As It Was
Submitted by Harmonist staff on July 14, 2010 – 1:21 am114 Comments
114 Comments »
Leave a comment!
Lively, insightful commentary on contemporary issues facing spiritual practitioners.
Book, film, and audio reviews of contemporary Gaudiya media, as well as a wide variety of media of interest to the spiritually minded.
News from around the world with an emphasis on alternative press that is especially relevant to spiritual practitioners.
Excerpts from classical Gaudiya texts, with and without commentaries, hosted by teachers with whom readers can interact and ask questions.
Philosophical articles on Gaudiya Vaisnavism that focus on the tradition’s scriptural conclusions as well as its feeling for the nature of ultimate reality.
When one is exclusively devoted and unconscious of the environment, then one may go on with his smarana within. But this is not at all possible for the beginners.
“Researchers and policy makers generally don’t see the earth that predates humans as an optimal original state. ‘Obviously the best thing for the environment is to kill ourselves,’ Jahn says.”
A grassroots movement has recently emerged in which a number of scientists, philosophers, ethicists and legal experts have rallied together in support of the idea that some nonhuman animals are persons.
“…may I be blessed with the grace of Gadadhara Pandita, the master of the Bhagavatam from whom Mahaprabhu listens to the Bhagavatam. I invoke his mercy.”
Too often we encounter either complete beginner’s guides to spiritual practice or the classic sacred texts, which have endured yet may be hard to penetrate. Karnamrita’s book falls nicely in between these extremes.
You just get better Gurunishta! Lovin’ it!!!
Love the diacritics!
Personally, I find it a bit distasteful when anti-ritviks stoop to such petty antics. Nothing expresses doubt and lack of faith in one’s own guru as much as petty anti-ritvik gimmicks like this cartoon.
There are many nice devotees who believe in the ritvik concept. This cartoon is an insult to them and their faith. Since when is insulting the sincere faith of others funny? How would you feel if someone insulted your faith and love?
I don’t follow, promote or practice the ritvik concept, but I still find the cartoon very small-minded and divisive.
Don’t insult devotees who have exclusive faith in Srila Prabhupada.
Srila Prabhupada does not reject them and neither should we.
Good lord, it’s hard to believe that more than 35 years after the passing of Srila Prabhupada that the neo-devotees of the movement are still insulting and abusing the faith of devotees who have their faith in Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.
It’s not really that funny.
I fully support Swami Tripurari Maharaja as guru and acharya, but I still find anti-ritvik jabs to be beneath the dignity of Swami Tripurari.
I am surprised by your seemingly generous view on this. Unfortunately this is not an issue to be so agreeable on. The “rtvik” idea is an anartha, period. Misconceptions about siddhanta are one form of anartha and no matter how appealing of a dress they might take (I do not find anything appealing about the rtvik operation) the foundation is false. It is faith in themselves, not Prabhupada, that fuels this group. But they have boxed Prabhupada in to conform with their views. Conveniently, there is no one around (whom they have faith in) to tell them they are wrong. What a quaint way to avoid surrender and yet think oneself fully surrendered.
So, on the basis of the sambandha jnana I have received from my guru and the guru parampara, I call into question how “sincere” this faith of the rtviks really is. As Srila Sridhara Maharaja said, “sincerity is invincible”, thus if they were sincere we would not see such an adamant adherence to apasiddhanta and aparadha.
This is the most important point: the entire idea is actually offensive. Offensive to Prabhupada and the entire guru parampara. It is not merely a distraction, it is a force by which people will be pushed away from Mahaprabhu. To disagree and yet sympathize with this school is simply sentimental.
How come certain groups of devotees seem to have a very long leash with which to challenge and demean the faith of others, while other groups are expected to sit quietly and be “humbler than a blade of grass?”
I am not the defender of the ritvik faith, but I do respect their feelings – something you seem to feel a need to strike out at. If you really knew some of the wonderful devotees who advocate the ritvik authority you probably would not be as insensitive to their feelings. I know some of them and I have nothing but respect and love for anyone with such a devout feeling toward Srila Prabhupada.
The cartoon is inflammatory, a bit insulting, a bit brash, a bit brazen and a bit harsh. It doesn’t ruffle my feathers a bit, but I am curious as to whether or not this cartoon is a challenge to the ritviks to come to this web site and argue their views? Or, is this just a one-sided insult that doesn’t allow for a response?
I doubt seriously that anybody here wants to get involved in a ritvik debate. So, therefore, I say the cartoon is anything but humble and kind. But, maybe the younger generation of devotees have their right?
It’s not a big deal. The cartoon is not a serious offense, but I just wanted to illuminate the idea that maybe not everybody who visits the web site think it is cute or funny.
I would really like to see the disciples of Swami Tripurari above this kind of political mentality of some kind of struggle or battle with an enemy that are Anuvratanam of Swami Prabhupada.
Maybe your spiritual master can teach you that acharyas have sisyas and anuvratanam?
I think belittling the Anuvratanam of Swami Bhaktivedanta is not a very good idea.
KB, you are contradicting yourself on this issue. To appreciate Rtviks and at the same time believe any present acarya is qualified to be a guru is to take two incompatible stances. By very dint of their philosophy the rtviks are saying that all current gurus are illegitimate. It does not matter how kind they might be. There are plenty of kind Christians who think we are all going to hell. One cannot support an acarya in any meaningful sense and at the same time think the rtvik route is one of various viable spiritual paths. (Edit: I know there is the so-called “soft rtvik” that does accept certain gurus, I think they are wrong too, but the above arguments do not apply to them.)
The “feeling” that you keep talking about is blind and, furthermore, detrimental sentiment. The important point that is being missed is that such people are anything but one-minded followers of Srila Prabhupada.
We are not looking to incite a rtvik debate here, but you are yourself the strongest evidence of just how few comments we censor on this website. So if they come, we will accept that.
I am even more liberal than ritvik. I don’t even believe that any formal initiation is necessary at all. The ritual initiation that is popular today is a device that career gurus use to facilitate the financing of ashrams and temples where disciple gather and argue over who gets what room and who gets what position.
The whole spectacle plays out poorly in the western world.
I personally believe and feel that Global Leadership is the prerogative of Lord Jesus and that global unification of human society will eventually happen under the auspices of Lord Jesus.
The Hare Krishna cult will always be a minor element of western social fabric, but Lord Jesus brought the global peace formula and it is his leadership that will take the modern world into a global theocracy.
