergency, one may resort to meat eating in order to survive, but once the emergency has passed, one should go back to the standard vegetarian diet. In the same way the ritvik system used by Srila Prabhupada while he was still on the planet was retired after his passing.

While some ISKCON gurus clearly were not qualified for their position this does not make the traditional system in our parampara obsolete or irrelevant.

there seems to be significant ambiguity as to the system Srila Prabhupada
envisioned, what was put to pen, and how such understandings were implemented.
for those with less than managerial responsibilities in administering these matters,
life in the ashram pretty much went on on a day to day basis, but for those with more lofty aspirations, the blame or the praise must stop on someones doorstep.
"im not the doer!" seems to be an acceptable answer to all the misteps that have occured, were it only that the potential praise was as equally shunned.

Kula-pavana: Your explanation is right on the money. My take on the whole thing (and Ive held to this perspective since 78) is that the so-called eleven appointed gurus were never appointed to be gurus. I believe a big part of their misunderstanding came when Satsvarupa asked Prabhupada, "when you are gone and we initiate a new disciple -- whose disciple would they be?" Well, thats kind of like one of my sons asking me, "dad -- when I have a child whose kid would he/she be? Yours or mine?" For some reason they thought that because they were deputized -- given power of attorney -- to perform the initiation ceremonies on Prabhupadas behalf ---- that they should continue doing that after he left but the difference would be that the new initiates would become their disciples. Over the years the leaders of ISKCON have tried to adjust, expand, modify .... the situation with appointed/elected gurus but since the whole thing began with a lie ---- nothing can work.
On the other hand -- the ritvik people believe that Prabhupada meant for the system to remain in place after his departure.
The other thing is that there was this big concern about the "problem with initiating new people." What problem? There was no problem. By the mercy of Krishna one gets guru and by the mercy of guru one gets Krishna. So what if no new initations would occur for some years or even decades. ISKCON could have nicely gone on with Srila Prabhupadas vani being there as siksha guru for everyone. Then -- perhaps eventually some one or more persons would emerge self-effulgent and fully qualified to take up the position of diksha guru. It would be a natural and spontaneous thing without need of elections or appointments. So upon Prabhupadas departure in November of 77 they decided that two plus two equals five and no matter how many times they go back to the drawing board -- until they rewind back to the original mistake the formula will never work. The sad thing is that Prabhupadas glorious ISKCON movement was and continues to be compromised by misunderstandings and misinterpretations of his instructions. Its amazing that despite all these problems and deviations, Prabhupadas books are so potent that people continue to be enlightened everywhere around the world every day.

A very good essay by Kripamoya P.:

http://deshika.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/two-ramas-two-gurus-and-a-false-dilemma/

Every guru in our disciplic succession can be seen as a "ritvik" of Krsna - accepting and initiating disciples on behalf of Sri Guru. There is no need to concoct a system where Sri Guru is replaced with another guru, however qualified that guru might be. Such a proposition does not solve anything. If one is unable to be a faithful "ritvik" of Sri Guru, he will not be a faithful "ritvik" of Srila Prabhupada either.

After 15 years of trying I still can not get a difference between the ritvik and guru. I think Tamal made it up.

PA_/\'f2_MHO

All glories to ISKCONs Founder-Acharya, ACBS - Srila Prabhupada!

I wrote a response, as a "rtvik" to answer your question, but my response far exceeded the length limit imposed by this site. I do not have the time to shorten it, and dont want to as it is a topic that cannot be explained in too few words. I posted my response on a website at:
www.rtvik.org/Rtvik-Nutshell.html .

aspiring to become your most worthy and humble servant
ameyatma das (das, anudas) (ACBSP)

you can attach a document to the post if needed, the website does not resolve

[p]I think this is the link he intended:
[url]http://www.rtvik.org/vault/overview.html[/url][/p]

[p]Alternatively, heres another page:
[url]http://www.iskconirm.com/sastric_b.htm[/url] with more here:
[url]http://www.iskconirm.com/[/url][/p]

...ritviks dont agree with the GBC rubber-stamping their god-brothers and themselves as " gurus , thats the basics.

The prominent keywords here would have 2 be "rubber-stamping Gurus" dont wanna say more that i can give props 2 Prubhu above, still, how many rubber stambs are given to the Gurus leaving...(ashrams,ect) one could see their point alibet a negitive one.... :-(
Hare Krsna.

ritvik means fanatic...thats all.

Both ritvik and GBC guru systems are non-traditional. Out of both, ritvik system was actually set in motion by Srila Prabhupada according to time and circumstances, so it has its place in time, while present GBC guru system doesnt have anything to do with Srila Prabhupadas instructions nor anything from the tradition.

Current GBCs system at first resembles traditional, but actually it is not. It is concocted because it promotes exclusivism of their gurus, and they try to position guru-disciple relationship within institutional power structure. GBC gurus themselves claim to be non-traditional gurus, institutional gurus, holding position within eclesiastical structure. This is non-traditional, and is much closer to other ecclesiastical church systems, like catholic church for example. Besides, their invented suspension periods for fallen gurus are just stupid - what are they thinking? Do they really think anybody with even half a brain will buy into their so-called "no-objection" appointment system, and just take it on their word that 100% all their gurus are really qualified to be gurus? Some may be fine, but some are not! Or even better, sometimes some are fine, but sometimes they just dont make it. Now, what kind of system is that? It is a joke!

Although Im not ritvik, and do not support ritvik ideas, if I was forced to choose between both, I must say I would feel a bit safer with ritvik version. Guess what, they are also devotees, Prabhupada followers, and why would one be doomed for taking shelter from them, just because they are not stamped by GBC. In sastra, when Krsna speaks of importance of taking shelter of more advanced devotee, in never see any mention of GBC or similar.

Where did GBC come from at all, with their ideas? At least ritviks can refer back to Srila Prabhupada, but GBCs just invented it, shamelessly, and they even attempt to force it down our throats, using force and threats.... Thats bullying, and one must be a bit stupid to go with this as it being "the only way".

There is too much witch-hunt going on regarding ritviks. It is just strange, and just too much reminds of Gaudiya Matha acaryas fighting for rooms in the temple. Only now they do not fight for rooms, but for temples. It is pathetic.

Anyway, both system are good attempts to exercise our free will, and act independently of Srila Prabhupada. Eventually natural movement will be towards what Srila Prabhupada said. Until then, we can have some fun, chew on it, and try to figure out which side of stool is better - the wet one or the dry one.

both systems try to capitalize on guruship, which is by definition a subjective matter when it comes to choice.

...I somewhat disagree with Mishra,the GBC make gurus because they think they have to,those devotees like to become gurus because now they will be set up for life,no more worries about how they will get money for travel,who will do their meanial choirs like laundry and stuff,always have plenty of firstclass prasadam and will always have a captive audience to hear them speak.
...the " ritviks" are upset because this is a totaly bogus and unauthorzed by scripture activity,no where does Prabhupada ever says the GBC has authority to rubber-stamp neophyte devotees as gurus.
...Ritvik method of initiation is practicial commom sense,its just no fun for neophyte Prabhupada disciples who want all the attention and a free ride on Prabhupadas back.

Kula-pavana prabhu, I did not know that about Wills, and if its true then indeed it has no value as the evidence that I thought.

Giri-nayaka prabhu, Concerning Srila Prabhupada changing his mind, it just makes sense to me. For example, he also planned to capture the attention of the intellectual class, but he instead got mostly hippies. Therefore when they proved to not be up to the caliber he had in mind for diksa guru, he instituted an automatic rtvik system instead. It just seems like history to me.

In any case I want to find out if there is any clear proof of Srila Prabhupada having authorized the termination of the rtvik system he created, as well as the authorization of the method that is being utilized today. Its just not plausible to say that he left it up to the GBC to handle initiations as they like. If Srila Prabhupada didnt authorize any successor gurus, then in my mind it brings into question the bona fides of the initiations. I almost wonder if I should get a rtvik initiation just to have my bases covered, considering that a whichever is not bona fide is simply meaningless, though it would have to be done in secret because the GBC is so adamantly against it. However, Im not very good at concealing my thoughts, which I guess may be obvious.

It would be quite astonishing if weve been depositing our mail in mailboxes that have not been authorized by the government, so to speak, but on the other hand it could explain why ISKCON went from an exploding spiritual movement to a virtually insignificant religious cult. Most people I meet these days have never heard of the "Hare Krishnas," and most of those who have know us because of past fraudulent activity. I recently read the appeal decision of a court case trying Kirtanananda, Tapah Punja, et. al., and the judge thought "sankirtan" meant "fund raising."

I guess I put that last comment in the wrong place. It follows this discussion:
[url]http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/598/1/if-one-accepts-srila-prabhupad-as-his-guru-is-there-a-need-of-intiationritvik/[/url]

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
In any case I want to find out if there is any clear proof of Srila Prabhupada having authorized the termination of the rtvik system he created, as well as the authorization of the method that is being utilized today. Its just not plausible to say that he left it up to the GBC to handle initiations as they like. If Srila Prabhupada didnt authorize any successor gurus, then in my mind it brings into question the bona fides of the initiations. I almost wonder if I should get a rtvik initiation just to have my bases covered, considering that a whichever is not bona fide is simply meaningless, though it would have to be done in secret because the GBC is so adamantly against it. However, Im not very good at concealing my thoughts, which I guess may be obvious.

It would be quite astonishing if weve been depositing our mail in mailboxes that have not been authorized by the government, so to speak, but on the other hand it could explain why ISKCON went from an exploding spiritual movement to a virtually insignificant religious cult. [/quote]

1. Termination of the ritvik system SP created during his presence

Regardless of what you think about the appointment tapes - in his books SP never mentions even the ritvik system he created, let alone any revolutionary system he supposedly planned to use after his passing. One can therefore assume that he had no intention of changing the system used in all Vaishnava sampradayas for thousands of years. Quite frankly such a change could possibly turn our line into an apasampradaya. An acharya simply cant nominate himself to be the diksa guru for all future generations in his line.

2. The current GBC approval of gurus in ISKCON

Srila Prabhupada envisioned his disciples qualifying to be gurus by passing advanced shastric examinations even in SPs presence. He expected it to happen in just a few short years. For one reason or another he never implemented that system. Yet he set a precedent for accepting someone as guru based on a somewhat arbitrary criteria. Does book knowledge alone qualify anyone to be a guru? I doubt that very much. The current GBC system is very similar in the sense of setting arbitrary criteria for the guru candidates. I dont think we can reject their system because it closely resembles in essence the system SP envisioned earlier.

3. Placing your mail in an authorized mailbox

Ultimately the authorization comes from Krsna. If you have verified that to the best of your knowledge your guru properly represents the authorized sampradaya of your choice - the rest is up to Krsna. Have faith in Him and you will be fine regardles of the quality of your guru. That is my very direct personal experience.

Kula-pavana,

1.You say that in Srila Prabhupaas books he never mentions the rtvik system, but what need is there for the "let alone"? He mentioned it neither in regard to before or after his mahasamadhi. Neither had been done before, but it is a plain fact that he created an "officiating acarya" system, which he agreed can also be called "rtvik acarya." In fact, there is it is not two things, but one thing. It is nonsense to admit that rtvik acarya system had never been done before, and say that therefore it cant continue post-samadhi. By the standard of a new thing being invalid, it was invalid when Srila Prabhupada created it.

It seems to me that he decided on this system sometime between May 28 and July 9, 1977, and at that time he was managing ISKCON via letters. Im simply looking for two things to justify the current system. A: Clear instruction to discontinue the rtvik system upon the occasion of his mahasamadhi; and B: Clear authorization of specific initiating gurus. To my thinking, statements like "I want all my disciples to become guru," is not authorization for anyone to conduct initiations, any more than "I want all my sons to become doctors," is permission to go out and practice medicine. One must become qualified and then authorized.

That does not mean there can never be another guru. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura did not authorize any new acaryas in the Gaudiya Matha, but on BSSTs order to preach, Srila Prabhupada left the Gaudiya Matha and started ISKCON, in which he was the self-effulgent acarya. It was quite successful, too, until the GBC cancelled Srila Prabhupadas orders concerning rtvik initiations and concocted their own methods.

Also, I do not feel comfortable with judging one acaryas methods of accepting initiation according to the practices of past acaryas. Kali yuga has been advancing, and the world has changed in many ways throughout history. An empowered acarya, being above material contamination, has freedom to manage things as he sees fit. Considering that he created a fully-automated rtvik system for initiaitons, when there is no record of anyone ever using the term "officiating acarya" before May 28, 1977, I dont see why he would have no right to continue this system after his mahasamadhi. He created it, although it was not sastric in the ordinary understanding, and he never said to stop it. I dont think this means it is meant to go on forever, to deny the next self-effulgent acarya the right to initiate disciples; but neither did he ever say it was to be stopped when he left his body; nor have I seen any convincing evidence that he actually authorized any of his disciples to give initiation. Of course, the reason this is an issue is that his disciples assuming the role of diksa guru has proven a fiasco.

(continued...)

2. Why he did not implement it is anyones guess, but he did not. He also envisioned his books turning many scholars into devotees, but instead hippies came. Regardless of what he wanted in the matter of his disciples becoming qualified, at least from what Ive seen he did not announce anyone having become qualified or authorized to accept disciples. He did say, "Caitanya Mahaprabhu wants that. Amara ajnaya guru hana. "You become guru." (laughs) But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower...(Tamala Krsna: Not rubber stamp.) Then youll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and "guru." What kind of guru? No publication, no preaching, simply bring some foodstuff..."

That appears exactly what we have now, at least in my area. Its all about pampering the "guru," but there is no preaching. Glorify the guru, but cheat the public, incur debts and dont pay. Anyone who questions is treated as a demon. Disciples are fighting with each other, and dirty politics is the rule. "Integrity is not a Vaishnava principle," or so Ive been told by one leader (who did not intend that as a criticism [I had said that integrity is the basis of Vaishanva etiquette]), and devotees are embarrassed to be known as Hare Krishna people. Most of the "brahmana" Vaishanvas who attend my local temple do not want the public to know of their Hare Krishna affiliation. Few men wear sikha, and almost no one applies tilak unless going to the temple. Our Sunday Feast is cancelled again this weekend, which means there will be no one there for kirtan, no B.g. class. Its safe to do because since there is no one preaching to the public, theres little chance of anyone showing up unannounced. As Srila Prabhupada said, '93You can cheat, but it will not be effective,'94 so I'92m seeing that the spread of Krishna consciousness is not being effective (barely even attempted), and therefore I suspect some cheating seem to be finding it.

3. It sounds like youre saying you dont need a bona fide guru. IMHO, the guru is meant to uplift us, not that we first of all have to be saints. A bona fide guru raises us up by his instruction and his mercy. If the guru is a cheater, those who come to him get cheated. If you go to a street salesman, your faith in God wont make the watch you bought into a real Rolex no matter how much you pay. I want to see his license from the Rolex company. It may be that because of my earnest desire for Krishna consciousness, Krishna is guiding me to insist on being allowed to reciprocate with Srila Prabhupada according to the arrangement that he ordered.

1. Prabhupada had no choice but to delegate initiations to his representatives. Movement was growing too fast and SP had so many things to do. Like I said earlier, Vedas allow non-standard solutions in times of emergency, even up to the point of eating cows when faced with starvation. That emergency situation is no loger there, so this ritvik system has no justification.

2. While some Iskcon gurus are clearly bogus, others are not. Let the prospective disciples decide. Such is life.

3. We need all kinds of gurus, both siksa and diksa. Gaudiya Vaishnavism elevated gurus to the level of superheroes. That has some advantages, but also carries serious risks. Im not sure that you can come up with a system which eliminates all the risk. Ultimately Sri Guru watches over all sincere seekers of Absolute truth. I know many devotees (myself included) who greatly benefited from the help received through not-so-perfect gurus. We are in good hands when we are sincere.

1. And what if he didnt feel any of his disciples were qualified to become diksa guru?
2. What if quesitonable gurus and their disciples dictate what happens at ones local temple?
3. It seemed to me that Srila Prabhupada came up with a system that eliminated the risk as much as possible, but his disciples cancelled it ASAP. If I got to pick between the system designed by Srila Prabhupada, and the one designed by the GBC, Id be a lot more inclined to trust what Srila Prabhupada had implemented.

Pandu Prabhu, above you are not talking of vaisnavism. Vaisnavism is culture of devotion to Krsna. What you are talking about is something completely different, perverted reflection of some kind, some institutional conditioning.....

You are struggling with some kind of institutionalized cheating religion. Srila Prabhupada defines cheating as attempt of conditioned soul to give impression of himself as being more advanced than he actually is. We are all sorry that Srila Prabhupadas movement is infected with cheaters, true. But if you are a bit sincere and introspective, you may find that we ourselves may be cheaters just fine. I know I have this in me, liking to pose as better than I really am - it is so inviting.... It is material disease, based on conditioned nature, and it will not go away without higher taste. Only liberated souls are free from this, and those are rare, very rare. ISKCON will never be cheating-free, due to its ghostyanandi mission of inviting everybody to join. It is not about how to clean it, it is about how to live with it.

So, cheaters and cheated, thats not vaisnavism. What cheaters do, is certainly disturbing, especially if we are on reciving end. But ISKCON is made of guys like you and me, and frankly, no wonder there are problems. :) Instead of being disturbed by cheaters, we should learn to recognize them, and avoid as necessary. This will also help us deal with our own cheating propensity - if nothing else, those attacked by us for their cheating, will get back on our case, and force us to see our own garbage, and thats wanted.

Are you sure, that if you just take diksa with ritviks, then you will be freed of cheating, and never again see any cheating arround you? I doubt ritviks can provide that for you. Actually, I doubt anybody can. Our expectations regarding diksa gurus are all screwed up. Thats due to our being raised in sectarian environment of artificial authorization of so-called divine (until suspension). We were brainwashed with idea, that our gurus are perfect divine. We spent years convincing ourselves into that. Now we want to see some proof of their divinity, and surely they have not much to show. So, we need not be misled that changing a camp will solve the problem.

Srila Prabhupada gave all information necessary for sincere soul to recognize cheaters, and avoid them. That information is freely available to us all. Nobody is forced to take shelter of cheaters. And we dont need temples, really, and especially not to go there and be cheated. But if one wants to be cheated by some persons posing as qualified gurus, or by others dictating what must go on in local temple, or by all different ideas being imposed upon him, the he can be cheated freely. There is plenty of choice how to be cheated. If you want to avoid cheaters, you can do so. But if you enjoy being cheated a bit, then why complain about it. It is your life, and your choice.

Ive been cheating myself for so long, so Im sure I deserve my situation; but Ive started trying hard to become a real devotee, and I just want a safe environment for this. I want to serve Krishna and bring others to devotional service, but I also want a safe environment for them too. It is so easy to get confused and mislead. Ive trusted for several years what Ive been told in ISKCON, but when I finally took a careful look at the evidence, felt like Id been tricked. I know I cant avoid the reactions to my karma, but also I thought initiation was supposed to relieve us of our sinful reactions. I felt nothing, except a little disappointment. Of course the only hope is to purify myself by trying to remember to Krishnas lotus feet. I just wish He would pick me up from this ocean of bewilderment and give me that shelter. Once when He was listening to me, I prayed for a joyful life; but I have no use for any so-called joyful life if I cannot remember Krishna and please him with pure devotional service. I have been forced to serve maya for far too long.

Oddly enough, just about a minute after I sent that last comment, I received a call on my cell phone from Bhaktimarga Swami.

I just want to thank the devotees here for helping me work through my issues. I dont want to offend anyone; I just want to serve Krishna, but I dont always know how to best do that.

Pandu Prabhu, humility works miracles. Krsna takes care of sincere soul. You are lucky. I wish one day I can be lucky as you are. Thank you for sharing your experiences - it was most inspiring. ys gnd

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]1. And what if he didnt feel any of his disciples were qualified to become diksa guru?
2. What if quesitonable gurus and their disciples dictate what happens at ones local temple?
3. It seemed to me that Srila Prabhupada came up with a system that eliminated the risk as much as possible, but his disciples cancelled it ASAP. If I got to pick between the system designed by Srila Prabhupada, and the one designed by the GBC, Id be a lot more inclined to trust what Srila Prabhupada had implemented.[/quote]

Pandu-ji,

1. Srila Prabhupada had a very soft heart for his disciples, even those who cheated and betrayed him repeatedly, like Kirtanananda. He still kept him in power and prestige, and put his name on the appointment list. If it was me - a cold hearted, unforgiving kshatriya - that guy would have been booted in 1970 at the latest. He gave sannyasa to people who in terms of their guna and karma were not even remotely qualified to be a decent grihastha - 90% of them fell down. That was the way he was: always optimistic, always hoping for the great things, always trusting the purificatory power of the holy name. Why would he not feel his disciples were qualified to ever be diksa gurus? That just make no sense at all!

2. If you run into a personality cult camp, you just have to stand your ground. Do not hesitate to speak out and question things your heart sees as crooked. The Lord is your shepard. These crooks and cultists can function only if devotees in general let them. In that way so called humility becomes cowardice.

3. Based on my research, SP did not have a fixed designed system he followed in every case. Because of various circumstances and emergencies he adopted different solutions at different times. If you are talking about shastric exams to become a guru as opposed to the current GBC system - it is actually what Prabhupada told them to do: add names to the list of initiating gurus as they (GBC) see fit - it is part of the appointment tape. Same with DOM. Srila Prabhupada did not always follow the directives of that document - we had a discussion about it on another thread here.

...Iskcons gurus are little more than " glorified Bhakta Leaders " I am sure thay are all very nice devotees,most of them probably even follow the four regs and chant16 rounds.But to whorship them like Prabhupada is just silly.One of them has so much free time on his hands He has been walking 4,000 kilometers back and forth Canada,from the pacific to the atlantic,if you read His comments you would think He is still trying to figure out what human life is for.

Prabhupadas ritvik system would have saved so many devotees from leaving ISKCON, but that would be no fun the devotees hankering for attention,fame and recognition just because they never blooped or fell down.

> Why would he not feel his disciples were qualified to ever be diksa gurus? That just make no sense at all!

Definitely. If we accept that SP was successful in so many ways, it makes no sense to assume he failed at making even one disciple qualified to be a guru. Indeed, an outright absurdity, imho.

Afaik, a sannyasa dharma is to travel (traditionally by walking) and preach. Didnt hear about any change in that respect. Or?

Exactly Veda, Prabhupada is not incapable of making gurus, not only he made some diksa-gurus, he even more importantly made good siksa-gurus, and in his own lifetime. That is the success of his mission! People who accept the deviation now called ritvikvada DO accept very strong SIKSA-GURUS, unfortunately these gurus they accept are not quite there, since they minimize both Prabhupada ability and need to follow his books.

Prabhupada is capable of making gurus, not just diksa-gurus.

Of course; thats why the ISKCON has practically taken over the world. Temples are packed and more are opening every day, the distribution of Srila Prabhupadas books is increasing exponentially, slaughterhouses are all closed, and everywhere cows are treated as everyones mothers. Pardon my sarcasm.

Ive just been looking for a clear statement from Srila Prabhupada announcing that one or more of his disciples has become qualified to be diksa guru and is therefore authorized to give initiation upon his mahasamadhi, but there doesnt seem to be any such thing; nor is there any statement giving a sunset date or any statement that his system of automatic rtvik initiations was to be stopped with his mahasamadhi.

Here is one quote I found interesting. It is taken from a book called, _Our Srila Prabhupada, a Friend to All: Early Contemporaries Remember Him_. Srila Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Maharaj is describing a conversation he had with Srila Prabhupada:

"Once I said to him, Maharaja, you should survive for ten more years."

"He answered, How can I survive? You see my pulse."

"I saw that his pulse was not moving. I said, Unless you stay, these Western disciples wont unite. They are strong-headed and they will fight. You must put them in line with our tradition. Previously I said, Maharaja, you have established some gurus, but Guru is one."

"He said, I have not selected. Only rtviks to act in my place now.

"I said, After your demise they will be gurus. Unless you bless a guru to sit on the vyasaasana, they must go down."

"He said, What to do? Everything is Krishnas will."

"Then after some time in Vrindavana he passed away."

I dont want to disturb or offend anyone. I just want to know what Srila Prabhupada wanted, so that I can serve him properly. That is why I am challenging a little, to find out why devotees accept what they do. I dont care if gurus give initiation if they think they have Srila Prabhupadas permission, but I do not believe the GBC has the right to prevent Srila Prabhupada from continuing to give initiation via the automatic rtvik method he created. I dont see why both systems cannot go on side by side, together, in the same society. It is absolutely pathetic and asinine that devotees treat each other as enemies. Maya is our enemy, and were in the thick of it; and even Maya is Krishnas pure devotee. Serious offenses are committed all around, and thus the world continues to be deprived of Krishna consciousness because we cannot give what we do not have. Kali yuga is making asses of us. If we cannot make ourselves humble enough to get along with each other, then we should be completely ashamed of ourselves. Its not Srila Prabhupadas job to force anyone to become a pure devotee, nor can we blame him for our failure to advance sufficiently. As far as Im concerned, the fighting between camps is trampling on Srila Prabhupadas good name and spoiling the spread of Krishna consciousness. If we cannot get along, it is not Srila Prabhupadas fault; its ours. We cannot blame our failures on him, and to say that he must have made qualified disciples does just that. If Im not a pure devotee, is it my gurus fault? No! He did not teach us to be enemies. Some devotees want continued automatic rtvik initiations by Srila Prabhupada, and some want gurus as is done now. Both have reasonable arguments supporting their views, and each can be given the benefit of the doubt. They are not mutually exclusive. I see no reason why both groups cannot be satisfied and cooperative, if the GBC would simply allow it. The first offense against the holy name of the Lord does not consider what camp the chanter of Hare Krishna is in when the aspiring devotee blasphemes him. It is time for devotees all around to embrace humility and each other, and to appreciate each others devotion to Srila Prabhupada and to Lord Caitanyas pleasure. Until we can do that, well never be Vaishnavas.

Hare Krishna.

The quote sounds like a typical deviant philosophy that is prevalent in the Gaudiya Math, ie that guru has to appoint an acharya, that was Puri maharaj did himself. Concept that Prabhupada never supported as we know.

Lets talk about real not imaginary conversations:

Prabhupuc0u257 da: Then, from Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, Nu257 rada. From Nu257 rada, Vyu257 sadeva. From Vyu257 sadeva to Madhvu257 cu257 rya, from Madhvu257 cu257 rya to u298 svara Puri, Mu257 dhavendra Puri, then Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu, then His disciples, the six Goswu257 mu299 s, then Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a du257 sa Kaviru257 ja, then Baladeva Vidyu257 bhu363 u7779 au7751 a. So we are taking account very rigidly from Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu, and I am the tenth generation from Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu.

Mohsin Hassan: Yeah, the tenth. After you, is it any decision has been made who will take over?

Prabhupu257 da: Yes. All of them will take over. These students, who are initiated from me, all of them will act as I am doing. Just like I have got many Godbrothers, they are all acting. Similarly, all these disciples which I am making, initiating, they are being trained to become future spiritual masters.

Mohsin Hassan: How many swamis do you initiated, American? Im speaking just on...

Prabhupu257 da: About ten.

Mohsin Hassan: You have ten swamis. And outside of swamis, whats the lower...

Prabhupu257 da: Now, theyre competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the gu7771 hasthas, they are called du257 sa adhiku257 ru299 , and brahmacu257 ru299 s, everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent.

Yes. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly made it clear, that ALL his disciples (including female disciples) will initiate in the future. Unfortunately, GBC doesnt like to hear that everyone, whoever is initiated, is competent to initiate disciples. Some ISKCON gurus already passed on (Gour Govinda Swami, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, Sridhar Swami, Tamal Krsna Goswami, Suhotra Swami...), and their practising disciples could initiate too, if they liked. Tradition has nothing against it. What to speak of Srila Prabhupadas disciples.

Ritviks have all the right to initiate disciples, just like anybody else who is initiated in vaisnava sampradaya, and is practising what acaryas revealed. Their only problem is that they try to make you Srila Prabhupadas DIKSA disciple. They are too fixated on diksa. Instead, they should be initiating as Srila Prabhupada instructed and empowered them, making their own diksa disciples, and then instruct and direct their diksa disciples towards Srila Prabhupada siksa. Everybody should be doing that, ritvik camp and GBC camp. Because, we are all Srila Prabhupadas siksa disciples anyway.

So he authorized rtvik initiations in a dual-signed letter issued to all the temples in the later half of 1977, but he authorized all his disciples to give initiation during an oral interview with a nondevotee in 1970? Even fallen disciples can initiate, apparently. Even those who just joined in 1977 and caught the tail end of his rtvik initiations were authorized to become diksa gurus immediately upon Srila Prabhupadas mahasamadhi? Can you forgive me for finding this argument a little weak?

Srila Prabhupada authorized automatic rtvik initiations without his active involvement, which he could certainly do although apparently had never been done before, and he mentioned no circumstance for it to end, nor was there any reason why it had to end. Some devotees object to the presumption that he wanted it to end. Many of these devotees are Srila Prabhupadas disciples, whom Srila Prabhupada apparently (according to some devotees understanding) authorized as spiritual masters, yet they are banned from giving class, leading kirtans, even entering ISKCON property, and ISKCON has recently taken legal means to shut them out. On one hand its said that Srila Prabhupada authorized them as gurus, and on the other hand theyre treated as enemies, worse than nondevotees. I find this very crooked politics.

Its also not fair to accuse the rtviks of emphasizing diksa and not siksa, when in fact they emphasize Srila Prabhupadas siksa to the utmost, while some ISKCON diksa gurus emphasize their own siksa more than Srila Prabhupadas. If diksa is of so little importance, the rtvik proponents should not be treated as enemies simply for their genuine belief that Srila Prabhupada wanted his initiations to continue. If Srila Prabhupadas disciples are convinced that they are authorized to give diksa, then I dont see why both systems, both groups, cannot work side by side within ISKCON.

Hare Krishna.

...Pandu has made some good points.The reason why the two groups cannot work side by side is because that would be like the GBC admiting they are wrong,something you will never see,besides that the GBC is 100 % disfunctional anyways,

hariharibol: Which other parts of the world did you recently (or ever) visited? The criticism here is mainly focused on US.
From my experience, I never saw a ritvik admitting a mistake. Theyre very much like JWs.

...within Iskcon we havent heard any thing from " ritviks " period,all such disccusions are banned by the GBC,even though Prabhupada uses the term ritvik many times in His books.I think the critism is based world-wide.please tell us which gurus are bonified and why.I am not sure how the number of stamps in my passport have anything to with anything,most of us rely on the internet and reports from devotess such as your self.

Pandu seems on the trip of accommodating both systems, disregarding the fact that one of them is contradicting the other. Funny. Yeap hariharibol is out of touch with the world where ritvik paranoya is absent (it is the bigger and better part)

GBCs repeatedly and many times have admitted if they were wrong and when they were wrong. Too many times as we know. If ritvitk system is wrong they would admit it too, many times and without anyone who has some knowledge of sastra or tradition supporting it. Even if some members of GBC as we know support this system in principle, just because Prabhupada started it during his lifetime, it does not make it right to assume it may ever be a bona fide system, sectarian system if you ask me. We know that in 1999 there was a danger of it being accepted by BBC but since not a single trace of it being bona-fide or sastric was produced, it was put down.

Yes, Pandu seems to have a problem with what Srila Prabhupada said, taking about disobedient, and rather prefer what TKG wrote and got Prabhupada to countersign, obviously without any motivation...hm. Troublemakers unite! However all Prabhupadas disciples are authorized to take on disciples, this is the parampara system, if GBC does not allow them to take disciples in ISKCON they should do it outside of ISKCON, but they can not disregard Prabhupadas order that he repeated many times, they all are to be gurus if they are disciples. I respect grand disciples of Prabhupada also being gurus, as I understand they may inspire some, but I hope the desire to accept them is not to become great grand disciples.

There is difference between a guru and an acharya. For example BH Bon Maharaj was authorized to take on his own disciples during BSST presence. He remained to be a diksa guru after his departure. He however refused to become an acharya of the math. One disicple wrote to Prabhupada a letter asking if Bon was authorized, did not like the notion and said that it is not so, he, Prabhupada, is authorized by Krishna! This is the authorization one needs, the only one. To initiate during gurus presence is different and is not normally done without a special permission. One can not appoint a guru, guru is a relaitonship-depended position, not a position of an appointment.

Its true that you will never meet a ritvik admit a mistake, but there are cases when devotees turn to a true process of initiation after a fake one following ritvikvada mistakes.

Within iskcon we hear a lot about ritviks, mainly 3 out of 6 different groups. Some groups are completely out of shape without even following ekadasis etc. some are very much as iskcon, when the temple president or whoever is effectively a charismatic leader (hey he is the guru just does not use the name) and there most of the things are almost fine, bar initiation being invalid. the weirdest sect of ritiviks is one that accepts one guru as the ritvik acharya. there is way too much attention is given to ritvikvada these days, considering the number of splits among them and the low standard in the most of temples that are controlled by them, specifically in usa.

..." Within iskcon we hear a lot about ritviks "...yes but this is not official or even allowed,its only on the " they say this...they say that " platform.The crux of the problem is the GBC,they sre making gurus,they made Bhaktipada,Ramesvara,Hamsadutta etc. etc. gurus,not Srila Prabhupada,the GBC made fake gurus like Jagdisha Maharaja and Vipramukhay Swami a guru,not Srila Prabhupada.The GBC has no authority to make gurus,thay are simple to see that everything at the temples is going on nicely,thats all.

" Pandu seems on the trip of accommodating both systems " this is an excellant idea,what is the difficulty,have a fire sacrifice,give them their beads and a name and let them be happy.To accept a guru in todays Iskcon is like a crap shoot ( gambling ) will my guru fall down or not ?

The whole idea is to get as many humans chanting Hare Krishna and serving Prabhupadas mission,whats with this concotion of flying in the guru from some other part of the world to do initiations for devotees he has never even seen before ?

CCD,
I just think that devotees who accept Srila Prabhupadas teachings should be considered members of ISKCON so that we can work together to advance our common goal. Whats so funny about that? Also that no aspiring devotees of Krishna should be considered enemies, even if we disagree about how some instructions should be understood. Do you think Krishna is pleased to see His devotees fighting amongst themselves?

Im trying to find a way for peaceful relations between devotees, but your accusing me of "having a problem with what Srila Prabhupada said" is not only false, but extremely offensive. I dont see how we can have a discussion if its going to turn like that.

Hare Krishna.

"I just think that devotees who accept Srila Prabhupadas teachings should be considered members of ISKCON so that we can work together to advance our common goal. Whats so funny about that?" I understand that its a good idea to have a peaceful solution, but you should keep in mind, that there is more infighting between different ritvik groups then can possibly be sustained in one organization.