I support that mission 100%.
The Krishna cult will never be eligible or able to lead the world into a global theocracy of representative government.
The Hare Krishna Varnashrama ideology has no possibility of being the theological platform for global theocracy.
Lord Jesus and his Kingdom of Heaven and Brotherhood of Man on Earth will usher in the era of light and life on Earth in the coming future.
Lord Jesus is a special incarnation of Lord Brahma.
I know that for a fact. I have been blessed with the real life and teachings of Lord Jesus.
So, I am much worse than ritvik.
I am Jesusonian now as well.
I love Jesus and Srila Prabhupada.
I don’t believe that the ritual initiation of the Hare Krishnas is anything more than an external formality.
So, I have little fascination for all such cultural ornaments.
I only seek substance. Rituals hold no charm for me.
Well said KBDas,
That is the way I view the world as well in regards to Jesus eventually leading a world theocracy. I finally see a very small but very strong Christian remnant going back to a pure biblical foundation and rejecting the armies of false prophets, prosperity gospel types who usually end up engaging in behavior not suitable for holy men and leaving their followers dazed and confused.
Atheistic secular humanism is dieing fast. The elements trying to control an emerging new world theocracy are trying to get people to bow down and take orders from their appointed henchmen but what is happening is the people that see through this are becoming very strong in their faith and connection to Jesus who I personally believe is Brahma as well. The ones who get fooled by the pretenders end up losing their money and their energy and either die, become atheists, or rebuild their faith from scratch.
That is only point where I disagree with pure Biblical theology is their denouncement of Hinduism as a pagan religion. There clearly are very nasty pagan cults that have run the world with unclean spirits but Krsna is clearly divine and even the name Christ is similar to Krsna.
Have followed these debates between living guru advocates and ritviks for years and have seen good arguments on both sides but ultimately all it has done on the world stage is leave Krsna Consciousness as an afterthought and of no real influence on the global stage. The world situation will revolve around the final battle between the pagan cult worshiping mystery religions of the forces of the Anti-Christ and the eventual return of Jesus whatever form that takes and the rule of his true kingdom of love and truth. A much needed break for humanity from the obnoxious governments and hierarchies of the Kali-yuga. No secret initiations required, just have to pass the tests of the spirit and not be fooled.
http://vamanadeva.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/eminent-madhva-sampradaya-scholars-support-srila-prabhupadas-ritvik-system/ . Other sampradaya scholars also are ok with the ritvik system. Some excepts:
“Strictly speaking, in the spiritual field anybody can initiate who is siddha purusha and even if not entitled by guru. Traditionally this is not accepted. If I am a mantra siddha, I need not have a sanction from my guru or any tradition. I can initiate anybody. This is sastric. But there are two things – institutional systems is that only the peeta-adhipati (the person presiding over the peeta) guru can initiate. That is the system in the Madhva mutts. In fact only siddha purusa can initiate and he need not be a siddha purusa who has come in the traditional way in the peeta.”
“According to sastra anybody can give mudra dharana. I can give mudra to my children. But according to the present practice in the mutts, sampradaya system, they do not accept it. They say, “Only we have the authority. Only we have the authority. We can give mudra dharana. But nobody else…” Some of our swamis say, “These people belong to Uttaradi mutt, they belong to Pejawar mutt..” and so on. Again there is division. “And you cannot take vaishnava diksha from some other swami. I am your mula vidya guru. You take diksha from me.” No it has become a social right. Spirituality has nothing to do with this. This is again the present plight of the muttas. “” In other sampradayas the diksha guru must be a living guru. He cannot give diksha with his spiritual body, non material body. He must give with his gross material body only – that tradition is there. This is not siddhanta or apasiddhanta. Tradition is a social system. It is nothing to do with the spiritual. Society accepted this just to have a control on disciples from the peeta or matha. Swami should have certain control of the disciples. So they have accepted certain rights – they are his copyrights! So that he can have certain control over the society. This is a social system presently accepted by the spiritual priests. Philosophy and practice have nothing to do with it.”"You have a temple of Prabhupada, and before Prabhupada himself, no others can give diksha and these people provide name and mala. The diksha should be in the presence of Prabhupada’s vigraha. That will be better. That would be better. There will be no problem. Just to avoid problems, see so many gurus, they will leave peeta (the sacred seat), they are falling down. Just to avoid this, you take initiation before Prabhupada’s vigraha.”
1. The Madhvas were misinformed concerning Prabhupada’s desire for succession.
2. They bring up some valid points concerning how initiation can deteriorate into a means of social control. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura also emphasized this.
3. They validate ritvik without any scriptural reference or previous precedent to support it.
4. Madhavas do not have a history of ritvik succession, nor do Gaudiyas.
5. Gaudiya doctrine differs from Madhva doctrine on numerous points.
6. When senior Guadiyas were asked the same questions they termed ritvik a dangerous deviation (B.P. Puri Goswami) and well intended but misinformed (B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami).
Some quotes from big scholars:
“The rtvik system propounded by Srila Prabhupada does not violate in anyway the shastras’ injunctions.”
Signed. Rangapriya Swami.
Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No we cannot say that. Because what is sampradaya? Sampradaya is again a constitution- a spiritual institution. And it is followed by centuries and centuries by the sisyas. So any system that is in practice for more than 100 years, it becomes sampradaya!
ISKCON devotee: Now since no acharya in the past has formed an international society…
Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: Yes, that is why I have told you, sampradaya means also, it is a spiritual constitution, which should not go against the spirit of vedic teachings. That’s all.
ISKCON devotee: So is the ritvik system, taking mala, name, etc from living ritviks and considering Srila Prabhupada as the diksha guru, violating vedic spirit?
Sri Bannanje Govindacarya: No no nothing, nothing. That is not that…
Anyway again when it is convenient Baladeva Vidyabhusana found the link to Madhava and now you reject the arguments of people from other two schools. Say that is your judgment and you don’t know for sure. Won’t it be better as other scholars disagree with you.