I was not offensive, I just being straight, why do you have a problem with his own words?

Now, theyre competent. They can, not only the swamis, even the guc0u7771 hasthas, they are called du257 sa adhiku257 ru299 , and brahmacu257 ru299 s, everyone can, whoever is initiated, he is competent to make disciples. But as a matter of etiquette they do not do so in the presence of their spiritual master. This is the etiquette. Otherwise, they are competent.

Do you think he was wrong or was not telling the truth? That is an offensive attitude and I think you did not mean what you have said... I am sure you agree with him.

Hh: "Within iskcon we hear a lot about ritviks "...yes but this is not official or even allowed,its only on the " they say this...they say that " platform." - No, official devotees visited the temples run by different schismatic groups and reported.

> Prabhupada uses the term ritvik many times in His books.

Only in reference to yajnic priests.

> I think the critism is based world-wide.

You think wrongly.

> please tell us which gurus are bonified and why.

See Krishna Bhajanamrta. Elaborately quoted here by Sitapati P.

Happiness in being post-samadhi ritvik initiated is just an ignorance of the situation which involves guru-sadhu-sastra aparadha.

Imho, if Vaisnavas from other sampradayas would learn how much time is spent in ISKCON discussing this non-issue, wed lose a lot of credibility.

exactly. ive been following this discussion, but didnt want to get involved--again. its been chewed out so often...

nowhere in his books, conversations, or letters does srila prabhupada refer to post-samadhi ritvik initiations. all arguments to that end have been constructed, like "he said this, so he means that, and because this is like it is, it cant be otherwise."

post samadhi ritvic initiation would be a completely new phenomenon in any vedic sampradaya. IF prabhupada had wanted to introduce this into ISKCON, you can bet hed have explained it in exact detail, giving his reasons and instructions how to do it.

he changed the no. of rounds for initiates to chant, he accepted women brahmacaris and let them live in the temple. he changed a lot of things, and always explained them.

post samadhi ritvic just doesnt make any sense; neither from srila prabhupadas books, nor from what i consider sane, common sense: if i can take initiation from prabhupada today, whos going to stop me from becoming a disciple of bhaktivinoda thakura, or even lord brahma? (after all, if i meditate long enough on the brahma-samhita, i may convince myself that hes talking to me...)

its a different issue, as pandu prabhu says, that devotees can _not_ take initiation today, develop faith in srila prabhupada through his books, recordings, etc., and make progress in devotional service--even up to the point of prema, i believe.

these devotees would be siksa, but not diksa disciples of srila prabhupada. and even if standard vaisnava procedures demand one takes diksa initiation, i believe srila prabhupada would be able, if the devotee in question develops real faith and follows his instructions, to take that devotee back to godhead. personally i dont have any doubt about that.

thats what i would recommend to anybody who doesnt find a devotee today he has enough faith in to accept diksa from. but PLEASE stay away from this ritvic nonsense; its a sure road to spiritual death--because its directly against all instructions from all vaisnava acaryas, including srila prabhupada.

...what can and cannot be done is not for any living person today to say.Krishna can change the rules at any time.Lord Chaitanya can change the rules at anytime,it is no ones business to decide whom Krishna will hear or not hear.

...I say trick the masses into chanting Hare Krishna and giving up cow slaughter by telling them ... " you are now a follower of Srila Prabhupada " so chant and be happy.

Can someone show me in Prabhupadas books where a group of neophytes decided how the disciplic succesion would continue ?

no, exactly. thats why the disciplic succession must continued as it always has: from guru to disciple. and to enter into this guru-disciple relationship, both have to be living. anything else would be a change to how the disciplic succession works.

even the GBC cant change that. they (GBC) can regulate how devotees, even gurus, inside the institution ISKCON have to act, in order to be considered members of that institution. any disciple of prabhupada, or any devotee whos guru isnt physically alive anymore, or who gives him permission to do so, can go outside ISKCON and initiate whomever they want. that may be against the rules of ISKCON, but not against the system of parampara.

and neither can a group of people who think they follow prabhupada decide that the parampara system has to be changed, because they dont think the current gurus are any good, or they dont like how ISKCON treated them. (never mind how valid or not these claims are.)

..." anything else would be a change to how the disciplic succession works." this is your speculation only,anything can change at any time,we must do the neccesary,according to time place and circumstance,Prabhupada initiated women,wasnt He criticised for doing that?

..." if Vaisnavas from other sampradayas would learn how much time is spent in ISKCON discussing this non-issue, wed lose a lot of credibility",so how is Iskcons credibility doing in the UK these days,the media there has just reported that Bhaktivedanta Manors Temple President had to step down because has been convicted of being a horrific child-abuser and compulsive liar who has been bilking that temple out of hundreds of thousands of dollars,if he did those things to childern in the US he would be breaking large rocks into little rocks for the next 10 years.

...and here im getting out of this discussion again. just isnt worth my time.

"Prabhupada initiated women,wasnt He criticised for doing that?" - I think it is safe to say that we are talking with the blank wall of ignorance here, clearly... I am also out of here...

No, theres a limit what can change. Initiating women, etc. are minor issues in comparison with ending parampara. That could be only done by SPs direct forbiding all his disciples to become gurus. The above absurdity again.

Failures of individuals cant equal failures of system/doctrine (apasampradaya).

Phani, I second you. Theres nothing else to say which wasnt already said. Who couldnt (didnt want to) understand so far, seemingly cant be helped.

[quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]... this is your speculation only,anything can change at any time,we must do the neccesary,according to time place and circumstance,Prabhupada initiated women,wasnt He criticised for doing that?

(....) so how is Iskcons credibility doing in the UK these days,the media there has just reported that Bhaktivedanta Manors Temple President had to step down because has been convicted of being a horrific child-abuser and compulsive liar who has been bilking that temple out of hundreds of thousands of dollars,if he did those things to childern in the US he would be breaking large rocks into little rocks for the next 10 years.[/quote]

I am not aware of anybody criticizing Prabhupada for initiating women. In our traditon women were always eligible for initiation. Some of his Godbrothers were surprised he gave the Brahma-Gayatri mantra to women, thats all. Lets not make mountains out of mole-hills.

I am definitely not someone who is a GBC cheerleader willing to defend their often very poor track record, but I can tell you for example, that there were extremely serious scandals in Prabhupadas times as well, involving people he personally selected for various positions. Have you ever heard of problems with scam fundraising in Japan during those years for example? That is where most money for the Mayapur project came from back then. If not, someone older should clue you in. How about Kirtanananda? Was GBC responsible for that too? People are fallible, regardless of who appoints them, that is a fact.

IMO damage to credibility of ISKCON happens time and time again because of the way this organization was, and still is, managed. The authoritarian, top down management system, with minimal provisions for accountablility, checks and balances, and reliable oversight, produced most of the scandals in the last 40 years of Iskcons history. People are fallible, but unimpeded power can be very corrupting even to the good individuals.

In Prabhupadas times there were even sannyasis who run off with suitcases full of money. Did Prabhupada send police after them? No. For one reason or another he did not. Srila Prabhupada did not like the western management systems and was always trusting his disciples and hoping they would do the right thing. When they did not do the right thing, was Srila Prabhupada to blame? How about now? Is GBC responsible for some crooked TP? If it is, than such responsibility is very indirect, perhaps as a failure of oversight.

The ritviks try to convince you that their system would have prevented all such abuses. That is nothing more than an empty politicians promise: "Give me the power and I will make things right". They are clueless as to the reasons for such problems, and their solutions are not much better. Somehow the ritvik gurus would have been just and noble, humble and wise, and the ritvik managers and TPs would have used the perfect methods and models Prabhupada supposedly developed and applied in the 70s... what a hopeless fairytale...

CCD,
In this 1970 conversation he was speaking in general terms to a nondisciple. In 1977 he specified to his disciples how it would be done. His disciples, acting as rtviks, would "make disciples" on his behalf. Or, if you insist that he meant making their own disciples when speaking in this 1970 conversation, is it your view that Srila Prabhupada did not have the right to change his mind later? Considering that the July 9 letter was a written announcement to all the temples, why wouldnt he have appointed any diksa gurus in writing as well, or at least included a sunset clause in the letter?

Honestly, if you were a new bhakta in recent times, would you feel comfortable taking initiation from ANY of Srila Prabhupadas disciples? Didnt some prove to have little faith, at least? Some perhaps a little crazy? Would you really take the orders of any of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as your life and soul?

Phani Prabhu, Hare Krishna.

>'93nowhere in his books, conversations, or letters does srila prabhupada refer to post-samadhi ritvik initiations.'94

He established a fully-automated rtvik initiation process. Where, in his books, conversations, or letters, did he ever say that it should be stopped post-samadhi?

>'93post samadhi ritvic initiation would be a completely new phenomenon in any vedic Sampradaya'94

'85 As would pre-samadhi rtvik initiations, which Srila Prabhupada instituted.

>'93if i can take initiation from prabhupada today, whos going to stop me from becoming a disciple of bhaktivinoda thakura, or even lord brahma?'94

Srila Prabhupada instituted it; the others did not.

>'93its a different issue, as pandu prabhu says, that devotees can _not_ take initiation today, develop faith in srila prabhupada through his books, recordings, etc., and make progress in devotional service--even up to the point of prema, i believe.'94

Perhaps someone else said that.

>'93guru to disciple. and to enter into this guru-disciple relationship, both have to be living.'94

Rtvik is also guru to disciple. So your view is based on the idea that Srila Prabhupada is his material body, and that he is therefore dead?

>'93people who think they follow prabhupada decide that the parampara system has to be changed,'94

It was the GBC who changed the system that Srila Prabhupada established shortly before his mahasamadhi. Where did he say it was to be stopped?

>'93> please tell us which gurus are bonified and why.
>See Krishna Bhajanamrta. Elaborately quoted here by Sitapati P.'94

I thought he was asking for your judgment. If you don'92t think we can properly understand Srila Prabhupada'92s instructions, how can we understand Krishna Bhajanamrta?

>'93...and here im getting out of this discussion again. just isnt worth my time.'94

Its worth your time to speak your mind, but not to hear the response?

"The ritviks try to convince you that their system would have prevented all such abuses."

First of all, Im not sure whether Im being called a "rtvik" here. I only started looking into the evidence related to this about two weeks ago after hearing our local GBC say that the new North American bylaws were meant to defend ISKCON temples from its enemies, the rtviks and Narayana Maharaja disciples. I have a regular ISKCON-approved initiation, though after looking into the rtvik arguments I cannot help but wonder if its truly bona fide; and in fact Ive wondered the same even before seriously considering the rtvik arguments. I have not made any final conclusion in this matter, and am arguing the rtvik points to try to bring out what the devotees here feel are the best arguments against it. So far theyre not looking that good, and devotees are bailing out, apparently unable to offer much to justify their position. Its unfortunate, because Id rather they could convince me of the validity of their position, but it doesnt count if dont give a good effort to hold up my side of it.

In the matter of whether the rtvik method would have prevented many of the problems ISKCON has seen, in fact I think it would have prevented many, but of course not all. Also some different problems would have undoubtedly manifiested, though I cant speculate on what they wouldve been. The trouble is that were a group of aspiring devotees, not pure devotees, so we would have our mistakes and misuse of free will. My view is that I dont feel completely comfortable accepting the orders of an aspiring devotee as my life and soul. Its challenging enough for me to continuously try to improve on my following of Srila Prabhupadas teachings, without relying on another aspiring devotees ability to translate those teachings into orders for me.

pandu: "Its worth your time to speak your mind, but not to hear the response?"

yes. ive listened to this discussion for a long time and heard all the responses. theres nothing new being said.

i spoke my mind mainly because of you, pandu prabhu. ive got the impression that you are a serious devotee, badly fried by unfortunate circumstances and, to say it mildly, over-zealous followers of one charismatic guru.

youre really trying to understand these issues, to make sense of your experiences and srila prabhupadas instructions. the other participants in this discussion, on both sides, already know what theyre going to believe, and nothing anybody says can change that.

once again: srila prabhupada never instituted a posthumous ritvic system. he was bodily alive while accepting disciples, and that has always been the case as long as our sampradaya exists.

that the process apparently was fully automatic at some time means that srila prabhupada trusted those he delegated the decision to to approve of new disciples or not.

had he desired to introduce a new system like posthumous initiation, he would have spelled that out very clearly. everything else is wishful thinking and concoction.

im sorry if that sounds harsh, but i cant understand how there can be the slightest doubt about this in the mind of anybody whos read at least some of srila prabhupadas books.

youre getting entangled in technicalities and word jugglery. it was never srila prabhupadas way to hide important procedures about how devotional service should be conducted behind riddles and half-spoken instructions that have to be interpreted in artistic ways to understand what he wanted to say.

he made it very clear, for anybody with at least half a brain to understand, what needs to be done.

and now im gone for good...

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] I only started looking into the evidence related to this about two weeks ago after hearing our local GBC say that the new North American bylaws were meant to defend ISKCON temples from its enemies, the rtviks and Narayana Maharaja disciples. (....) The trouble is that were a group of aspiring devotees, not pure devotees, so we would have our mistakes and misuse of free will. My view is that I dont feel completely comfortable accepting the orders of an aspiring devotee as my life and soul. Its challenging enough for me to continuously try to improve on my following of Srila Prabhupadas teachings, without relying on another aspiring devotees ability to translate those teachings into orders for me.[/quote]

I am all for looking very closely at things that affect our lives. There is no harm in discussing such matters in a respectable and rational way. I see the pro-GBC devotees raising the issue of the need to "defend ISKCON temples from its enemies, the rtviks and Narayana Maharaja disciples" to simply distract rank and file devotees from the real problems facing ISKCON - an inept and inefficient leadership.

I do not consider you to be a ritvik. But I know quite a few of the people who peddle that doctrine to devotees like you: those who see the present ISKCON faults and are looking for solutions.

Very few people adopt ritvikvada because it makes sense as a doctrine - they adopt it as a presumable solution to Iskcons problems. No more fallible gurus, we are all disciples of one super-guru, Srila Prabhupada. All the bad things that happened to Iskcon are the result of a failure to implement the ritvik system Prabhupada intended for us. Failure to follow the guru... blah, blah, blah... Forget the facts, forget the tradition, forget the philosophy - we have our marching orders for the next 10,000 years!!! Jay Prabhupada!!!

Prabhu, it is a total scam. Prabhupadas teachings are in the books for all to read. In the seventies there were very few people who got orders directly from Srila Prabhupada. Most got orders from his very immature disciples. The ritviks simply want to replace the current imperfect leaders with themselves. Instead of getting marching orders from people like Satsvarupa, you will be getting orders from people like Hansadutta or Krishna-kant. What a great improvement!!

Instead, you should learn to think for yourself, and study Prabhupadas teachings thoroughly so you can figure out how to apply them in your devotional life. That is real maturity. There is no shortcut to it, ritvik or otherwise.

Dear Phani prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Thanks for your input. I, however, havent heard it all, and am still trying to digest some of what Ive heard. Aside from the arguments from the various sides, there is the persistent fact that I feel a very close connection with Srila Prabhupada and that it is undoubtedly he who planted the seed of Krishna consciousness in my heart. It was very difficult to choose one of his disciples from the guru list. Reading the purports in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta describing how the initiation process works in ISKCON, there was no mention of this part of the process. I felt like I already had a guru and was being forced to choose another one, when in fact my faith in the second was entirely dependent on the first. It feels very unnatural to me and does not inspire me in devotional service. Its only purpose is/was to allow me to serve in ISKCON. I just wish I could drop the pretenses and admit who is the guru in my heart.

....Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu,The Six Goswamis of Vrindavana,Krsnadasa Kaviraj Goswami,Narottama Dasa Thakura,Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura,Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana,Jagannatha Dasa Babaji,Bhaktivinoda Thakura,Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji,Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura,A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
...and introducing Kratu das and Bhaktimarga Swami....:)....wow ! and some devotees believe that ?

"wow ! and some devotees believe that ?" - no nobody believed you, except for Pandu, try again at home first. We do not deify diksa gurus, they are servants of the acharya, the founder acharya.

CCD,

Hare Krishna. Glad youre back. I was hoping you would respond to this set of questions, which I ask based on your emphasis of the quote you offered at the top of this page (comment 51):

"Honestly, if you were a new bhakta in recent times, would you feel comfortable taking initiation from ANY of Srila Prabhupadas disciples? Didnt some prove to have little faith, at least? Some perhaps a little crazy? Would you really take the orders of any of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as your life and soul?"

Pandu prabhu, obeisance at your feet. All glories to Prabhupada.
"We accept that which is favorable to our Krsna consciousness and reject that which is not". If forced acceptance of a "bona-fide, "ISKCON" guru is an impediment to your spiritual well being, which is quite obvious, then the only wise choice is to reject. Because everything takes place in the heart, and you have these strong feelings regarding Srila Prabhupada in your heart, then use the intelligence Krsna gave you and leave it at that. Do what Prabhupada is revealing to you in your heart. Dont let outside forces from any "camp" persuade you otherwise. You sound like a sincere devotee Pandu prabhu. Follow your heart regarding this matter.
ccd; Yes Bubba, let us poke fun at, and joke about the spiritual lives of sincere devotees who obviously need some answers and sincere direction. Good job. But for one who lacks in sincerity, it is impossible for him to project any sincerity. Therefore, what you say is right on the money as usual.

Priya, if you know me, I never project anything on anyone. You notion of cutting out essential limbs of bhakti due to it being unfavorable is laughable. So why not laugh at it?