Definition of what is siddhanta and what is not changes according to the sect you belong to. When BSST took sanyasa from the picture of his guru without a living guru, it was ok? Even if he goes against sastra, you will say look at the impact he made. Where is the sanction of sastra then? When it is convenient, look at the impact. When it is convenient, look at the sastra. We just accept BSST even though he went against sastra according to traditionalists. Any amount of Sastra itself it just realization of sages like Prabhupada in the past. Distinguishing between the detail and siddhanta is the subjective decision of each sect. It always has been. Trying to set it in stone is ignoring how whenever a new sect comes they look unorthodox and then eventually get their own following. Many traditionalists don’t consider BSST a legitimate line. Chandan Goswami for instance respects ISKCON as a separate system with differences from traditional Gaudiya school. In a recent Facebook note (he uses Facebook as some kind of discussion/preaching tool and general camaraderie for devotees) on the caste system, he wrote about how the correct understanding of BG 4.13 refers to caste by birth rather than qualification as ISKCON supposedly preaches, quoting Jiva Gosvami and others as authority . All traditional schools accept a birth based caste system apart from BSST;s time. This naturally led to a discussion in the comments about ISKCON’s “caste by qualification” understanding and he spoke quite openly (but somewhat naively) about the difference between ISKCON and the trad CVs and how their siksa-parampara isn’t understandable. So ritviks and non-ritviks can respect each other while acknowledging their differences. If you don’t have history, create it. There was no Gaudiya vaisnavism in history, it was created and not accepted by other orthodox schools. There was no earth in history, it was created.
We accept Baladeva Vidyabhusana as much as he has converted to GV. We accept Madhvas as Vaisnavas but do not go to them for clarification on our siddhanta. We have our own seniors to go to. Madhvas have their siddhanta and we have ours. The differences define our sampradayas. We say krsnas tu bhagavan svayam means one thing they say it means another. They speak from a Vaikuntha perspective and we speak from a Goloka perspective. No problem. Regarding the issue at hand, those who reject senior Gaudiyas’ opinions and solicit contradictory support from Madhvas after giving them false information are the ones who are picking and choosing and lacking consistency overall.
You sight the example of BSST. However, we acknowledge that to any rule there may be exceptions but we do not agree that the exceptions can be made into the rule. Furthermore what he did in taking sannyasa from his guru after his departure is not analogous to the idea of Prabhupada’s succession becoming a so called ritvik succession. The two are quite different even though they bear one similarity. The stance of Chandana Goswami is unfortunate. GV has little if anything to do with caste at all and the fact that he cannot understand BSST’s Bhagavata parampara does not say much for his measure of dynamic spiritual understanding.
And without a clear mandate from Prabhupada stating that he desired some kind of ritvik succession (which we do not have), the decision to pursue one is not something that even has his backing to begin with. So those that do pursue it are on their own. Yes they are creating history, but so did the many other sects claiming connection with Mahaprabhu, many that is that were considered apasampradayas by BVT.
But I think we have been around the block with this. Do as you like and best wishes.
The comic is referring to the silly attitude the rtviks have taken with regard to Prabhupada’s books; i.e., that any and all editing is bad. You say anti-rtviks should not insult their faith, but in my view the regressive thinking of the rtviks insults the faith of the rest of us.
Not editing those books and adhering to Ritivik ideology are not necessarily one and same thing. I personally do not care for the Ritvik movement at all, but I disaprove of changing Srila Prabhupada’s original books. At least I disaprove of there not remaining reprints of the originals. The history should be kept intact and accurate.
No matter what you think about some of the people that believe in a ritvik initiation process, the concept of ritvik should never become an object of hatred or anger.
If we take all the predecessor acharyas face value with what they have written, then we should all know that an shaktyavesha-avatar guru has special authority and certainly the ritvik idea is not outside the realm of what such an shaktyavesha-avatar guru could conceivably establish.
Certainly, Srila Prabhupada did have the authority and power to appoint disciples to initiate on his behalf after his passing. Anyone who denies the shaktyavesha-avatar acharya guru Srila Prabhupada the authority to do so does not understand the powers possessed of such a shaktyavesha-avatara acharya like Srila Prabhupada.
We cannot limit the unlimited authority of Srila Prabhupada who is the controller of Krishna.
What if we take Srila Sridhara Maharaja at face value? After all, he revealed Srila Prabhupadas status as a saktyavesha of Nityananda Prabhu.
After Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta’s passing there was a meeting of his disciples. Therein one devotee proposed that they continue by simply printing and distrigbuting Bhaktisiddhanta’s teachings. He gave a nice talk full of “feeling” for his departed gurudeva and had the support of a number of the devotees in the assembly. The next person to speak was Srila Sridhara Maharaja. He said (paraphrasing), “this is all nice, but we cannot cheat the people. We are not Sikhs.” That is the rtvik conception: cheating its adherents. A parampara devoid of parampara cant even be considered a shell, it does not even follow the external form, what to speak of having no living spiritual substance to pass on. Unfortunately there are shades of rtvik everywhere, even in a number of prominent gurus.
Saying Prabhupada could change the system of parmpara is like saying he could change rasa-tattva. Where is the scriptural evidence that an empowered devotee can change guru-tattva? It is a completely fabricated idea.
Guru-tattva is more complicated than some simplistic concept of a physical succession. Guru-tattva cannot be canned into a stale, dogmatic, ancient idea of knowledge transmission. Guru-tattva is not a physical succession.
It never was and never will be.
I understand how some devotees may find the jab at the ritvik idea hurtful; as Prema Bhakti says, sometimes the truth stings. And Guru-nistha could certainly have censored himself with some sort of political correctness, but he’s an artist and a devotee of considerable conviction. The plain fact is that the ritvik idea was made up, apparently as a response to problems with ISKCON’s leadership. We just didn’t hear that idea before some time in the late ’80s. And why didn’t we hear it? because it’s contrary to the practice of guru parampara, contrary to everything Srila Prabhupada taught us throughout his preaching career.
I have many friends who advocate the ritvik idea, and I discussed it with both an open mind and open heart when it was appropriate with devotees for whom I have regard and affection. I know what I’ve heard from Srila Prabhupada since I started hearing from him in 1969. He made it clear on countless occasions that it’s our duty to become qualified gurus, that he expects that of us. The ritvik advocates assert that he changed that at the end. As KB writes, a ” shaktyavesha-avatar guru has special authority and certainly the ritvik idea is not outside the realm of what such an shaktyavesha-avatar guru could conceivably establish.”
But because such an innovation would be so clearly contrary to our parampara, if that were Srila Prabhupada’s intention, he would have established it clearly and unequivocally. And, frankly, those who advocate this change carry the burden of proving that is what he intended, as well as what he did. Frankly, they have presented no such evidence. Ever. Anywhere. If they had, that would be a different matter. The fact that they haven’t indicates to me that no such evidence exists.
With regard to the book editing, I also have many dear, long-time friends among those agitating against the “changes.” I love them no less for the zeal of their campaign. However, as a writer, a writing teacher of many years, and someone who also has a lot of experience editing, I find their case unconvincing. I’ve spent many hours discussing this with my anti-”change” friends and with Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida. The case against the editing is not as compelling as many seem to think.
The philosophy has not been changed by this work, and I don’t think there’s anything sacrosanct about a particular choice of words in most of the cases discussed. After all, if there were, why would we edit Easy Journey to Other Planets, and why not distribute the first canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam as it was presented in the original Delhi editions? After all, it was those original Bhagavatams that made me a disciple. I find them charming. But anyone who tries reading them aloud will hear why editing is important.
Moreover, if the specific words, presented in a particular way, were the essence of the power of Srila Prabhupada’s writing, how do we account for the power of the translations? And if you were to read the original Spanish translations, for example, and compare them with more current translations, you’d find considerable difference in the language, but not necessarily the philosophy. And if the books are translated from English to another language, and from that language to a third, and perhaps from that to yet another, do they lose their potency? I don’t think so.
Srila Prabhupada stated on several occasions that he wants his books edited to a standard that would elicit the respect of even all classes. And I see that this is the goal of the BBT editors’ efforts.
The cartoon is indeed gentle, and it’s funny. And it makes the artist’s point in a way that gets people talking. That makes it a success.
How can you possibly say that?
Even after Srila Sridhar Maharaja discussed the ritvik concept, explained it and implemented it in his own formal declaration of succession?
This is what we know as selective amnesia.
That is when devotees intentionally forget certain teachings of Srila Sridhar Maharaja and pretend as if he never said them.
The whole Matha suffers from the same problem.
Do we need to post Sridhar Maharaja’s final and formal declaration of succession here to prove the point?
In fact anyone who says Sridhar Maharaja did not implement or approve of the ritvik system is simply a liar straight-up.
Babhru das, you attempt to make the case that editing is common practice in the publishing industry and therefore whats the problem if its done with Srila Prabhupada’s original texts? But the objection [from ritviks and other quarters as well] is not with the practice of editing in itself but by whom, and under whose order its being carried out. Whats questioned is the qualification of Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida das and such individuals, in the face of their many other failures such as instituting vaishnava aparadha, misconceptions in sidhanta and so forth. Who can blame the opposing of the editing of SP’s books by the GBC when that group has proven unable to carry out Srila Prabhupada’s mission even remotely to what was intended by the acarya?
KB, you wrote:
“Nothing expresses doubt and lack of faith in one’s own guru as much as petty anti-ritvik gimmicks like this cartoon.”
I don’t know how you would substantiate this point, but it seems like a poorly thought-out attempt to try to make me look bad for having an opinion that you don’t share.
you also wrote:
“There are many nice devotees who believe in the ritvik concept. This cartoon is an insult to them and their faith. Since when is insulting the sincere faith of others funny? How would you feel if someone insulted your faith and love?”
I want to raise the same point in this connection again that I raised in the Varnashrama thread: feelings and analysis/theoretical truths based on the shastra should be kept separate. The fact that there are nice people in the Ritvik camp says absolutely nothing about the fact whether their sambandha-jnana is correct or not. I’m surprised you would make such a simple mistake in your thinking.
you also wrote:
“Good lord, it’s hard to believe that more than 35 years after the passing of Srila Prabhupada that the neo-devotees of the movement are still insulting and abusing the faith of devotees who have their faith in Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.”
See this is where it all breaks down: I really don’t believe that the ritviks have faith in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, actually they are going head on against them when it comes to Guru-tattva. Srila Prabhupada is a bright luminary in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, but to pull him out of it and put him above all other acharyas is actually a huge disservice to his movement and what he wanted to accomplish. The Ritviks seem to be moving according to sentiment rather than clear sambandha and that’s a sure recipe for problems.
Gurunistha, you said : See this is where it all breaks down: I really don’t believe that the ritviks have faith in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, actually they are going head on against them when it comes to Guru-tattva. Srila Prabhupada is a bright luminary in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, but to pull him out of it and put him above all other acharyas is actually a huge disservice to his movement and what he wanted to accomplish. The Ritviks seem to be moving according to sentiment rather than clear sambandha and that’s a sure recipe for problems.
Prabhu, you have a serious problem with judging people, or you have met the wrong rtviks. I suggest you listen to KB prabhu carefully. The rtviks are not guided by sentiments, they are guided well by Guru and Shastra. Just because you disagree with them, it does not make them sentimental.
I dont think anyone pulled out Srila Prabhupada and said he is better than anyone else. Having said that, there is absolutely nothing worng in doing so! Srila Prabhupada himself said that his spiritual master Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada was “not and ordinary spiritual master”, He said that he was extremely special. Speak to the Madhavas and they will tell you how Sri Madhvacharya is better than everyone and same goes to the Ramanujas. This is a quality of a disciple. We feel and know that our spiritual master is indeed the best and that makes us most fortunate.
Srila Prabhupada stated that his disciples should become gurus and write books. In addition, Krishna himself describes the guru parampara (one after another) in the Gita. Rtviks hold contradictory points-of-view on the above and therefore are not guided by guru or sastra on these points.
To glorify our gurudeva with the intention of discrediting other gurus is vaisnava aparadha.
We should feel that our guru is the best for us personally and that others’ gurus are the best for them. In principle, guru is one but manifests himself is various forms.
Srila Prabhupada stated that his disciples should become gurus and write books. In addition, Krishna himself describes the guru parampara (one after another) in the Gita. Rtviks hold contradictory points-of-view on the above and therefore are not guided by guru or sastra on these points.
Yes he did! he wanted us to become a guru. The kind that preaches the holy name in every town and village. Not the kind that takes on the position of a diksha guru and then promises Krishna to thousands of disciples, before running away with a pretty lady. Show me one place where Srila Prabhupada approves a successor. Why are you limiting Srila Prabhupada’s activities to your limited understanding of the Guru Parampara?
To glorify our gurudeva with the intention of discrediting other gurus is vaisnava aparadha.
We should feel that our guru is the best for us personally and that others’ gurus are the best for them. In principle, guru is one but manifests himself is various forms.
What are you talking about? Who is discrediting whom?
Mahanada: “Show me one place where Srila Prabhupada approves a successor.”