Pandu: "Honestly, if you were a new bhakta in recent times, would you feel comfortable taking initiation from ANY of Srila Prabhupadas disciples? Didnt some prove to have little faith, at least? Some perhaps a little crazy? Would you really take the orders of any of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as your life and soul?"

I feel if I was a young bhakta I would have the same amount of my sukrity and I would be lucky to have good association, where whatever little faith I have will be nurtured.

I have to be very honest with you and I never take anyones mundane words as life and soul but I take solace in other peoples words, I never tried to be a fanatic and any fanatical attitude to a guru is strongly discouraged by me.

If they have at least a little faith you can overcome so many things, if you are not a fanatic. I prefer talking to devotees who have problems or doubts rather then fanatics. It makes me feel sane insted. The only reason I may not feel comfortable in taking initiation from ANY, because of my own problems or weaknesses or if I was not lucky enough to end up in the company of devotees who are a funny combination of fanatics and perpetual critics, the two camps we are talking about claiming to follow Prabhupada, not a good choice if you ask me.

ccd; Exactly what essentials are you speaking about? You can laugh about any "notions" I have all you want. But, you were laughing and joking about Pandus understanding, or the lack thereof regarding the issue at hand. Thats what my comment was addressing.

ccd, accepting GBC certified guru, and upon his request seeing some others devotees as enemies is far from "essential limbs of bhakti". Id also say to Pandu "follow your heart". If he sees ritviks as solution to his dilemma, then ok, let him go for it, and try. I bet he will burn his fingers, and will not find there what he is looking for, but thats my vision. He may need to try it out, to be able to differenitate more between internals and externals of our path. I also have hard time grasping internal path, without putting it in some perspective relative to externals. We all have our conditioning to deal with, so why not try alternatives, and learn?

Biri-nayaka das; Well put. This is the point ccd, offer encouragement to those who need it, instead of writing it off as a joke due to an individuals lack of understanding or whatever his case may be. Thats all.

I think Giri N is on the trip against anything connected with GBC, as if there is no God and he is not in control. As if Prabhupada has nothing to do with it.

One should not see other devotees on ones enemies, just as appropriately - fanatics, ritviks, friends etc. Why would you hate anyone who deserves a laugh? The idea that apasampradaya can live peacefully with the sampradaya in one institution is well intended stupidity, there is nothing to hate, except for ignorance.

Mostly I dont see why both groups cannot work together within ISKCON. It shouldnt have to be a matter of going to one group or another. Are we not all trying to serve Srila Prabhupada, chanting Hare Krishna? How stupid is it to fight as enemies over which version of Srila Prabhupadas books is distributed? Im happy to read and distribute either set. The recipient of either set of books is going to advance in Krishna consciousness by reading them. Srila Prabhupada said there is no politics in Krishna consciousness; so why are there so many opposing parties?

As for myself, I happened to buy a 1983 printing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from a used bookstore, and I experienced more genuine Krishna consciousness in my first week with it, long before I ever met a devotee, than I have in the 13 years following. Because of that initial experience ('93initiation?'94), I developed a very strong attachment to Srila Prabhupada. I feel that it is wrong for me to have to make a choice between strengthening my bond with Srila Prabhupada and maintaining good relations with devotees in ISKCON.

Other devotees have a different story. Many developed faith in Krishna consciousness through the preaching and association of Srila Prabhupadas disciples and feel a strong bond with them. That seems to be the situation with Bhakti-Tirtha Swamis disciples at Gita-nagari. They love Srila Prabhupada through Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. If I wanted to take that away from them, I would indeed be like an enemy. But I dont. I just want a place in ISKCON for aspiring devotees such as myself who feel a strong bond with Srila Prabhupada directly, but who did not have the opportunity to receive diksa from him when he was walking on this Earth. If Krishna consciousness is natural, we should be permitted and even encouraged to take the path back to Krishna that is most natural for each of us as individuals. Hare Krishna.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think Giri N is on the trip against anything connected with GBC, as if there is no God and he is not in control. As if Prabhupada has nothing to do with it.

One should not see other devotees on ones enemies, just as appropriately - fanatics, ritviks, friends etc. Why would you hate anyone who deserves a laugh? The idea that apasampradaya can live peacefully with the sampradaya in one institution is well intended stupidity, there is nothing to hate, except for ignorance.[/quote]

CCD, A few more questions, if its OK. Im trying zone in on the corner youre painting yourself into...
[p]Is God only in control of the establishment, not the challengers?[/p]
[p]When the Zonal Acarya system was the rule, did you consider that "sampradaya" too?[/p]
[p]Can the GBC only be wrong when THEY decide theyre wrong?[/p]

Hare Krishna.

I think ccd is on a fault finding trip, he somehow manages to turn everything towards a negative direction which is self evident in the last seven comments. I also think it most unfortunate to witness a "seemingly" intelligent person who at least aspires to be God conscious, act in this way.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Other devotees have a different story. Many developed faith in Krishna consciousness through the preaching and association of Srila Prabhupadas disciples and feel a strong bond with them. That seems to be the situation with Bhakti-Tirtha Swamis disciples at Gita-nagari. They love Srila Prabhupada through Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. If I wanted to take that away from them, I would indeed be like an enemy. But I dont. [/quote]

Problem is that most ritvik proponents are quite happy trying to destroy the faith of such people in their guru. It is defacto their main mission. And that is why the ritviks are usually seen as the enemy by the current gurus and their disciples. For most ritviks current gurus are just a bunch of cheaters and their disciples are a bunch of naive fools who should only have faith in Prabhupada.

I respect other peoples opinions - but only to the point where their opinions are not offensive to other Vaishnavas, be it current Iskcon gurus, Prabhupadas Godbrothers, Gaudiya Matha devotees, or any other Vaishnava camp. They can believe in the ritvik system if they like, as long as they act like real Vaishnavas.

There is no difference shastrically between zonal achyarya system, acharya system of Gaudia maths, guru system of early Vaishnava institutions of 16-17th century and the current ISKCON system. The only difference that the title and positions of acharyas are not distributed no more and there are no zones, as they are supposed to be self effulgent. Anyone can be wrong, its good to admit it, but ritviks, they want to be forever-right, thus removing the element of the faith in the living guru. This element is essential for self purification. Talking about purification: there are disciples who think themselves guruchiters, that could be a sign that they will see all living devotees in the same light, but the fault is in the eyes of the beholder:-)

I would rather consider every single devotee who follows all angas of bhakti as my guru, then to consider that process of bhakti is not powerful enough, or that Prabhupada is not potent enough to make gurus, or that devotees who follow the angas of bhakti are not under direct control of the Lord.

I dont doubt that Krishna is in control and that Srila Prabhupada is easily potent enough to make gurus, but doesnt it also depend on the disciples free will? The actual important question isnt about the gurus or so-called gurus purity and attachment to devotional service, but of mine.

Assuming that Srila Prabhupada was satisfied with his disciples progress and considered them gurus in their own right... Ive taken initiation from such a guru. Why, then, do I remain in the bodily conception of life, unable to subdue my desire to enjoy these material senses? Why can I not remember Krishna even after meeting Him in this lifetime? Why do I have virtually no potency to attract others to Krishna consciousness?

I ask this not only due to my own lamentation, but as a matter of logic. If the qualification of the current gurus was simply a due to Srila Prabhupadas potency, then my own spiritual development should also be a entirely dependent on my gurus potency. If I can remain fallen despite haveing a bona fide guru, then the advancement of the current gurus can also be questionable. Since my personal faults and virtues seem to play a very significant role in my spiritual advancement, not just my gurus potency, then it would seem that the same would be true of my gurus relationship with Srila Prabhupada. Thus, the qualification of the current gurus would not be simply a matter of Srila Prabhupadas potency to make gurus. In fact, Ive been told that the mercy of the guru on the granddisciple is greater than on the disciple. Yet, when all the factors are added up, the result is that I somehow remain bereft of Krishna consciousness. That is the problem I need to solve.

Considering all this, it seems that spiritual advancement is not just due to the gurus potency, but also due to the disciples service to the guru. This brings us back to the question of how purely the current gurus are serving Srila Prabhupada. It may be that they retain some material interest, and if I surrender to such a contaminated guru, whether aware of their impurity or not, it will be a long road back to Godhead. I have no such doubt about Srila Prabhupada.

I think Pandu you put it very nicely. Free will is the root of the love and bhakti. These thoughts in relation to guru and ones purity are essential and are related to the essence of personal relationships. Devotees were puzzled when Ananta Vasudeva, (later Puri Maharaja and then again Ananta Vasudeva) became a retired acharya, after being married. This is the reason Srila Prabhupada was co different from other of his godbrothers, he did not leave an acharya, just as his guru did not as well. He left it in the hands of Krishna. We do not know his plan, but we know how to follow it. Guru is not a deity, its a person that represents parampara, a real person, to be diksa guru one needs to be a disciple, Adhikari, nothing more nothing less and according to shastra; shastra also states that one should not take too many disciples, of one may fall down, its also part of the evidence that shastra is right and guru is human, not God. Do not make Prabhupada into God, the worst thing to do. Its better to follow his instructions and make mistakes then to invent new apasampradaya and to deify him in it.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Considering all this, it seems that spiritual advancement is not just due to the gurus potency, but also due to the disciples service to the guru. This brings us back to the question of how purely the current gurus are serving Srila Prabhupada. It may be that they retain some material interest, and if I surrender to such a contaminated guru, whether aware of their impurity or not, it will be a long road back to Godhead. I have no such doubt about Srila Prabhupada.[/quote]

Do you think that if you do your part, Lord Krsna will abandon you just because your guru was not pure enough?

You are right in thinking that having even the best guru is not a guarantee that our road to Krsna will be short and sweet. How many of Prabhupadas so called old and close disciples did not amount to much in the realm of devotion? Quite a few. Yet the reverse is true as well: if you are renounced, honest and sincere, than having a second or third class guru will be no handicap for you.

Do not worry about the potential contamination your guru might have. Worry about your own real contamination. Some devotees in Iskcon think that unless a guru is perfect in every way, he is not fit to be accepted as guru. That is pure sentimentalism, not shastric wisdom.

Serving a physically present guru is much harder than serving an ideal that just hangs high on the wall. Many devotees found that out even with Srila Prabhupada. A physically present guru can yell at you, be critical of you, push you to do things you dont like, and even appear mundane precisely when you expect transcendence. Just ask those who served Prabhupada.

That is why in the vedic tradition we have paramparas of physically present gurus, not just pictures of saints on the wall, or books on the shelves. One day you will understand that we are much better off that way.

said i was gone because there were no new arguments. now i found, during unrelated work, something thats new for me: statements (resolutions) by the GBC that might clarify a little their "demoniac attitude," as perceived by some, re. srila prabhupadas position, and the need to accept initiation from one of the "rubber-stamped" gurus:

=====================
601 [GUIDELINE ISKCON LAW] (GBC resolutins 2000, dandavats.com)

THAT a duly initiated disciple in ISKCON can accept Srila Prabhupada, the founder-acarya of ISKCON, as his principle siksa-guru. During his devotional life, he may experience that he derives more spiritual inspiration from Srila Prabhupada'92s books and vani than from his own diksa-guru.
=====================

=====================
409. Continuing the Disciplic Succession (GBC resolutions 2004, dandavats.com)
...
The GBC officially accepts the following conclusions about continuing the disciplic succession:

Srila Prabhupada consistently said that his disciples would themselves become spiritual masters. Guru, sadhu, and sastra all support this standard way of continuing the disciplic succession.

Srila Prabhupada said that his disciples would become "regular gurus" and that each of their disciples would thus be a "disciple of my disciple."
On the strength of our Vaisnava tradition and the statements of Srila Prabhupada, the GBC concludes that Srila Prabhupada intended his disciples to become "regular gurus" after he physically departed.

As a matter of utmost ecclesiastical responsibility, ISKCONs ultimate managing authority, the GBC, regulates who within ISKCON may perform the service of initiating disciples.

When the GBC allows a devotee to take up the service of initiating, it does not thereby endorse him as an uttama adhik'e4ri or "pure devotee" or certify his having achieved any specific state of realization. Rather, the GBC indicates that it has no objection to his initiating disciples within ISKCON.

Each prospective disciple, before initiation, should become familiar with the qualifications mentioned in Srila Prabhupadas books as those that a spiritual master ought to have and decide for himself which senior devotee, if any, to approach for initiation.

Within this context, the choice of whom to select as ones spiritual master is ultimately the prospective disciples own responsibility.
=====================

Yes, these resolutions are fine. It is just that in practice things are done differently. Especially fanatical disciples of big gurus are not working according to above GBC resolutions, and it seems their big gurus support that and encourage it at least to some degree.

And regarding 601/2000 resolution, it is still a tough one for many to accept, that one can accept Srila Prabhupada as his principle siksa-guru. (they will say, how can you accept him, without being accepted by him...) Many confuse this with ritvik system, and have unjust reservations towards devotees with ISKCON diksa, who openly admit to be siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

yes, i understand that. fanatical disciples are real pain, and its worse it they happen to be temple managers. but thats a different topic. in fact thats what i was researching GBC resolutions for, since the topic of temple managers and counselors who act as bullies came up at namahatta.org.

brings me back to ravindra svarupa prabhus essay, "Pillars of Success: The Principles and Practices of Reform in ISKCON" (http://namahatta.org/en/node/8377), where he says that, in order to reform the society we have to start by reforming ourselves.

finding faults with others is easy; finding our own faults and correcting them less so. but without that, any reform attempt degrades quickly into mundane politics and, like in the outside world, serves only to replace one tyranny with another.

In a controversial situation, I generally find little credibility in someone who gives their point of view without acknowledging contrary evidence or opposing arguments. For example, it is true that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become diksa gurus, but he also gave caveats such as "first become qualified," and "on my order." The "disciple of my disciple" and "regular guru" references are taken out of context. They were spoken immediately after "When I order, You become guru, he becomes..." The fact that the GBC takes the part they like out of a context that is not favorable to them is highly suspect. It seems to me that in this matter the GBC refers to its own presumed authority more than to any clear authorization by Srila Prabhupada, but I dont know of any instance when Srila Prabhupada authorized the GBC to decide who can become initiating guru and who cannot.

It is true that there are instances when he expressed his desire for his disciples to become initiating gurus, but these cannot be taken as authorization, due to the "first become qualified" caveat. I can tell my children many times that I want them to become doctors, but that does not mean I want them to practice medicine without first learning the science and obtaining a medical degree along with any other applicable licenses. After being qualified, one may be authorized.

This raises the question of what constitutes authorization. I believe the July 9 letter establishes the proper standard. This was a dual-signed letter composed late in Srila Prabhupadas manifest pastimes and sent to all the temples announcing an authorization pertaining to the method of conducting initiations. No terminal provision was stated. Earlier oral conversations that happened to be tape recorded, without any order to disseminate the recording to all the temples, do not reach the level of an official proclamation that I would expect of an authorization to give diksa in an international society.

The prohibition of rtvik initiations is another matter entirely. From what Ive seen, the only argument against ongoing rtvik initiations is that it has apparently never been done before. Im not sure how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvatis sannyasa initiation fits into this. In any case I dont think "never been done before" is strong evidence for prohibiting the continuance of something that Srila Prabhupada established in a written proclamation, based on the fact that Srila Prabhupada did many things that had never been done before (including rtvik initiations pre-samadhi). Other than in ISKCON, I dont know of any instance in history when diksa gurus were given or denied authorization based on certification from a governing body.

Furthermore, something I just learned, the July 9 letter was introduced as a followup to the May 28 meeting, in which the question was about initiations was specifically asked in reference to "particularly at that time when youre no longer with us." Based on the connection between this discussion and the followup letter, I think the fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted rtvik initiations to continue post-samadhi is irrefutable.

Whether any of his disciples have become qualified since, thats another matter. He did want them to give initiations after becoming qualified (though without his certificaiton it would have to be a matter of self-effulgence), but it appears quite clear to me that he also wanted to himself initiate disciples through rtviks post-samadhi.

Hare Krishna.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Furthermore, something I just learned, the July 9 letter was introduced as a followup to the May 28 meeting, in which the question was about initiations was specifically asked in reference to "particularly at that time when youre no longer with us." Based on the connection between this discussion and the followup letter, I think the fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted rtvik initiations to continue post-samadhi is irrefutable.
[/quote]

Irrefutable? I beg to differ... this letter, written and signed by TKG is nicely analyzed here for example: http://namahatta.org/en/node/5278

that article at namahatta.org is, admittedly, a bit polemic and will make ritvic proponents bristle with indignity. but then, the whole ritvik issue has always been a polemic one, from both sides.

personally i prefer jayadvaita maharajas line of arguing. even though he gets a bit polemic, too. he looks at the arguments from the point of logic and refutes them beautifully. (im attaching a zip-file with his three ritvik-essays here.)

leaving polemic and logic aside, it just doesnt make sense that srila prabhupada would contradict his own teachings, which he has been repeating for all his preaching life, by issuing one single letter.

having ritviks perform religious functions for others, even an acarya, is nothing new; accepting disciples post-samadhi is. he would have explained everything in great detail had he decided to change the sampradaya--in fact, such a decision would have brought the sampradaya to an end, with srila prabhupada as the last one, everybody else from now on his disciple.

Thanks for the added info. This is what Im trying to bring out with this discussion. It will take some time for me to examine it.