Mahananda Prabu, please show us one place where Srila Bhaktisiddhanta approves a successor.
Srila Prabhupada BECAME the next link in the disciplic succession by his extraordinary qualities and deeds, not because he was appointed to that position by his guru. There is no evidence of such appointment. Still, by his qualifications he became a jagat guru. His disciples can do the same thing – they can also become a next link if they are properly qualified. There is nothing in SP writings that would indicate otherwise – actually, the opposite is true as pointed above.
The fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to become qualified gurus means that he effectively told them to become his successor(s); by genuine spiritual qualification, not organizational appointment.
Aside from that, Srila Prabhupada also told his disciples that they could see Pujyapada Srila Sridhar Maharaja if they needed further philosophical guidance. Several took this advice to heart and their practice has been very fruitful.
Dear Mahananda dasa,
Thank you for your reply. I’m not interested in judging people, I’m more interested in coming to the truth, so let me bring up a point that I think makes my point clearer.
You gave a perfect example of what I was talking about in your reply. You said,
“Speak to the Madhavas and they will tell you how Sri Madhvacharya is better than everyone and same goes to the Ramanujas. This is a quality of a disciple. We feel and know that our spiritual master is indeed the best and that makes us most fortunate.”
Here you equate Srila Prabhupada with Madhva and Ramanuja, but the comparison is not accurate. As far as I know, Madhva and Ramanuja intruduced new practices and theology to the traditions that they came in whereas Srila Prabhupada never did that. He always emphasized that he simply repeated the teachings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage. Srila Prabhupada was a strict follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the six Goswamis. They, and not Srila Prabhupada, are to Gaudiya Vaishnavism what Madhva and Ramanuja are to their traditions. This, however, doesn’t demean Srila Prabhupada in any way, quite to the contrary!
My initial criticism was that the Ritviks seem to try to put Srila Prabhupada in a position that he would’ve not felt even comfortable himself (i.e. starting his own Sampradaya)and it lacks spiritual discrimination.
“. . . in this Age of Kali, the Lord whose name is Sri Krsna Caitanyadeva, tutelary deity (founder acarya) of thousands
of his own lineages, like thousands of currents of the Ganga made of the nectar of that rare prema . . . ”
Sri Jiva Goswami, Sarvasamvadini
Thank you for your reply. I’m not interested in judging people, I’m more interested in coming to the truth, so let me bring up a point that I think makes my point clearer.
Good. This is a good start.
Here you equate Srila Prabhupada with Madhva and Ramanuja, but the comparison is not accurate. As far as I know, Madhva and Ramanuja intruduced new practices and theology to the traditions that they came in whereas Srila Prabhupada never did that. He always emphasized that he simply repeated the teachings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage. Srila Prabhupada was a strict follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the six Goswamis. They, and not Srila Prabhupada, are to Gaudiya Vaishnavism what Madhva and Ramanuja are to their traditions. This, however, doesn’t demean Srila Prabhupada in any way, quite to the contrary!
My initial criticism was that the Ritviks seem to try to put Srila Prabhupada in a position that he would’ve not felt even comfortable himself (i.e. starting his own Sampradaya)and it lacks spiritual discrimination.
Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, though being the master of the senses, he would never speak to a woman or even look at one after sanyasa. Now speaking of new practices, Srila Prabhupada did not do that. Srila Prabhupada was the first sanyasi to condcut marriage ceremonies. Srila Prabhupada was the first to allow a woman during her menstrual period to worship the diety during an emergency. Srila Prabhupada was so powerful, that he would name Krishna as Londonishwara and Parisiswara (None of these names are mentioned in the shastras). Even though everyone in the parampara including his own spiritual master performed the chaturmasa period very ritualistically. Srila Prabhupada did not. He just wanted us to chant and gave basic instructions on the other rituals.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada was the first sanyasi to wear the upavita and a shika, just to emphasize that a sanyasi should not be puffed up thinking that he is beyond varnasharama. He travelled in cars despite other GV’s insulting him. He once told that guests can be given meat if they want to eat it, as long as they accept the sankirtana movement and help.
Look closely, our Acharyas are constant in introducing new trends in the parampara according to time and the people they are dealing with. They will never be caught within the ritualic expectaions of people. They always did what is important. You and I have very limited understanding to the Guru parampara and Guru Tattva. Let us not judge the Spiritual masters actions based on our limited understanding.
Speaking of the great Ramanuja. The first time he met his spiritual master Yamunacharya, was when he was when Ymunacharya had just left his body. He only saw his ‘dead body’. He was however convinced that only Yamunacharya would be his ‘manasika’ spiritual master. rtvikvada is not a new introduction. Diksha is the transfer of knowledge from the Guru to the disciple. Let me not accept just someone I find, just so that I could be part of a ceremony called diksha. Srila Prabhupada has therefore set up a ritvik initiatior to do the ceremony ON HIS BEHALF.
Why are you so sure Srila Prabhupada would be uncomfortable being treated as special by his disciples? that is just concoction.
When a disciple told Srila Prabhupada that he is not going to read any book, not even Srila Bhaktivinoda thakura’s. He will just read Srila Prabhupadas books. Srila Prabhupada seemed so pleased and he said “this is my real disciple”
Rtvikvada is an authorised method and it is well within the limits of Guru, Sadhu and Shastra.
Acaryas alter details, not principles. New trends in the parampara is one thing, ending it is quite another. Pramapara literally means “one after another.” If there is no such succession, as the ritvik notion mandates, there is no parampara to introduce new trends into. Furthermore the essential idea of the paramapara is that it provides for “another,” a successor, for the very reason that details do need to be altered over time. Such alterations keep the spirit of the teaching alive as times change, and such alterations require someone of spiritual substance to make them—a successor living in the times that are with us.
And no amount of misrepresentation of the required successor does away with the need for one. Indeed, such misrepresentation only serves to underscore the need for a successor. Hence ritivk itself is a misrepresentation, albeit of a different nature from the kind of misrepresentation (bogus sadhus) it is a reaction to.
Periya Nambi (Mahapurna Alvara) was the diksa guru of Ramanuja, not Yamunacarya, who was his param guru.
Sometimes the truth stings. This is mild compared to the actual lengths much of these people will go to promote their agenda. As far as I am concerned from what I have experienced with rtviks this “poke” is gentle compared to the countless aparadha laced jabs perpetuated in the name of loyalty to our dear Srila Prabhupada.
I think it’s funny – but one thing – I don’t think it is only the ritvik’s who disagree with editing Srila Prabhupada’s books. I believe there are devotees with all sorts of different conceptions regarding guru parampara who feel that editing Srila Prabhupada’s books after his departure without his say is wrong.
I agree with Nitaisundara regarding the ritvik misconception. Srila Prabupada is responsible for so many people’s faith – that’s unquestionable – but it is only the ritvik people who think he wanted to stop the parampara and place himself as a Jesus figure.
Its hilarious because its cruel and retaliatory… we are angry and annoyed at the triumph of apasiddhanta…ritvik thinking has permeated the non-ritvik groups and this is so aggravating since more progressive siddhantic thinking seems to meet with more resistance. We (Sri Caitanya Sanga) are not welcome to participate in ISKCON temples but ritviks are integrated into temple seva. I at least, am pissed off and sad about this. BUT, lets call this comic what it is… sadistic glee. Can we not admit it?
There is no apasiddhanta in the ritvik conception.
Do you think Srila Sridhar Maharaja promoted apasiddhanta?
Have you ever read his declaration of spiritual succession?
Maybe I should post it here in case you have never had the opportunity to know the truth.
I hope the truth will not be censored from this web site.
Ritvik system exists when the acharya is living and he appoints somebody else to initiate in his physical presence. Once, the acharya departs, the ritvik initiations don’t continue.
KB, the problem with what you have posted is that it is quite obvious that what Sridhara Maharaja is talking about and what the ‘ritvik doctrine’ is are two completely opposite things.
The acharya always and necessarily represents his guru and acts on his behalf in all that he does. That is the very principal of guru parampara.
The ritvik doctrine as it is presented by it’s vociferous adherents stops the parampara. It’s makes a mockery of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and starts a flow of misconception. Diksha is not a formality or a mere external function. It is the transmission of divine knowledge and faith and it requires both a good guide and a serious student to be effective. In order for a sadhaka to make tangible progress he/she needs good personal guidance. The paramapara contuniues on through the disciples of our predecessor acharyas.
The best and honest advice to give any apsiring or serious vaishnava is to find an advanced vaishnava and serve and learn under his/her care and attention.
That is what Sridhara Maharaja is saying in the quote you provided above. The preceptorial line continues on through his chosen respresentative – it doesn’t stop with him. If you have faith in Sridhara Maharaja he is saying you will have faith in Bhakti Sundara Govinda Maharaja.
Oh my Krsna… here we go. Life was so much simpler and happy when I could just enjoy the witty cartoon. Now I have to get all debatey. Ugh.
KB: Please tell me that you understand Srila Sridhar Maharaj’s ritvik and Prabhupada’s ritvik are the same: both NOT suggesting the twisted message the current ritvik movement propounds. We all know this – the ritvik is the priest carrying out the function of the acarya when said acarya has declared himself unfit, unable, etc., to function as initiating guru while he is still present. For that amount of time, the designated ritvik will perform the function “on behalf” of the acarya. Without declaring it, Prabhupada was doing it many times just because of the masses of people wanting to become his disciple. His disciples chanted on beads, performed initiations, etc.
While the acarya is present, such ritvik initiates will be disciples of the acarya. When the acarya departs, new initiates thenceforth are disciples of the ritvik, who by nature of the passing of the acarya is no longer ritvik. He/she is guru!!! As Prabhupada said, “disciple of my disciple, my grand-disciple.”
Just as Srila Sridhar Maharaj here says that he has been maintaining the parampara on his guru’s order, from the time of this declaration B.S. Govinda Maharaj and the others of the “Mahamandala” (such as Swami B.V. Tripurari) will maintain the parampara as representatives.
Sridhar Maharaj using the word ritvik here in reference to Prabhupada just means that they are representing. It would make absolutely no sense to suggest that Sridhar Maharaj endorsed ritvik in the current deviant thought, because he says that the “mahamandala” are already ritvik of “Swami Maharaj”. They weren’t initiating disciples and calling them Prabhupada’s disciples! If they would have, I can bet you Sridhar Maharaj would have corrected that. As far I know, some they initiated themselves as their disciples, and in special circumstances according to the faith of the person they may have brought to Sridhar Maharaj because they were serving under his guidance. He gave them all blessing to be guru’s in their own right though.
Please don’t give credence to this apasiddhanta by suggesting the Sridhar Maharaj also endorsed it.
KB, quoting something is not the same as understanding something. Distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books is not the same as incorporating them.
This quote is not a ritvik proclamation…it is a beautiful description of parampara… Srila Govinda Maharaja was to take on the role of guru from the hands and will of his guru, on his behalf, and for the sake of a living succession of Krsna sakti. There is no misconception in either Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhara maharaja about Guru-Tattva. A reading of Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s other books will make that clear (Sri Guru & His Grace: with forward by Srila Prabhupada). We cannot just haul out the words of the saints and use them as a weapon against their own bodies.
If we truly found Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara maharaja representing a significant departure from the siddhantic line of Mahaprabhu and the Goswamis… truly found… we would have to reject them as well. We should not then cling to them for dear life. It would mean the death of our living line of siddhas.
I know lots of devotees who don’t buy into that interpretation. It’s quite funny how devotees always read these particular political prejudices into all such important and monumental proclamations as Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s declaration of spiritual succession.
Here is some more by Sridhar Maharaja, I don’t think your interpretation can be supported by such further explanations of Srila Sridhar Maharaja.
First of all, I will make it clear that I don’t believe that anyone at SCS Matha obeyed Srila Sridhar Maharaja after his passing and that his wishes were not honored as the gaggle of neophytes encouraged Govinda Maharaja to disobey and reject the ritvik status of initiations he gave.
Thanks KB for referencing SSM’s instructions on ritvik. They make the fallacy of the ritvik-vada that much more apparent. Personally, I was clear on it the first 5 times SSM spells it out for Dr Asthana. You really didn’t get it the next 15 times he AND Govinda Maharaj explain it? Something is not clicking upstairs, because that reference contains much more evidence smashing your theory, and almost nothing to twist in substantiation of it. I’m sorry, but you are confused. It is quite possible that if nobody in SCSM followed the instruction correctly, maybe it is time to reconsider who got it wrong.
Time to move on KB, time to move on.
Like it or not but the ritviks are here to stay, at least for a while. We may not agree with them but we should treat them with respect since they are Vaishnavas. One can make a cartoon and ridicule just about anything but we should avoid ridiculing Vaishnavas and thus antagonizing them. There is enough needless friction among the various sangas – why add fuel to that fire?