[quote][cite] phani:[/cite]
having ritviks perform religious functions for others, even an acarya, is nothing new; accepting disciples post-samadhi is. he would have explained everything in great detail had he decided to change the sampradaya--in fact, such a decision would have brought the sampradaya to an end, with srila prabhupada as the last one, everybody else from now on his disciple.[/quote]

...which would turn our line into yet another apa-sampradaya.
*
One of the requirements for properly representing the sampradaya is keeping the teachings in line with previous acharyas. Prabhupada never spoke of himself as the final link in the disciplic succession coming down from Lord Caitanya. Several times he specifically refered to his disciples as the next link.

..i am going to read it also and add my purport...;)
isnt JPS the guru that dosent chant His rounds ?
needless to say its all word juglery,Lord Sri Krishna is responsible for the guru-parampara to continue,in what ever form He chosses,including a "missing " link
for 50 , 500 , or 5,000 years,its His call , not the GBCs.

...being an instructing guru is fine,that is what we should be aspiring for,and practicing at this very moment.the " ritvik" issue in Iskcon is centered around the GBC
falsely claiming certain devotees to be gurus,rather than just plain old nice sincere devotees preaching,and arrainging their lives around preaching.
This is what forced many devotees out of Iskcon and to seek association else-where

we once had a TP in Canada who was seen in the local Unemployment Office to make his bogus claim to cheat the government for more money,
since He had charism and liked preaching to Indians the GBC decided to make Him a guru,this is the problem with the GBC making phoney
guru wannabes.

[quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]...Lord Sri Krishna is responsible for the guru-parampara to continue,in what ever form He chosses,including a "missing " link
for 50 , 500 , or 5,000 years,its His call , not the GBCs.[/quote]

Certainly. I see several promising links among the Iskcon gurus, and Iskcon is not the only branch of Lord Caitanyas tree. Other Vaishnava organizations are busy preaching all over the world too. It may be Lord Krsnas call to chose several qualified Vaishnavas to carry on His mission and become successful. We individuals can only pray to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. There is no need to drag aspiring gurus down. Let them preach, write books, make disciples, and spread Lord Caitanyas movement all over the world.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
Certainly. I see several promising links among the Iskcon gurus, and Iskcon is not the only branch of Lord Caitanyas tree. Other Vaishnava organizations are busy preaching all over the world too. It may be Lord Krsnas call to chose several qualified Vaishnavas to carry on His mission and become successful. We individuals can only pray to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. There is no need to drag aspiring gurus down. Let them preach, write books, make disciples, and spread Lord Caitanyas movement all over the world.[/quote]

"Aspiring guru" doesnt sound very good. I thought we should aspire for pure devotional service, and becoming a guru is a byproduct.

"O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service, birth after birth."

Hare Krishna.

Ive read the suggested articles by Kaunteya prabhu and Jayadvaita Maharaj. I did not find the former very convincing, partly because of the condescending attitude. ("Krishnakanta Desai asks why I dont quote anything from his paper. Its simple. I cannot find anything in the document that is worth quoting.") He challenges "Krishnakanta Desai to produce any statement in which Prabhupada directly says in his own words, am going to continue to directly initiate diksa disciples after my physical departure from this world." The trouble with this is that once one begins to doubt whether the leaders are free from material contamination, then the tendency to cheat is suspect. Do we have access to everything that Srila Prabhupada said? I have heard that we dont. When one party controls the flow of information, a challenge to produce some explicit incriminating evidence does not sit well. We can only work with the information that we are given.

Im strongly inclined to trust Krishnas devotees, but I have learned the hard way that ISKCON is almost entirely made of aspiring devotees, most sincere, some not as much. There have been far too many scandals for my comfort, and my ability to trust has therefore been injured. Simply put, the ISKCON leadership has made the post-samadhi rtvik view attractive. It is their unwanted progeny that theyve kicked out of the house.

The interview with Tamal Krishna Maharaj was was convincing at first simply because of my natural tendency to trust devotees; however, I had second thoughts after a while. I never met Tamal Krishna Maharaj, and I dont know his degree of purity. I do know, however, that unless he was completely free from material desires, which Im sad to say seems very rare even in ISKCON, then he could have had very significant impure influences tainting his views and shaping his memories. Simply put, I dont know how much he could be trusted.

(end part 1)

The writing by Jayadvaita Swami was somewhat more convincing, and there was the benefit of reading rebuttals by Krishankant, although I got a little tired of reading these rebuttals. I saw good poitns made on both sides. I thought it was unfortunate to see Jayadvaita Swami dismiss much of Krishnakants arguments without much explanation, and to see a significant amount ridicule. I think this is a very important subject, regardless of who is ultimately right, and I wish the ISKCON folks would take it more seriously.

A big part of the difficulty is that those who take up arguing about it seem very biased toward whichever side. Someone either wants to be a guru or wants Srila Prabhpuada as their guru or wants to get along with ISKCON, etc., and therefore they dont give fair treatment of the other sides good points. When I debate with devotees, I dont do it to "win;" I do it to learn the truth. I havent been seeing that on this topic. Ive been seeing strong arguments from both sides, but each side refuses to acknowledge each others strengths. Instead, there is a frequent tendency to dismiss the other, which leaves points of disagreement unsolved.

As a result, Ive begun to feel again that this is a disagreement that I am simply unable to comprehend. I observed an e-mail debate on this subject a year ago, and came to the same conclusion. The relevant events occurred too long ago and were experienced by people whom I do not know. So much has happened since 1977 that in some ways it almost seems irrelevant. The GBC and the gurus have been flexing their muscles and vying for influence for more than 30 years. Some like me is less than insignificant in their view. If they want a certain picture painted for folks like me, or if there are facts they dont want us to know, then anything else is simply hopeless. Neither am I independent. I want favorable devotee association for myself and my family. I would like to someday be able to support my family through devotional service rather than sitting in a cubicle surrounded by atheists. So I want to support ISKCON and for ISKCON to support me. Yet moreover, I want to serve Srila Prabhupada and Krishna, and if ISKCON needs some cleansing, I want to help. Integrity means a lot to me, and Ill never forget when one small leader in ISKCON told me that "Integrity is not a Vaishnava principle." Of course I think hes wrong, but it reveals a lot to hear something like that from someone who has spent most of his life in ISKCON.

I guess what it comes down to is a forced acceptance of my own insignificance, a feeling of helplessness, and a practical example of my dependence on Krishna. If Krishna doesnt want this question to be solved, then its not going to get solved, and maybe He doesnt care for my help.

One important thing is that throughout my inquiry I have been trying hard to not lose faith in Vaishnava principles and to maintain my enthusiasm for devotional service. It is difficult to stay clean when sorting through so much mud, and of course I wasnt that clean to begin with. I seem to be cursed in the matter of committing offenses, but for those whom Ive offended by my inquiries, please forgive me and bless me to advance in devotional service so that somehow Srila Prabhupada and Krishna may be pleased with me.

Hare Krishna.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
Certainly. I see several promising links among the Iskcon gurus, and Iskcon is not the only branch of Lord Caitanyas tree. Other Vaishnava organizations are busy preaching all over the world too. It may be Lord Krsnas call to chose several qualified Vaishnavas to carry on His mission and become successful. We individuals can only pray to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. There is no need to drag aspiring gurus down. Let them preach, write books, make disciples, and spread Lord Caitanyas movement all over the world.[/quote]

"Aspiring guru" doesnt sound very good. I thought we should aspire for pure devotional service, and becoming a guru is a byproduct.

"O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service, birth after birth."[/quote]

By aspiring guru I am refering to Vaishnavas who began formally accepting disciples but are not yet widely recognized in Vaishnava circles.

In 1953, when Srila Prabhupada accepted his first disciple, Acharya Prabhakar Mishra, he was an aspiring guru. He started initiating more people right after taking sannyasa in 1959. His Godbrothers did not try to belittle him or criticize his activities. To the contrary. It was his close friend and Godbrother, Sridhara Maharaja, who encouraged him to take sannyasa and preach full time. Even in 1965 by Gaudiya Matha standards Srila Prabhupada was an aspiring guru, as he did not have much following or recognition. It all changed after he went to America.

Unless Iskcon gurus disqualify themselves by their own clear deviations from sampradaya standards we should give them some room to grow. Who knows, maybe some of them will accomplish great things for Mahaprabhu. We can only hope so.

well, your arguments make it pretty much impossible to convince you with philosophical points:

--the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isnt an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;

--that srila prabhupada never made any clear statement that he wanted a p.s. ritvic system doesnt convnce you, since these statements could have been supressed by his dishonest followers;

that doesnt leave much room for further philosophical arguements, does it?

another two questions come to mind that you should ask yourself. first, do you consider yourself on the kanistha, madhyama, or uttama level?

if, as i expect, you fall into the kanistha category, you are, by definition, not able to clearly distinguish between the different levels of vaisnavas. (dont have the quote ready, but its in the nectar of devotion somewhere, i think).

kanistha adhikaris worship the form of krsna, have a hard time to understand that worship of krsnas devotees is as important, or more so, than worship of the lord, and cant differentiate between the different levels of devotees.

if thats true, you wont be able to figure out which guru is how advanced or not. in order to avoid offences, you have to give all of them the benefit of the doubt, unless you know for sure theyre bogus.

not doing that you will certainly offend one, the other, or several of them who actually are pure devotees--not necessarily maha-bhagavatas, but purely following to the best of their abilities.

as you know, offending devotees is a sure way to not make any advancement or find peace in your service to srila prabhupada and the lord.

now please look at some of the rtivic webistes and propaganda. those that i have seen (IRM, per example) are brimming full with vitriolic criticism of all present gurus, GBCs, and their folowers. calling my guru-maharaja "jaya-potatoe-swami" is one of the least harmful things they say.

considering their blanket criticism of all current ISKCON and their desire to replace the whole ISKCON leadership with their own people, peaceful coexistence with them in this organization is impossible.

in the ultimate sense a vaisnava has no enemies. im sure that, given a moment to consider, almost everybody in ISKCON will wish them well, i.e., that they come to their senses, stop offending devotees, and either become constructive members of ISKCON, or build their own society and show us how to do it better.

in another sense, though, we have to consider people who want to harm ISKCON as enemies of the society, and deal with them on that level. thats why court-cases are going on and ritviks are not allowed to preach in our temples.

i see many things in ISKCON that need change and improvement--but not by inventing an new "sampradaya" that doesnt honour the original tradition, consists of people who criticize vaisnavas en gros, and want to throw everything srila prabhupada has built in the garbage to follow their own concoctions.

the progress ISKCON makes on the road to becoming a truly honest and compassionate society may be slow; but weve come quite a way from the old zonal acarya days, and i see strong currents of devotees who want the right thing. its just not as easy as one may think, and may take more time than one would like.

mainly it takes commitment, not only from those on top, but from everybody, to get over our selfishness, pettiness, and whatever other anarthas each of us may have. in one way the saying that "people get the government that they deserve" is valid for us, too.

Dear Phani prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I seem to have upset you. That has not been my intention, so please accept my apology. I have simply been trying to understand what is the right thing.

I have also been turned off by the crude remarks from the rtvik side, however I do not necessarily think that because a person is upset that his complaints should be dismissed. It is impossible to deny that many people have been abused in so many ways through their contact with ISKCON, and I can begin to understand their frustration. I dont personally know any of the rtvik proponents, but I would be surprised if theyre have any desire to hurt Srila Prabhupadas mission. It seems to me that they want to help, but that they see ISKCON as having gone in a direction that would displease Srila Prabhupada. I know what its like to feel a strong desire for ISKCONs spiritual well-being, but to be condemned by leaders whose conduct does not seem appropriate to the level of worship they receive and influence they have. It is a horrible position to be in, to be rejected by the organization that one loves so dearly.

"--the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isnt an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;"

Im not sure if thats true. Take this for instance:
http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/Sri-Sam-rittvik231107.php

Ive already said that I feel unable to sort through the philosophical arguments, and Im not sure thats the answer. If both sides would respect each other and show enough humiity and detachment to consider the evidence with an open mind, then I think that would help a lot. Everyone seems to just want to prove themselves right, but I dont think that will solve it, punditji. Im just trying to trust Krishnas arrangement now; I dont know what else to do.

If you think calling me a kanistha will help, fine. I don t know what I am. I heard my first Bhagavad-gita class from Krishnas own lotus lips, and I cry with ecstasy in feelings of separation almost every day while chanting my japa. On the other hand I struggle to control my senses and sometimes fall prey to illusion and bewilderment. I dont know what this makes me, but kanistha adikari is a big improvement from my previous condition. Still, I dont know what relevance it is. Ive already said that Im perplexed by this issue.

Concerning offenses, I dont know how to not commit them in this environment. Devotees have divided into diferent camps and fight with each other. Its not a safe situation for making spiritual advancement. As you said, I cannot properly discern others spiritual advancement; and I also cannot make good advancement outside of devotee association. So here again I am perplexed. I am just begging that devotees stop fighting with each other, and even that is taken as offensive. I guess I will go to hell.

im sorry, theres a couple of misunderstandings here. first of all im not upset. if i was, id just keep quiet.

and calling you kanistha isnt supposed to be a form of name-calling; i think that very few devotees today can rightly be classified as madhyama-adhikaris--but i cant be sure, since id classify myself as an aspiring kanistha, at best. (and this is not false humbleness, i assure you.)

in your case, i think your confusion and unableness to figure out what is right and what is wrong puts you in the kanistha category pretty clearly--and again, thats not meant to be an offense.

true, i cant understand how you seem unable to understand things that seem crystal-clear to me, but that doesnt upset me. if and when i can think of something to say (write) that may help you in your understanding, i say that. right now i cant think of anything else, though.

i could tell of examples of ritviks who i personally know, and observed their way into this concoction; they were fried with ISKCON, wanted to keep control of their personal influence spheres as TPs and resented the GBCs interference.

yesterday they were staunch supporters of GBC and present gurus, today they preach that its all bogus. its perfectly clear for me to see what happened, and that their motives are selfish and materialistic. the fact that they soon stepped down into horrible forms of vaisnava aparadha only confirms that their path was dead wrong.

but these are personal observations from me which dont carry much argumentative weight; and even if you believed me, this wouldnt prove that other ritvik supporters have the same defects.

for me, though, this whole issue is crystal clear, and just by studying srila prabhupadas books you should arrive at the same conclusion.

your experience with fanatical guru-worshipers is a sorry example of how wrong things in ISKCON still are, at least in some places, but that shouldnt lead you to try to change the whole philosophy.

anyway, as i said, i dont have much else to say on this topic for now. ill wait for a while, perhaps something new comes up, or i get a new idea, well see. but again, im not upset with you at all.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
"--the fact that post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya isnt an argument for you, since srila prabhupada could have changed that if he wanted;"

Im not sure if thats true. Take this for instance:
http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/Sri-Sam-rittvik231107.php
[/quote]

The claim that Sri sampradaya is essentially a ritvik sampradaya is totally bogus. It is just like claiming that Madhva sammpradaya is ritvik because in both cases there is a strong sense of orthodoxy and adherance to the teachings of the dominant acharya (Ramanuja or Madhava). Current gurus in those lines simply repeat very closely the teachings of those acharyas without hardly coming up with anything new it terms of doctrine and practice. They consider themselves to be little gurus at the feet of their great predecessor Acharya. Yet they are most definitely regular gurus, not ritviks in the sense proposed by our Iskcon ritvikvadis.

Compared to these two lines our line is constantly evolving and developing. How often does Srila Prabhupada quote his own guru verbatim? Hardly ever. He makes his own presentation. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was like that as well. Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages are much less rigid and orthodox than Madhvas or Ramanujas. Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta. Ritviks want to put an end to these practices and turn our sampradaya into a version of Sikh religion, where Prabhupada is Guru Nanak. In the eyes of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas that of course would make our line an apa-sampradaya, just like the Sikh religion.

I dont know about you, but I have no desire to be a part of such line. I signed up for membership in the Gaudiya-Madhva sampradaya and ritvikvada is not a part of that line.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]... Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta... [/quote]

[p]Yet one of the biggest arguments against post-samadhi rtvik initiations is that it cant be correct because Srila Prabhupada would not have introduced something new. There is evolution and development in our line, but it cannot be in a way that keeps the Founder-Acaryas diksa available after his mahasamadhi. (Even Srila Prabhupadas books continue to evolve.)[/p]

[p]Im struggling to see how this is internally consistent. It resembles a line of argument that comes from a predetermined conclusion in which one argues on one side of a concept or the other side of the same concept at different times, depending on which supports ones desired outcome. [/p]

[p]Some brahmanas probably thought Vyasas dividing the Veda into four and putting it into books was heresy. As weve heard, He did it knowing the qualifications of the people of our time, just as one may argue that Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize any diksa gurus because of knowing his disciples werent free from material desires yet.[/p]

[p]Also, I wonder how you are a higher authority on Srivaishnavism than the gentleman wrote that, who claims to be initiating devotees in that sampradaya. Admittedly, I know practically nothing about the other sampradayas, but you seem to be claiming that what hes saying about what he does is wrong. It reminds me of the story Srila Prabhupada told about how the author of a book knows what his own book is about. Similarly, this devotee must know how he conducts initiations. Whether he is correct in understanding what Srila Prabhupada intended is another thing, but the claim that "post samadhi ritvic has never been done in any vedic sampradaya" seems to be proven false here.[/p]

Srila Prabhupada is like GOLD,
for one who knows the value of gold,
he accepts it. Prabhupada once said that about His books. He said, " My books are like gold, and for one who knows the value of gold, he will accept them". Because Prabhupada is non-different than His books, the statement applies. Speaking of Prabhupadas books, it has just come to my attention from a reliable inside source, who happens to be a Trustee of the BBT, and a member of the GBC, who will remain nameless, has informed me that the book changes were done to suit the philosophy of the GBC. Just a little FYI for the participants of this site.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]... Gurus in our line introduce their own concepts, practices, and expansions to the sampradaya siddhanta... [/quote]

[p]Yet one of the biggest arguments against post-samadhi rtvik initiations is that it cant be correct because Srila Prabhupada would not have introduced something new. There is evolution and development in our line, but it cannot be in a way that keeps the Founder-Acaryas diksa available after his mahasamadhi. [/quote]

There is a clear and present risk in introducing new concepts and practices into the sampradaya. Let me give you an example. SP took a serious risk when he started giving sannyasa to young Western disciples who practiced Krsna consciousness only for a few years. His guru gave sannyasa only to very mature disciples born in brahminical families and practicing KC from birth. This change or innovation SP introduced did not work out. 90% of his sannyasis fell down and their falldown was not even the worst part of that experiment. The program was a disaster and in 1977 Srila Prabhupada emphatically declared: "No more sannyasa!". Too bad his disciples did not listen, and the problem remains in our society, with people like Satsvarupa and others making a mockery out of the sannyasa order.