We should treat all living entities with respect, but that doesn’t mean we can’t joke about things. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta build a diorama displaying a brahmana using a salagrama sila as a nut cracker as a critique on those who use devotion as a busisness. When he received complaints he put tilak on the brahmana showing that he wasn’t afraid to critique his own tradition. Whether in cartoon or a serious paper on guru-tattva, when a devotee says something about apasiddhanta those who hold that misconception will feel a pinch. That’s good – that pinch may wake them up. I for one certainly hope so.
The other thing is that many who follow this ritvik doctrine use their tongues, pens and their keyboards to blaspheme devotees as part of their practice. The doctrine itself seems to oblige them to do so. In this case the cartoon and the comments about it are critiqueing a philosophical misconception and not attacking any person in particular. You may say that ridiculing the doctrine ridicules all those who adhere to it, but that isn’t actually a fact. There is good to be found everywhere.
I think the cartoon is funny but I don’t think the ritvik misconception is a laughing matter. It’s actually heart breaking that this misconception is so widespread and that we even have to spend any time talking about it. A person steps forward with some faith and good intentions and then they are sidetracked by a doctrine that stops their progress. That may sound harsh, but the truth is that vaishnava aparadha does stop the progress of bhakti in a sadhakas heart. That’s why, as unpleasant as some may find the topic, it is important to speak the truth and stand up for the proper siddhanta. That can be done respectfully and without ridiculing or denigrating anyone.
Cartoons have always been used as social commentary. They are funny and they also say something about the times at hand.
Audarya-lila-ji, I agree with a lot you say, but I find that disrespect breeds disrespect, and everything happens for a reason.
Ritvik-vada is a reaction to other deviations, as Swami points out here as well. And IMO all of these problems manifest because our tradition has become much too guru-centric to be healthy. Instead of the guru issue being only helpful in spiritual life, it has turned to be the main source of divisions, criticism, and conflict. When you make guru to be as good as God and put him on the altar, a lot of people will want to be God while others will say that one guru-God is enough.
Ritvik-vada persists because of the belief in superhuman abilities and superhuman knowledge of our gurus. Our gurus are not just some wise sages and great devotees – they are as good as, and sometimes better than – God. Our gurus can do no wrong, are always right, and never make a mistake or a wrong move. And to think otherwise is an aparadha for which the best punishment would be death, but since that can be a tricky issue – at least we can treat such person as worse than a leper.
IMO ritvik-vada is a direct consequence of such thinking, or more precisely: one of possible consequences of such thinking. And it actually serves a purpose – to bring the tradition back on track – not directly (as it is the zig correcting the zag), but by forcing us to confront the truth about our gurus, their position in the transmission of knowledge from Krsna, and their function in the spiritual life of all of us.
That is all I ever intended to say about the cartoon.
I probably should have just let it slide.
I never take anything the new generations of devotees say or do that seriously as I know well that they are all a work in progress as i am as well.
I am 57 and I still learn new things all the time and it has always been like that, Hopefully, they aren’t done with their studies and will someday be seniors instead of Freshmen.
Some people seem to stop learning and stop growing in a holistic understanding of Universal Religion when they become Hare Krishnas.
Maybe they are not meant to receive it?
Give ‘em time and these young’uns will grow out of this rebellious stage.
When you are young you know it all and after you get old you don’t know anything.
Maybe that is why wisdom is associated with age and not youth?
I know plenty of elders who are unwise, emotionally immature, and definitely not spiritually advanced. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism plenty of the ‘senior’ Vaisnavas are still chanting nama-aparadha and committing Vaisnava aparadha. There are several younger sadhakas who are chanting nama-abhasa and serving a living sadhu. This is just to say, age is not necessarily an automatic qualifier or an assurance of wisdom or achievement. In fact, I have found that sometimes old age brings wisdom & generosity and sometimes utter foolishness and condescension.
What you say is true, but no matter how smart and witty one might be he should try to be humbly respectful to his elders.
In general it is always a bad idea to judge anyone by external appearances. We don’t know the hearts of others very well, so we really don’t have the ability to judge.
To assess devotees upon a short track record of Krishna consciousness is also a mistake. Lots of the enthusiastic new devotees will be old, jaded and deflated in a few years.
It is very immature and premature to presume that new sadhakas are more elevated than older devotees because they start out the race in good form. Many of them will fall by the wayside.
I saw one of the most austere and learned devotees of the younger set recently abandon Gaudiya Vaishnavism and become a big offender of the faith after 8 years of great effort in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
So, a few good years in the beginning of the KC career is not enough to determine if the person actually has true attraction and affection for Krishna in his heart.
Thousands of newbs have performed well for a couple of years but went on to reject the faith. Most often it is an unfit and unqualified guru at the bottom of these spiritual disasters that result in total loss of faith in KC.
Such gurus are not done with their material sojourn quite yet.
Funny comic. Sometimes you have to laugh to make up for all the tears and pain such apasiddhanta has caused (as a reaction to other equally painful deviations).
Srila Sridhar Maharaja explicitly stated that ritvik can be a permanent appointment.
So, I disagree with anyone who says it cannot permanent, including revered senior sannyasis.
That is good, I think it is better to support SP as the ritvik of Jesus Christ, who is lord Brahma himself. It will provide great merging of two traditions.
That would not be a good idea, because it was never explicitly stated by Srila Prabhupada as such. We shouldn’t attach anything to him that he didn’t approve.
Srila Sridhar Maharaja explained that “ritvik” means “representative”. So, if we use that definition we could say that Srila Prabhupada was ritvik to the founder of the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya – Srila Saraswati Thakur.
All the successor acharyas in the line are ritvik to Saraswati Thakur – the Ray of Vishnu and Sampradaya Acharya.
Lord Jesus only teaches to the level of Maha-Vishnu.
Lord Jesus does not distribute Vraja-rasa. He actually teaches Supersoul realization and reverent devotion to Maha-Vishnu.
So, we can’t say that Srila Prabhupada represents Jesus.
Jesus has many angels and agents on Earth right now and they have actually made Earth a headquarters for some very important angelic services.
The ritvik era should be dead now. None of the ritviks appointed by Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhar Maharaja ever functioned as ritvik after their passing, so the only authorized ritviks on the planet are either dead or not performing as ritvik.