Lets say (because the evidence for this is extremely flimsy) that Prabhupada indeed wanted to make himself a Guru Nanak of the Prabhupada line. If his disciples do not think it is a good idea, that is pretty much the end of that innovation. Just like Prabhupada decided to do things differently than his guru when it comes to giving sannyasa, his disciples may decide that keeping the old sampradaya practices of direct initiations is a better way to go. That is the self-correcting nature of our sampradaya. Guru, sadhu, and shastra.

First, I have a problem accepting ritvik claims since theyre taking things out of context and distorting them to suit their case, just like JWs.
Second, even if prof. Tatachars opinion is presented correctly, its still only his own opinion. To me personally makes much more sense the elaboration of Kripamoya P. at

http://lix.in/-319d8c

Sri Ramanujacarya adored Sri Yamunacarya as his siksa guru and he adored his five leading disciples as his diksa gurus. See his bio at http://ramanujacarya.blogspot.com/

To make any conclusions re Sri sampradaya, wed need an official position of Sri Sampradaya.

If we accept that ritviks must be authorized by the acarya (as per the the end of the interview), then after disappearance of those 11 ones, ritvikism will naturally end. If we accept that they can authorize more ritviks, itll end as well since they afaik didnt do and most probably wont do so having either left their bodies, stopped practicing or being not in favor of ritvikism.

Ive recently posted here the opinion of Advaita Acarya on the virtual diksa in the dream:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/opponents.htm

To me this is the GV conclusion, in sync with many SPs "disciple of my disciple" quotes.

But Ive got an idea how to deal with this issue - to ask the Lord directly by presenting ritvik (TFO) and ISKCON docs to His deity in the temple. This is called deva prasna and was used in case of Sridhara Swamis SB commentary. Briefly mentioned here:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/iskcon-internal/364040-sukadeva-know-doesnt-now.html

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Also, I wonder how you are a higher authority on Srivaishnavism than the gentleman wrote that, who claims to be initiating devotees in that sampradaya. Admittedly, I know practically nothing about the other sampradayas, but you seem to be claiming that what hes saying about what he does is wrong. [/quote]

There is plenty of information on Srivaishnavism out there. I have studied that tradition for some time and this is my understanding of their practices. Very often the answer to your question depends on how you phrase the question and who you ask. On top of that there is trust in the transcript of the said conversation.

Besides, it you want to go by the criteria Srivashnavas use as listed by Prof. M A Lakshimtatachar, you can easily say that SP was not authorized by his guru to become acharya and start his own line. Here is an excerpt from his speach:
-----------------
"ISKCON devotee: One final question is that for somebody has to become an acharya, how important is it for him to receive an authorisation to take that post from the previous acharya? In this case, there is an authorisation to continue to as a ritvik and ritvik alone, there is not authoriation to function as guru. How important is it to receive an authorisation?

Sri Tatachar : It is very much necessary to receive an authorisation. Without an authorisation you cannot do. Generally what happens in the Srivaishnava parampara, they were always worried about the succession ( Tamil sloka). Who will be the successor to take care of the propagation of this system? When the acharya was about to pass away, he would nominate a person to take care of the panth and hold the mantle thereafter. That is how it has been done. That is why even in the Srivaishnava parampara, while giving sannyasa, he cannot take sannyasa on his own. The acharya will give the sanyas and say that here afterwards he will be the mathadipathi.

ISKCON devotee: That means authorization is a must.

Sri Tatachar : IT IS A MUST

ISKCON devotee:To become a guru or a mathadipathi or a peethadipathi

Sri Tatachar : Yes, yes, yes."
----------

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not appoint an acharya. Here is what Srila Prabhupada said himself: (From the letter to Rupanuga)
"If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya."

So if Srila Prabhupada became an acharya despite the fact that his guru did not nominate him, so can his disciples. In our tradition acharya is accepted based on his qualifications (self-effulgent acharya). That is not an acceptable practice among Srivaishnavas. Read this line: "When the acharya was about to pass away, he would nominate a person to take care of the panth and hold the mantle thereafter" - does that look like a ritvik system to you???? As I said: The claim that Sri sampradaya is essentially a ritvik sampradaya is totally bogus.

Several times here was mentioned idea, that with ritviks sampradaya would end. I find this argument very weak. It seems to be based on idea, that continuation of gaudiya vaisnava sampradaya is somehow dependent on ISKCON and its gurus. In know ISKCON devotees consider iskcon to be the junction point for all vaisnava sampradayas, although credit for that actually goes to Caitanya Mahaprabhu alone. But we seem to think we are better than Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There were even ideas, presented in shape of GBC papers (by Drutakarma p), how to unite all gaudiya vaisnava under single ISKCON GBC. Such arrogance breeds ideas, that with ending our line, then all will be finished. Actually nothing will be finished, without GBC ISKCON things will go on just fine.

Another thing is, that Srila Prabhupada allowed for possibility, that self effulgent acarya will manifests within ISKCON in the future. So even if now all iskcon devotees are initiated in whatever way, GBC or ritvik way, everybody is siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. And that will continue untill (if ever) another self effulgent acarya, like Srila Prabhupada, is sent by Krsna. But until that happens (if ever), there is no need for any voted-in semi-acaryas.

Vaisnava sampradaya is something much greater than GBC ISKCON line. We should not cultivate arrogance, thinking that we are the only ones, and the we are so important, that without us there will be disaster.....

Although ritvik system may not be traditional, it was implemented by Srila Prabhupada, that is a 100% fact, and he never appointed any acarya successors. Ritviks can appoint new ritviks, gust as GBCs appoint their own, and thus sampradaya-branch remains alive, until new self effulgent acarya arrives (or until the branch dries-out, and falls off the sampradaya tree).

Please see the sampradaya line in Bhagavad Gita. Only great acaryas form its structure. Surely there were many great devotees in between, but they are not mentioned. Still nobody argues, that sampradaya was broken because not all diksa gutrus are mentioned. Srila Prabhupada is final link in our branch of sampradaya. There needs not be any other link after him, ever. The branch can remain easily like this. It can remain alive by our purity. No need to introduce next acaryas artificially. If next self effulgent acarya appears on this branch, then fine. But this may happen after several hundreds or thousands of years, or never!

Also please note, that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never appointed any successors to his branch. Still his line continues to be alive more or less. And Srila Prabhupada was never appointed by BSST to start new line, still he did it, and ISKCON line is also alive more or less.

Srila Prabhupada was well aware of tradition and importance of previous acarya appointing successor acarya. But he didnt do so, just like Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never appointed any successors.

(end of part1 )

(part 2)

============
If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga -- Tirupati 28 April, 1974
============

Acarya is something else than initiating gurus. And vaisnava sampradaya is formed through succession of acaryas, not through succession of initiating gurus. Each branch can have hundreds of initiating gurus, but they will never be listed on sampradaya tree. Only sampradaya acaryas are listed on sampradaya. Until next self-effulgent acarya appears, Srila Prabhupada remains the last link on Sampradaya tree. This doesnt mean, that sampradaya is finished - it just means, that it is structuraly on hold, waiting for the next sampradaya acarya to be sent by Krsna.

If acarya sees, that his line is not strong, he can decide to appoint noone as his succesor, and istead lets self-effulgent acarya manifest later on, when time is right. BSST did this, and Srila Prabhupada too. Sorry to say this, but noone was qualified in 1978, to take over the post of acarya in ISKCON. Now, 30 years later, this post is still open, and still anybody can manifest his self-effulgent qualification to be accepted as self effulgent acarya. As of now, nobody was able to convince others in this. So time is not ripe yet. Sampradaya will remain strong based on Srila Prabhupada, although some will claim to be acaryas and whatever. But present ritvik system will remain active untill next self effulgent acarya manifests.

ISKCON already implemented ritvik system long ago, they just dont call it ritvik, they call it GBC-no-objection-system. But after 11 acarya period, ritvik system was re-implemented in ISKCON, through guru reform. GBC gurus also initiate disciples into SP disciples, siksa disciples. Even GBC law allows for ritvik system, where one is being initiated by whoever, and then instructed to take full shelter from Srila Prabhupada siksa. Thats ritvik system too!!! One initiates you, but you take siksa directly from acarya!! Both GBC gurus and ritvik gurus are one and the same thing. Although GBC refuses to admit it, GBCs are ritviks as well, and ritviks are ritviks too. They both initiate disciples into siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. It is just that one group gives you title of diksa disciple od SP, and other gives you title diksa disciple of so-and-so GBC guru. Big deal. But both are initiating disciples into Srila Prabhupadas siksa disciples. The day they will both realize this, they will stop fighting, and ISKCON line will go on nicely, fixed on Srila Prabhupada forever, (or untill next self-effulgent sampradaya acarya).

gurus do not initiate disciples into SP disciples, everyone who joins ISKCON is his siksa disciple. not all GBCs are gurus, so by your own logic you are wrong. There is a fine line as far as ISKCON guru position and ritivik position is concern, ritvik does not have relationship or qualification to help a disciple to establish personal relationship with Prabhupada. I am not saying all gurus these days do, but they have this requirement, where as ritviks do not, they are just silent priests, who needs them, better take initiation without a priest then to have some nonsense aparadhi doing it for you.

Well, Caitanya-candrodaya prabhu, thats your personal opinion, and thats fine, I lake to hear your opinion. You can have your opinion, and while your opinion is valuable, I doubt you will want to push it forward as the only, absolute truth.

No matter what you say, in practice GBC gurus actually initiate their disciples into Srila Prabhupadas disciples. Disciple means sisya, not lineage. With joining ISKCON, according to GBC law, you are presented with two choices:
1. Become sisya of Srila Prabhupada, with diksa of ISKCON approved ritvik
2. Become sisya of ISKCON guru, with diksa taken from that same ISKCON guru, or some other diksa guru (fallen guru or one not inspiring you much).

Yes, not all GBCs are gurus. I thought that was quite clear to all in this debate. When I say GBCs, I clearly mean GBC with their system of guruship. Its GBCs vs. ritviks debate, yes?

You say "ritvik does not have relationship or qualification to help a disciple to establish personal relationship with Prabhupada". I think you are wrong. If Satsvarupa (with his quirks) can connect one to Srila Prabhupada, why Hansaduta (with his quirks) can not? Why is GBC appointment requirement enough, and Srila Prabhupadas instruction that "all my disciples become gurus" not enough?

Regarding ritviks being silent priests, that you mention.... Many GBC gurus are silent priests too. If GBC guru initiates you, and then you never meet him again, then it is ok - but if ritvik-labeled guru does so, then it is all bogus? If GBC guru tells you to approach Srila Prabhupada directly for siksa, then it is ok - but if ritvik-labeled guru tells you the same thing, then it is worthless?

Your points make no sense. I spoke with many ISKCON devotees, and relationship of most towards their Guru and Srila Prabhupada is exactly what ritviks are offering. Sure, labels are different, but GBC invented those labels. If it wasnt for GBC separatism, there wouldnt be any ritvik label at all.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite] Even GBC law allows for ritvik system, where one is being initiated by whoever, and then instructed to take full shelter from Srila Prabhupada siksa. Thats ritvik system too!!! One initiates you, but you take siksa directly from acarya!! Both GBC gurus and ritvik gurus are one and the same thing. Although GBC refuses to admit it, GBCs are ritviks as well, and ritviks are ritviks too. They both initiate disciples into siksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. It is just that one group gives you title of diksa disciple od SP, and other gives you title diksa disciple of so-and-so GBC guru. Big deal. But both are initiating disciples into Srila Prabhupadas siksa disciples. The day they will both realize this, they will stop fighting, and ISKCON line will go on nicely, fixed on Srila Prabhupada forever, (or untill next self-effulgent sampradaya acarya).[/quote]

[p]Hare Krishna. That pretty much describes my experience. I requested initiation from Bhaktimarga Swami because I thought that among the gurus who were accessible to me, he would be the least likely to come between me and Srila Prabhupada. Still, I was confused about how the relationship would manifest considering the GBCs rules and ISKCON etiquette. I had to ask Bhaktimarga about his pranam mantra; it seemed like I should know it but he wasnt going to tell me. Sometimes I chant it before Srila Prabhupadas, and sometimes I dont. Im not really sure who is my guru, a rather odd predicament. Anyway, at my initiation Bhaktimarga said that Srila Prabhupada is my primary guru." Immediately after my initation he attended a rtvik meeting. ([url]iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/06/015.html[/url]) Eventually I asked him if he has any books, recorded lectures, etc., and he told me to just study Srila Prabhupadas. I asked about forming a disciples e-mail network, and he said he didnt want that.[/p]

[p]Three years ago when I got a first hand experience of ISKCONs dark side at Gita-nagari, Bhaktimarga responded in a way that made me lose faith in him, along with the rest of the rest of the movement. (The details are somewhat of a long story.) After two years of depression and almost no sadhana, I assumed fault for everything and begged everyones forgiveness. After that Bhaktimarga began acting somewhat more like a direct guru in the sense that he was more inclied to give orders and expect personal service. Im not comfortable with that sort of relationship, nor confident that it is the best thing for my spiritual life, yet its whats expected of me not only from him but from the Gita-nagari devotees. So this is a bit of a dilemma, and part of why Im hoping that the post-samadhi rtvik view will someday be accepted.[/p]

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Three years ago when I got a first hand experience of ISKCONs dark side at Gita-nagari, Bhaktimarga responded in a way that made me lose faith in him, along with the rest of the rest of the movement. (The details are somewhat of a long story.) After two years of depression and almost no sadhana, I assumed fault for everything and begged everyones forgiveness. After that Bhaktimarga began acting somewhat more like a direct guru in the sense that he was more inclied to give orders and expect personal service. Im not comfortable with that sort of relationship, nor confident that it is the best thing for my spiritual life, yet its whats expected of me not only from him but from the Gita-nagari devotees. So this is a bit of a dilemma, and part of why Im hoping that the post-samadhi rtvik view will someday be accepted.[/quote]

Iskcon is still suffering from the hangover of the old superman guru in the zonal acharya days. Devotees expect a superman for a guru, and most gurus act as if they were indeed supermen. This is their conditioning. When they see that their guru is not a superhero they envisioned, they lose faith in such a guru, and experience a major crisis of faith in the process of KC.

In a typical Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage nobody expects their guru to be like some sort of Vaishnava superstar. Disciples are content to have a competent and compassionate guide who is a senior Vaishnava, and the gurus are just happy they can help their disciples reach Krsna through the sampradaya they represent.

I doubt that introducing a ritvik system will solve the above listed problems. A disciple needs direct guidance from an authority he trusts and has confidence in. Ritvik system turns such living authority into nothing more than a clerk, giving you diksa on behalf of the lofty ideal of a guru you formed in your mind. You have no real faith in that local diksa guru, you do not feel like you are his disciple, you do not want him to give you orders. You want orders from your ideal guru. That is not a vedic system.

In the Vedic system every guru is a ritvik of Sri Guru, Krsna. That is a proper mentality of an actual guru. Find such a person and become his real disciple. He will not stop you from seeing Prabhupada as your siksa guru.

I do not think its GBCs vs ritivks, its good association vs not very good association. In my experience good vaishnavas often avoid being involved in politics or management if they can, thus my favorite gurus are not on GBC anyhow and I am proud of it, So no - its about personal vs impersonal.

You still use gurus in plural, you are very fortunate if you have one devotee who inspires you GN. It is not easy to get by. I do not get inspiration in this debate because you are rather polemical, you will not change your opinion that is based on your feeling rather then on what you are told by paramapara, in the same way ritivk polemics are ad hominum and thus are using false logic way too often to represent Prabhupada. I would suggest you all keep away from GBC and ritivikvada altogether if you want healthy spiritual live. If you can not at least keep away from ritiviks.

******************
[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]Ritvik system turns such living authority into nothing more than a clerk, giving you diksa on behalf of the lofty ideal of a guru you formed in your mind. You have no real faith in that local diksa guru, you do not feel like you are his disciple, you do not want him to give you orders. You want orders from your ideal guru. That is not a vedic system.[/quote]
******************

Here you are exactly describing, what most of ISKCON devotees are confronted with. You get diksa automatically, 6 months waiting period. You meet your guru on initiation, when he hands over the beads, and you hand over envelope with some money. There is no living authority, your only connection is Srila Prabhupada. You have no real faith in diksa guru, you do not feel as his surrendered disciple - not in the same way as you feel towards Srila Prabhupada. You try to idealize, deify your diksa guru, but the image keeps collapsing with every new experience.

Thats why I say that GBC system is also ritvik system. You get initiated by appointed (no objection - whatever...) priest, and then you approach Srila Prabhupada for all guidance.

Surely, this is not experience of all ISKCON devotees. Some have personal relationships with their diksa Gurus, and some actually get valuable personal guidance. I know I did, but I know some of my godbrothers never got any traditional personal experience from their guru. And matajis usually get much less of traditional guru than men, (although again, some gurus are quite comfortable in female association, but thats another subject matter....).

Thats why I said that ISKCON provides two options for aspiring devotee:
1. ritvik system, where you are initiated by appointed GBC guru (priest), and then you take siksa from Srila Prabhupada directly, being helped by everybody and anybody who can be helpful in your surrounding.
2. traditional guru system, where you approach GBCs guru, and take diksa and siksa from him, live with him and serve him as disciple. If guru gets distracted into GBC management, or bloops, or stops inspiring you, you can approach another GBCs guru, or take to option 1 above.

So, ISKCON already supports ritvik system as option within GBCs system. Thats why Im wondering why all the fuss about another ritvik group. Do they really care about welfare of devotees, or do they just say so, to make excuse for their separatism. If they provide the same system, why are they fighting among themselves? What is the reason for seeing "ISKCON enemies" in other ISKCON devotees.

I can only think that GBCs gurus have problems with another group, because because GBCs themselves have some problems on their own. Maybe the reason is, that that other group initiates you into Prabhupadas disciple. And that is bad, horrible, enemies.... Why? Because "Prabhupadas disciple" is like a trademark of specific group only, and they get some benefits for that, like separate tables, chairs and so on.... It is pathetic, but can we say that it is not true? Just imagine a whole flood of new SP disciples - that would cause some serious confusion, and nobody would know who is REAL SP disciple, and who is second generation (fake) SP disciple.....

GBCs may have some reasons to label some within ISKCON as their enemies, but actually, all this is nonsense. In 50 years, when all trademarked SP disciples will pass on, nobody will bother anymore whether you are this-initiated, or that-initiated. We will all be SP disciples, we will know what to follow, and there will be no special benefits for anybody. And who gets initiated by who, that will be a thing of the past, and we will laugh about it.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Here you are exactly describing, what most of ISKCON devotees are confronted with. You get diksa automatically, 6 months waiting period. You meet your guru on initiation, when he hands over the beads, and you hand over envelope with some money. There is no living authority, your only connection is Srila Prabhupada. You have no real faith in diksa guru, you do not feel as his surrendered disciple - not in the same way as you feel towards Srila Prabhupada. You try to idealize, deify your diksa guru, but the image keeps collapsing with every new experience.

Thats why I say that GBC system is also ritvik system. You get initiated by appointed (no objection - whatever...) priest, and then you approach Srila Prabhupada for all guidance.

Surely, this is not experience of all ISKCON devotees. Some have personal relationships with their diksa Gurus, and some actually get valuable personal guidance. I know I did, but I know some of my godbrothers never got any traditional personal experience from their guru.
[/quote]

During Srila Prabhupadas presence many devotees did not even get to meet their guru in person at the time of initiation and their connection with Prabhupada was mainly virtual. That certainly was an anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation. Usually Vaishnava gurus accept only a very limited number of disciples and they play a very practical role in their lives and training. Thus IN PRACTICE the current GBC system you describe is not much different than the old system in pre 1977 Iskcon. If anything, current bhaktas get more direct training from their gurus. But in case you did not notice, I am not a big fan of the GBC system either.

Just like you, I did not get my diksa automatically, had a personal relationship with my diksa guru and faith in him - not a faith that he was a superman, but a faith that Krsna placed him in my life to help me in spiritual life. I know scores of new devotees today who have a similar relationship with their gurus and similar faith. We never deified our gurus, and we never deified Prabhupada. That is not a Vedic system. You respect your guru as the hand of God in your life, Krsnas representative.

Lord Krsna sent me several very helpful guides in life and I am always open to acceptance of qualified Vaishnavas as my siksa guru. The current GBC system does not bother me too much. What bothers me are lies, fairytales and distortions passed around among devotees in the guise of instructions on the guru-tattva.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
So, ISKCON already supports ritvik system as option within GBCs system. Thats why Im wondering why all the fuss about another ritvik group. Do they really care about welfare of devotees, or do they just say so, to make excuse for their separatism. If they provide the same system, why are they fighting among themselves? What is the reason for seeing "ISKCON enemies" in other ISKCON devotees.
[/quote]

If ritvik proponents were not so obnoxious in their behavior and criticism of the current ruling elite, I am quite certain that ritvikvada would have been accepted as valid or at least tolerated in Iskcon. IMO both sides twist the tradition in order to prove their point and grab power. It is just another struggle for fame, profit, and distinction. That is why so many of these people became leaders, sannyasis, and gurus to begin with. A ritvik guru wannabe, or a GBC guru wannabe - whats the difference??? As ccd said: "I do not think its GBCs vs ritivks, its good association vs not very good association." Spot on... A crook is a crook, and a good guru can be found inside or outside Iskcon. You just have to know what gold is to find it...

Yes, there are crooks and idiots in both camps. But, so what. It is material world, what can be expected. Indeed, it is sadhu sanga that we need. Some will try to engage us in their politics and power trips, trying to convince us that their enemies should be out enemies and so on, but I believe we should learn to tolerate these things, and keep taking shelter of Krsna and His pure representatives.

I know I find inspiration is so many ISKCON devotees. Not so many outside of ISKCON, since I never really felt the need to look arround, but Im open to any desirable association. Actually, in ISKCON some inspire me to become like them, and others inspire me to never become like them - so in this way everybody is a source of inspiration and guidance. I bet outside of ISKCON it would be the same.

I agree that good association can be found in ISKCON and outside ISKCON. Actually, making this difference (inside, outside) may not be that neccessary at all eventually. One thing is sure - ISKCON is not immune to idiotism, and neither are ritviks or other groups. So, lets learn to live with it, and go on.

********************************************
Kula-pavana: During Srila Prabhupadas presence many devotees did not even get to meet their guru in person at the time of initiation and their connection with Prabhupada was mainly virtual. That certainly was an anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation. Usually Vaishnava gurus accept only a very limited number of disciples and they play a very practical role in their lives and training. Thus IN PRACTICE the current GBC system you describe is not much different than the old system in pre 1977 Iskcon. [/quote]
*********************************************
Yes, exactly, even Srila Prabhupada didnt implement traditional guru system, that we wish to expect and which we like to call traditional. Did we already mention here, that it was he who implemented ritvik system in ISKCON? :) Maybe, as you say, the reason was an "anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation." Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there is anomaly in our understanding of sampradaya? What do you think? Could it be that we are missing something, that Srila Prabhupada knew? Maybe there is more to traditional sampradaya, than we can grasp at this moment, especially after being screwed-up by neophyte wannabe kanistha self-appointed acaryas for all our years in ISKCON?

Srila Prabhupada preached traditional guru system, his books are full of it. Will anybody say, that he preached one thing, but practiced another? I dont think so. Could it be actually, that proper implementation of traditional Guru system, as described in Vedas, is exactly as Srila Prabhupada practiced during his presence. How it all fits together I dont know yet, but Im sure if we let ourselves move in this direction, we may find wealth of encouragement.

As you noticed, my point is, that from perspective of disciple, in a technical way, there is little difference between pre 1977 Srila Prabhupadas guru system, post 1977 acarya system, post-acarya GBCs guru system and labeled-ritvik guru system. From perspective of disciple, of course! All later systems seem to have much more in common with Srila Prabhupadas system, that they have in common with anything else. There are slight details, but basis is the same. From perspective of disciple (conditioned soul, who needs to be saved), they are all the same.

Of course, from perspective of guru, and especially personally motivated one, there are differences. One could almost say, that the more personally motivated appointed guru is, the more he will see differences, and the more he will be obsessed with "enemies of his own preferred system".

One could almost say, that Krsna is playing with us, allowing us to create artificial differences, just so that we learn. We see so many differences, so many enemies.... But looking from distance, Srila Prabhupadas guru system (initiation by somebody, after 6 months or whatever, and then lifetime siksa from Srila Prabhupada) was active all the time. And fallen souls were taken care of nicelly, all the time, and still are. So no problem for disciples at all, they are all safe. And it will remain so. This is eternal sampradaya system, we are just misled by our motives to fight with each other. Typical kanistha separatists. One day we will learn.

In the end, just observe your gurus (GBC appointed, ritvik-labeled or whatever...), and watch out for those, who create the most of separatist mentality - those are better to be avoided, no matter how bonafide they think they are, and no matter what is their preferred camp-label.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
...even Srila Prabhupada didnt implement traditional guru system, that we wish to expect and which we like to call traditional. Did we already mention here, that it was he who implemented ritvik system in ISKCON? :) Maybe, as you say, the reason was an "anomaly forced by the circumstances of the situation." Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there is anomaly in our understanding of sampradaya? What do you think? Could it be that we are missing something, that Srila Prabhupada knew? Maybe there is more to traditional sampradaya, than we can grasp at this moment, especially after being screwed-up by neophyte wannabe kanistha self-appointed acaryas for all our years in ISKCON?
[/quote]

The traditional parampara worked well for millenia and I have no doubt it will work well now. Srila Prabhupada did many things out of sheer necessity, be it authorizing young and immature disciples to accept positions of authority or giving Gayatri mantra from a tape recorder. I see it all as war-time expediency, not to be repeated during normal times. For normal times we have our tradition. **** Some of these innovations turned out pretty bad - I mentioned the sannyasa problem earlier but there were other problematic things as well, like the gurukula projects, or the fund raising approach. I think all of these things were experiments, which have to be judged by their results in due course of time (like the sannyasa ashram issue was judged by Prabhupada in 1977).******* I really do not think for a moment that Prabhupada wanted to make himself a post-samadhi diksa guru for the future generations - he really does not say anything about it in his books - zero reference to this issue, while other subject matters are covered hundreds of times. ********Srila Bhaktisiddhanta introduced to Gaudiya Vaishnavism a very novel concept of the sampradaya: a line of siksa gurus, thus minimizing the role of diksa in the past. It was (and still is) quite a controversial approach. Outside of Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon nobody uses this system. That is why I dont think SP placed great emphasis on diksa in the future either. He knew that if the Saraswata line is to be continued, our gurus will be accepted based on the siksa line, not the diksa line. Ritviks insistence that Prabhupada be the real diksa guru for all the devotees thus makes even less sense.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite] ...You respect your guru as the hand of God in your life, Krsnas representative....
[/quote]

[p]I used to think of my guru as the external manifestation of the Supersoul. Then one day he called me on the phone and talked with me about some of the issues I was experiencing at Gita-nagari. Eventually he started a topic that I had not discussed with him, and I felt amazement, "Wow, he knows this!" Then he said, "I dont know where I heard that." A few days later discovered that the other two devotees on the Community Board with me had recently called him once or twice complaining about my "offenses" and breaches of etiquette (questioning the moral integriy of their pure devotee" uttama adhikari guru), and that he had telephoned me on their request. (That was the board meeting where I was told, "Integrity is not a Vaishnava principle.")[/p]

[p]Immediately I felt like a complete ass. My friends betrayed me by deceptively intervening in the sacred relationship with my guru. These brahmanas lied to me about it before admitting that they called him, which was only one of numerous lies that I discovered. More importantly, my guru apparently lied to me about not knowing where he heard something about me. (Perhaps Krishna really made him forget the reason he called me?) In about 6 weeks time I had at least 6 brahmana devotees explicitly lie to me, including my guru, who then threatened to terminate my brahmana training unless I stopped writing (oppositerule.blogspot.com) about my experiences. (These emotional wounds have still not healed, obviously.)[/p]

[p]Of course everything is under Krishnas control, but it seems that sometimes the lessons are not as sweet as we might like to think. It could be a message that we cant necessarily trust everything a person says, even if he is ones guru. I eventually apologised (for what, Im not sure) and made friends with him again, but I cant accept him with the same faith; and simultaneously hes been playing the role of guru heavier than before. Im appreciative of his friendship and his advice, but Im having some trouble with the guru-disciple relationship. Sometimes its nice, but other times it makes me nervous.[/p]

[p]Oddly enough, lying apparently isnt considered "breaking the princples," although publicly talking about how one was hurt by others lies is a punishable offense.[/p]

...thats right Pandu Prabhu,welcome to " Iskcon ".I know who your Guru is , I have known Him for 20 years,I lived in the same Temple as He does for a while once,He is usually quite freindly and looks and acts bonafied most of the time,but He is no guru,He is taking disciples because there are no Prabhupada disciples left in that part of the world.
Take away the donations the Indians provide and that temple,His home base,and it would be on the reale-state market the next day.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
[p]Of course everything is under Krishnas control, but it seems that sometimes the lessons are not as sweet as we might like to think. It could be a message that we cant necessarily trust everything a person says, even if he is ones guru. I eventually apologised (for what, Im not sure) and made friends with him again, but I cant accept him with the same faith; and simultaneously hes been playing the role of guru heavier than before. Im appreciative of his friendship and his advice, but Im having some trouble with the guru-disciple relationship. Sometimes its nice, but other times it makes me nervous.[/p]

[p]Oddly enough, lying apparently isnt considered "breaking the princples," although publicly talking about how one was hurt by others lies is a punishable offense.[/p][/quote]

Pandu-ji, the most valuable lessons in my life were all very painful. Yet I am thankful for them. They made me a better devotee and a better person. They deepened my understanding of our tradition and made me more appreciative of what I have.

I have counselled many devotees who lost faith in their gurus. The answer is always the same: you have to understand guru-tattva as it is understood in our GV tradition and forget the Iskcon fairytales they were feeding you in bhakta program.

****** As to the popularity of lies and general duplicity rampant in Iskcon, this is another case of Iskcon yukta-vairagya fairytales developed by the earlier generation - it must be rejected as well.

In some ways taking diksa is like getting married. You do not fully realize what you are getting yourself into untill its too late. And a divorce is not the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to take it as your lesson in life. You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.

disclaimer: since i dont know any of the participants personally, everything im going to comment re. these happenings at gita-nagari is pure guesswork, but im going to try, anyway...
--------------

it sounds as if HH bhaktimarga m. was informed from devotees he knew quite well that you were creating a disturbance in their place, and he wanted to do the needful by telling you to quiet down, in the interest of the greater good.

that he didnt tell you where he got that information from i would consider something like a "white lie," i.e., he got information confidentially and didnt want to expose his source. (would have been better to tell you that, but there it is.)

to judge this whole episode with something approaching objectivity, one would have to listen to all the others involved, too: the disciples of HH bhakti-tirtha m., your diksa-guru, and anybody else who might have been involved.

i dont want to say youre not stating things truthfully, but you are obviously party in this conflict, and emotionally very much involved. this will lead you to think skewed, from your perspective--it couldnt be otherwise.

the others, BT maharajas disciples, were also emotionally involved, of course, with their guru having passed away not long ago when this happened, resulting in their own skewed perception.

this looks like a pretty explosive situation, and that HH bhakti-marga tried to calm things down for the moment doesnt seem strange to me. he probably should have endeavored to get a better picture of your point of view, but obviously i dont have the slightest idea if he ever tried that, or, if not, what might have prevented him.

i cant remember how long ago this was after HH BTs passing away, but perhaps you could have shown a little more consideration for the feelings of his disciples in this whole affair?

i think a gurus disciples are entitled to a little emotional attachment to him, even a little over-glorification, as long as they understand that other gurus disciples are entitled to the same leeway, and that not everybody who doesnt share their over-enthusiasm is a demon.

its the same with brahmacaris, who have to believe that brahmacaria is better than sense enjoyment, that becoming a grhastha is falling in maya--otherwise, how could they possibly maintain their vows?

there has to be some allowance for this type of group-dynamic in every such group: brahmacaris, gurus disciples, book distributors, etc. they all have to think, in some way, that theyre doing the best thing, even though, from a more detached perspective, that isnt true. but if everybody walked around completely detached all the time, there wouldnt be much enthusiasm, would there?

thing is that there has to be some basic sanity keeping things in check, particularly with the leaders of such groups; because new group members can be expected to get carried away at times, and then there has to be someone able to check that.

from my point of view, this looks like the actual cause for the trouble you were in at that time: the place run by BT disciples, and none of the SP disciples or other senior leaders willing or able to check their "enthusiasm" when it went too far, or able or willing to take the time to explain things to you in a way you could accept.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.[/quote]

The question Ive had to ponder is whether initiations by gurus whom Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize are initiations at all, or just a show. I know I didnt feel any burden of karma lifted, or anything like that.

well, this guru-disciple business with the karma being lifted and spiritual realization and such, depends on both, the gurus being able to do so and the disciples surrender to the guru. you stated yourself that you were never really sure about your part in that deal...

"it sounds as if HH bhaktimarga m. was informed from devotees he knew quite well that you were creating a disturbance in their place, and he wanted to do the needful by telling you to quiet down, in the interest of the greater good."

Phani prabhu,
Actually Im pretty sure he didnt know these devotees at all, since thed lived at Gita-nagari for a long time, and he had only visited once in 10 years, a few weeks before this happened.

I realize that I have a limited perspective in the issue, but a gurus job is to guide the disciple to increase his faith in the process of bhakti. However, as a result of this white lie (which, is supposed to be a harmless lie), combined with the other related events, I was so disturbed that I quit my whole sadhana for almost 2 years. The few times I reached for my japa bag made me feel ill. I couldnt forget Krishna, but I felt like He was just trying to hurt me. It was horrible.

It started because BTS invited one unrepentant child molester to Gita-nagari (he lost his appeal of the CPT decision during this time) and glorified him so much that the devotee announced that he wanted to come live in our community. I was an elected community board member, and my wife was on the child protection team, so we felt a responsiblity to deal with this. We kept our questions low key for months, but then after BTS passed away, and I couldnt get any straight answers from his disciples, I asked publicly what his view on this devotee was, in case he had said something about it to someone. I tried to phrase it in a non-accusing way, but it was a direct question and devotees got very offended. I was threatened, condemned, and ostracized. The board members held secret meetings to impeach me, lying to me to keep them secret until they had some documents for me to sign. That meeting was when I found out that they had called Bhaktimarga.

I regretted the timing of the issues, but it was the responsiblity of BTS and Radhanatha and whomever else invited this devotee to our community. They had to get an exemption from the CPO for him to come here, and they radically violated that limited exemption. (Im not sure if theres an official procedure for that, or if it was just political muscle.) According to the stipulated penalties for violating his rectification plan, he should not have been allowed on ISKCON property, and the exemption was for leading one kirtan; yet he gave several classes and regularly lead kirtan. BTS disciples kept telling me that "He said he didnt do it, and Gurumaharaj said hes ok." Yet the temple president told me that he had trouble enforcing the curfew, as the devotee kept staying up late at night with the several young ladies he was "protecting."

All this is on my blog. Its my perspective, of course, but why would I lie about it? It was political suicide, but I felt duty-bound to report what was happening. As a result, my second initiation was postponed indefinitely.

In Caitanya Caritamrta, its stated that "overglorification is an offense."

Mostly I think your analysis of the situation I described is very good.

[quote][cite] phani:[/cite]well, this guru-disciple business with the karma being lifted and spiritual realization and such, depends on both, the gurus being able to do so and the disciples surrender to the guru. you stated yourself that you were never really sure about your part in that deal...[/quote]

So whats the meaning of such an initiation ceremony?

yes, ive read the whole episode on your blog long ago, and i agree that it was wrong on the temple authorities part. moreover, with your wife on the CPT, you couldnt really have acted much different, even had you wanted to, considering the special circumstances.

hard to say what i would have done in that situation; probably tried to approach somebody even higher up, on the GBC exec. comittee perhaps, not involved in the local place at all.

i certainly dont think you are lying; i only said, to get a clear picture, wed have to listen to the other side, too. these things are never completely black / white, theres always some gray involved.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]You may have many siksa gurus but only one diksa guru - the re-initiation business that you see in Iskcon and GM is 100% bogus.[/quote]

The question Ive had to ponder is whether initiations by gurus whom Srila Prabhupada did not formally authorize are initiations at all, or just a show. I know I didnt feel any burden of karma lifted, or anything like that.[/quote]

The short answer is that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati also did not formally authorize SP to accept disciples. That formal authorization is not part of our process. When guru passes on, his disciples are free to take their own sisyas. That is the way of our tradition. ******
The initiation happens between a guru and his disciple, where the guru represents sampradaya in thought and deed, and where disciple sincerely wants that person to lead him in spiritual life. The rest is hardly relevant. This re-initiation business is making a mockery of diksa as understood from the writings of Goswamis and Vaishnava tradition in general.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
So whats the meaning of such an initiation ceremony?[/quote]

[p]very simple: as long as your surrender isnt there, you wont get the full benefit. i dont think surrender is often fully present at initiation. that can develop later. and if youre not going to surrender to your diksa-guru, youll have to find a siksa-guru to surrender to, which will bring the same benefit. and yes, that siksa guru can be srila prabhupada.[/p]
[p]id consider it very dangerous, though, to have srila prabhupada as my [b]only[/b] siksa-guru, since all feed-back from him would have to come through my [em]inner ear[/em], an organ i cant really trust. i feel safer with a guru who is bodily present and can beat me over the head if necessary...[/p]

...I suggest Pandu Prabhu serve Prabhupadas mission in what ever capacity suits Him best and stay away from Bhaktimarga Swami,theres nothing He can tell Pandu that He wont find in Prabhupadas books.BMS is GBC for Canada,he does nothing.

Right now I just want to acknowledge that Im getting a lot of valuable guidance and instruction from the devotees here. Thanks!
Hare Krishna.

> That formal authorization is not part of our process. When guru passes on, his disciples are free to take their own sisyas. That is the way of our tradition.

Yes. This is what ritviks cant admit since they dont (want to) know the history of GV.

Once I wrote:

Guru doesnt have tell each of his disciples
personally to become a guru after his (gurus)
disappearance. It is an timeless order of Lord
Caitanya (yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa, CC
Madhya 7.128) as seen from the meeting of Sri
Caitanya with Sarangadeva (Saranga dasa Thakura)
recorded in Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhana:

"On one occasion, after reprimanding Devananda
Pandita, Lord Gauranga was on His way home,
accompanied by Srivasa Pandita, when he came across
Sarangadeva. Lord Gauranga asked Sarangadeva why had
never initiated any disciples. Sarangadeva replied
that he had not found any suitable person. Lord
Gauranga blessed him saying, "Whoever you shall
choose as a disciple will be most suitable."

...yes but what do we do about the GBC making phoney gurus ? This is the real issue in ritvik circles.Should someone be allowed to take disciples because they know they will have devotees serving them and giving them money ?

Its been repeatedly stated that GBC gives only a "no-objection" status. Its not "making gurus". Only a guru makes ones disciple into a next guru.

Historically there was no GV (or V) institution to do this. To choose a proper guru was solely up to a disciple. If the disciple made a wrong choice due to not following sastra prescriptions for choosing a guru, it was only his problem. Just like if one marries a wrong partner. Ignorance is no excuse. Thats life.

It is not uncommon for a single successor to be commonly chosen by election at a meeting of the Mahants. Formerly even a governor of the district would preside over the elections by Mahants of the successor guru in some cases. (The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India By R V Russell, R.B.H. Lai p. 104) so do Madhvas mathas have a collective say on who is an acharya of other math in the group will be. Not unusual. But unlike acharya guru deal is different, guru is a relationship (on one side with samradaya and his guru, and on the other it is with his disciple). Prabhupada was very specific - he wanted all his disciples to be his successors.

I dont think it is fair to compare choosing a guru to choosing a spouse. For one thing, the choice of a husband or wife normally remains for one lifetime, whereas a disciple is the gurus eternal servant. Huge difference. Also, in a Vedik society ones spouse is normally chosen by the parents, or so Ive been told. A kanistha adhikari is expected to study the scriptures to understand what is a bona fide guru, but he is also not considered capable of distinguishing between devotees at different levels of advancement. (Seems a little contradictory.) Therefore ones choice of guru often is largely decided based on charisma, fame, etc., especially when one can choose from pool of presumably safe gurus, basically certified by a supposedly highly advanced group of Vaishnvas.

If the GBC is responsible for objecting to potential gurus who are not qualified, then the message given to prospective disciples is that any of the authorized ("no objection") gurus are safe and capable of quickly delivering the disciple back to Godhead. Based on history it is readily apparent that this is not reliable. Yet its considered highly offensive for a more experienced devotee to point out known or suspected faults of initiating gurus. Therefore the new devotees are often kept relatively ignorant about the potential dangers among those whom he may be considering for spiritual master. Those who are inclined to reveal such dangers to new devotees are often shunned by other devotees, which is a powerful incentive for keeping new devotees in the dark.

It reminds me of how Mother Mahavegavati was one of the first devotees I met, and shortly after that we became neighbors. She spent hours telling me of her experiences serving under Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. If not for her guidance, my family probably wouldve moved to Gita-nagari in 1997 (rather than New Vrindavana) instead of in 2003, which wouldve made it likely that I wouldve been initiated by Bhakti-Tirtha Swami. Wow, I could be a guru myself right now. Hows that for dangerous? Of course, I would probably receive a number of objections because I dont always go along to get along.

Come to think of it, if a guru-disciple relationship is eternal, then it seems that it would not be a matter of choice in this world, but rather revelation, unless its like the Christian conception of eternal as having a beginning but no end. If ones guru-disciple relationship is pre-existing, then one could argue that it would be better to have it drawn by lottery and take he mind with all its faults right out of it. How can a materially conditioned soul, with the four defects, properly choose a spiritual master?

Actually, when I first spoke to Bhaktimarga Swami about initiation, I told him that it was hard for me to understand how a materially conditioned person could take such strict vows. My reasoning was that maya was so powerful that it makes no sense that a conditioned soul could promise to properly honor such vows. It seemed to me that if maya so chose, she could bewilder me in a moment, so I would first have to become liberated before being able to honestly make such a vow. In response, Bhaktimarga told me that its easier to keep the vows if one takes them after grhastha life is nearing completion, and he recommended that I wait 20 or 25 years to get initiated. I asked in an online devotee forum if anyone had been able to keep their vows without ever breaking them, and no one responded. After a few years I started considering that anyone can die at any moment, and I wanted my spiritual efforts to be more than just practice. I also did not know if he was suggesting that he would initiate me in 20 years, or whether I should consider a different guru. When I asked him about it, he said he would initiate me at the Rathayatra in a few months. I still didnt know how I could take such serious vows without being liberated, but I wanted so much to improve my chanting of Hare Krishna that I decided to take the chance. As it turned out, I was right, in that maya caught me several times. Im happy to be doing pretty well now, but I know that maya is waiting to get me as soon as I forget Krishna for a moment.

In the matter of Srila Prabhupada wanting all of his disciples to be his successors, that still leaves some important details unanswered. Each disciple may or may not become qualified, regardless of what Srila Prabhupada wants. Some obviously believe in serving him as rtviks. If a disciple is sincere, who can question his relationship with his guru, to say that he should not act as a rtvik for Srila Prabhupada if that is his understanding of what Srila Prabhupada wants?

> I dont think it is fair to compare choosing a guru to choosing a spouse.

This one, just like other comparisons, is not meant to be 100% fitting but to illustrate some aspects of the issue.

>A kanistha adhikari is expected to study the scriptures to understand what is a bona fide guru, but he is also not considered capable of distinguishing between devotees at different levels of advancement. (Seems a little contradictory.)

No, kanistha needs help always.

>Therefore ones choice of guru often is largely decided based on charisma, fame, etc., especially when one can choose from pool of presumably safe gurus, basically certified by a supposedly highly advanced group of Vaishnvas.

In this case a disciple didnt do his homework. No-objection cannot replace individual choice based on sastra rules.

siddhanta alasa jana anartha to chade na, jade krsna bhrama kori krsna seva kore na

"One who is lazy in properly understanding the Vaisnava philosophical conclusions can never become free from anarthas, the unwanted bad habits and philosophical conceptions that impede devotional service. One who mistakes Krishna as belonging to the material plane can never render actual service to the Lord." (BSST, Prakrita Rasa Shata Dushani)

The argument that this guru may fall down in the future is objected against by SP (RC, July 11, 1973, London):

Father Tanner: Hm. But, you see, knowledge and attainment arent the same thing. You know, I may know that it is wrong to be an alcoholic, and maybe I am not actually, physically an alcoholic, but it doesnt mean to say that interiorally I have cleansed myself of all addiction. The fact that you are not drinking for a year doesnt mean to say that you have overcome the intoxicant urge if that is in you, although you know it is wrong.
Prabhupada: No, this argument is not very strong. Just like one foodstuff, freshly made, it is fresh. But if somebody argues that if it remains four days more, it will become bad, that is surmisation. Now it is fresh. We take it fresh. What will happen in future, that is no consideration. In future, everyone may fall and everyone may become elevated. But we have to take his present situation, what he is at present.

>Yet its considered highly offensive for a more experienced devotee to point out known or suspected faults of initiating gurus. Therefore the new devotees are often kept relatively ignorant about the potential dangers among those whom he may be considering for spiritual master. Those who are inclined to reveal such dangers to new devotees are often shunned by other devotees, which is a powerful incentive for keeping new devotees in the dark.

Consulting senior Vaisnavas is not wrong. If someone claims so he should provide necessary quotes. But if the senior Vaisnava points out only faults, theres a problem with him, the guru he refers to or both and more info is needed.

>Wow, I could be a guru myself right now. Hows that for dangerous?

Both guru and disciple are responsible for their actions. Trying to avoid this responsibility by inventing various ways and means wont work in the long run.

Imho, this general tendency to protect people from this and that is an aspect of Western modernistic materialistic paradigm and it only makes things worse and is easily abused. But thats offtopic here.

>Come to think of it, if a guru-disciple relationship is eternal, then it seems that it would not be a matter of choice in this world, but rather revelation, unless its like the Christian conception of eternal as having a beginning but no end. If ones guru-disciple relationship is pre-existing, then one could argue that it would be better to have it drawn by lottery and take he mind with all its faults right out of it.

Two possibilities: Either its a new relationship or a continuation from the past. But which one it is is hard to determine without things like regressions, advanced astrology, etc. which may not be 100% reliable.
Pre-determined doesnt imply doing anything and everything. Where is dharma and karma?

>How can a materially conditioned soul, with the four defects, properly choose a spiritual master?

He cannot - see above. Therefore its said that Krsna gives a guru and the guru gives Krsna. To get a genuine guru is a matter of sukriti.

>Actually, when I first spoke to Bhaktimarga Swami about initiation, I told him that it was hard for me to understand how a materially conditioned person could take such strict vows.

Imho, in that case one shouldnt take diksa because of a lack of determination. Its better to take siksa from seniors, serve them and thus develop this determination.

>My reasoning was that maya was so powerful that it makes no sense that a conditioned soul could promise to properly honor such vows. It seemed to me that if maya so chose, she could bewilder me in a moment, so I would first have to become liberated before being able to honestly make such a vow.

So do we have a vicious circle here? My understanding of maya is different. Shes not a predator ready to jump on us at any moment but its us who invite her to influence us by turning away from Krishna (kRSNa bahirmukha haNA bhoga-vANchA kare nikaTa-stha mAyA tAre jApaTiyA dhare).

Another of my realizations is that the widespread idea of fighting maya is a misconception. We cant fight her since shes duratyaya. Only Krishna - and esp. Radha - can help us. After all, Sri Radha is Adi Shakti, the origin of Maya shakti.
Also blessings of Vaisnavis, esp. advanced ones, are a powerful protection from maya. Otoh, offenses against them is a sure way to falldown. Unfortunately, we dont lack examples.

>I know that maya is waiting to get me as soon as I forget Krishna for a moment.

Thats how KC works, by free will. Either: Krsna bahirmukha >> maya comes. Or:
Krsna sevonmukha >> bhakti comes.

>Each disciple may or may not become qualified, regardless of what Srila Prabhupada wants.

Then its up to prospective disciples if they choose him or not. See above.

>If a disciple is sincere, who can question his relationship with his guru, to say that he should not act as a rtvik for Srila Prabhupada if that is his understanding of what Srila Prabhupada wants?

Anyone who simply points out that post-mortem ritvikism is against g-s-s.

post-mortem : L. after the death, source Websters collegiate dictionary

god... this thread is longer than the bhagavad gita...

...gbc bhagavad gita or ritvik bhagavad gita ?...;)

boring bhagavad gita... :)

Hare Krishna
Please note that you must delete that comment,which states that "birball",is a "THANKFUL PEOPLE".
What I will like to say is that KULA PAVANA must read all of Srila prabhupadas Instructions carefully before blabbing his/her mouth about the ritvik issue.He/She is like a blind person leading the blind.

Have you studied the July 9,1977 Directive from Srila Prabhuapda,to ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS and The GBC.Have you studied Srila Prabhupadas Last Will and Testament.Are you aware that a Forensic Laboratory found the May 28,1977 Appointment Tape to be Bogus.Where are ALL the Missing Tapes that the GBC cannot account for.How conveniently these tapes that give conclusive evidence of the existence of THE RITVIK SYSTEM,that was approved by Srila Prabhupada vanish in thin air.Can Kula Pavana account for all these details.
Please contact me at :"birball@yahoo.com",and we can discuss this matter,in details.
Please DELETE the comment:"THANKFUL PEOLPE"
Thanks
Leal Birball
=============================

[quote][cite] birball:[/cite]
What I will like to say is that KULA PAVANA must read all of Srila prabhupadas Instructions carefully before blabbing his/her mouth about the ritvik issue.He/She is like a blind person leading the blind.

Have you studied the July 9,1977 Directive from Srila Prabhuapda,to ALL TEMPLE PRESIDENTS and The GBC.Have you studied Srila Prabhupadas Last Will and Testament.Are you aware that a Forensic Laboratory found the May 28,1977 Appointment Tape to be Bogus.Where are ALL the Missing Tapes that the GBC cannot account for.How conveniently these tapes that give conclusive evidence of the existence of THE RITVIK SYSTEM,that was approved by Srila Prabhupada vanish in thin air.Can Kula Pavana account for all these details.[/quote]

Hare Krishna,

Prabhu, I have studied the above referenced materials in detail and I am tired of repeating the same arguments again for every new participant in these discussions. Read my posts and address their contents if you like.

The appointment tape is not as you say bogus. There are possibly parts of it that were removed or edited, yet clearly Prabhupadas voice is there and he is appointing some of his disciples to initiate. And the claims that missing tapes contain all the ritvik evidence Prabhupada wanted to implement is about as funny as a 10 year old student claiming a dog ate his homework...

I have no problem with devotees believing in ritvikvada. Just be a real Vaishnava at the same time. That is the important part.