If some disciples choose to adopt the ritvik system apart from that it is their own choice. Whether or not it has divine backing is questionable.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism is well-established in the western world now with a traditional concept of parampara.
It would be counterproductive to try and regress back to those early days of 1977 at this point.
At this point, I no longer consider the ritvik concept as either functional or viable in the face of all the popular resistance to the concept.
Then again, we probably don’t need a top-heavy institution like ISKCON putting the ISKCON seal-of-approval on a mob of gurus who serve to splinter Mahaprabhu’s Sankirtan movement into hundreds of sects of differing gurus with hordes of neophyte disciples running around saying “my guru is better than your guru”.
Traditionally, except under special circumstances, the senior Vaishnava of the Sampradaya is elevated to the acharya seat by the elders. Nowadays none of the elders respect the other elders and want disciples for themselves instead. So, instead of having a united Sampradaya with one acharya at the top we have a fractured, factional frenzy of guru madness that is running ISKCON into the dirt.
Tripurari Maharaja made the right choice. He left the pandemonium and created another society with a single acharya at the top – just like Srila Prabhupada did.
Sorry, but BSST did not start his own sampradaya. The burden of proof is on those who think this to show us the following:
What is the new metaphysic of the sampradaya called?
Where is the commentary on the Vedanta-sutras?
Where is the unique tilaka?
Did he establish the mantras we chant?
Did he establish the codes of conduct we follow?
The only traction you will get is with number four above: BSST did adjust the guru mantra and gayatris (he changed the bija syllables) and added the Brahma-gayatri. But that’s all. He didn’t formulate a new interpretation of the Vedanta like Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, or Vallabha. The metaphysic the Goswamis formulated to explain Mahaprabhu’s prema-dharma was given the name acintya-bhedabheda by Sri Jiva Goswami. BSST didn’t invent a new tilaka, and he didn’t establish the codes of conduct we follow–that was done by the Goswamis and compiled by Sri Sanatana Goswami in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa.
I’m afraid therefore that your claim will go to the junk heap of bad ideas, never to be resurrected.
Even one you say is your siksa-guru?
However, let me state that I certainly believe that all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada have the authority to accept disciples and perform the guru role. In fact ALL Vaishavas have that authority.
Tripurari Maharaja certainly has all authorization and qualifications to perform as guru.
However, he cannot perform as rtvik because Srila Prabhupada only empowered 11 original ritviks to initiate on his behalf.
This was a good platform for ISKCON, but at the same time allows for disciples to accept their own disciples if anyone is desiring as such.
Govinda Maharaja was THE ONLY ritvik appointed by Srila Sridhar Maharaja and as such was the only one who was every authorized to initiate on behalf of Srila Sridhar Maharaja after his passing.
Sadly, he chose not to perform as ritvik and the whole world is the loser as is the case in ISKCON as well.
May Jesus/Brahma have mercy on his soul. May he varnish his ashram as well!
I am glad that Maharaja can maintain his humor in the midst of such a discussion.
An angel told me that humor is a good thing.
I know that Puranjana and some other froth-at-the-mouth ritviks have run the ritvik idea into the dirt.
Ritvik is dead!!
Long live the living acharya!!
Tripurari Maharaja ki-jaya!!!!!
Sridhar Maharaja here clearly and unequivocally states that his appointment of Govinda Maharaja as rtvik is PERMANENT.
Sadly, NOBODY cared to follow this after his passing.
Bhaktikanda writes, “the objection [from ritviks and other quarters as well] is not with the practice of editing in itself but by whom, and under whose order its being carried out.”
Please forgive me for pointing out that this is quite mistaken. Although there are those who personally attack Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida, the rallying cry of the anti-editors is “Don’t change one word!” Jayadvaita Swami was trained as an editor for BBT during Srila Prabhupada’s time with us. Dravida also worked with the BBT beginning in the mid ’70s. I look at their work as a disiple and as an editor, and, although I may not think every change is necessary or enhances the books, the work strikes me as generally professional and responsible.
I have no interest in debating either the ritvik issue or the editing issue because it is, quite frankly, pointless. There are better ways for disciples to spend their time. I’m even less inclined to discuss things with pseudonymous correspondents. The fact that we too often don’t discuss with real persons is one of the flaws of what passes for public discourse on the internet. I addressed them only in the context of the complaints about Guru-nishta’s cartoon.
Well you did make a defense of the editing and editors in a public forum.
I explained why, and I stand by it.
You make a defense of the blatantly indefensible. i.e., the deviations of the GBC from the essence of Srila Prabhupada (you say the editing does not change the philosophy), and then want to dismiss a rejection of that defense because you find such “debate” “pointless”. If you stated all that as being just your opinion, then who would really care one way or another. But the technique of appropriating the truth in a situation like this because of being in a position of authority (in this case being in the position of being friends with those holding the power by force), is the technique of the bullies, to be sure. The issue really is the spiritual power of the books. Because these are being handled by deviatiors, there is every legitimacy in the complaint that the changes might be troubling. To say the least.
Dear all,
I find this comic very distasteful and it reflects much intolerance to the faith and opinions of others. I believe that in any ideology there is a continuum of conceive conscious realities and derived faith; that difference (in this topic: Ritvikism) is to be seen as Wonderful and we are to draw conclusions for oneself and thankful to the Universe for showing us that there is so much out there in domain of thought and notions concerning the Realm of God and how complex this Science of God can be.
Today one school of thought is majority and perhaps that is not going to be always…
Ram, difference is only beautiful when it is rooted in reality. Difference based in falsity is an illusion and therefore true beauty cannot come from it. If we have two (or more) contradictory notions (in this case rtviks and guru-tattva as advocated in sastra and by guru parampara) how we can we say both are true? This is intensely sentimental to the point of being nonsensical. The sensible thing we must do in these situations is try to ascertain which (if any) school is correct. Pretending like everything simply enhances the beauty of life may help us maintain friendships with larger numbers of people, but it won’t endear us to Krishna. And majority has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Tolerance is not inherently wonderful. Should we tolerate injustice or the abuse of those we love? Tolerance may even have a place in those scenarios, but it is not the final word. Similarly, humility and tolerance are spiritually beneficial when they are enacted on the basis of spiritual knowledge, which means they are not simply passive in all circumstances.
Pretending like everything simply enhances the beauty of life may help us maintain friendships with larger numbers of people, but it won’t endear us to Krishna.
Is that fighting about Guru Tatva?
Is that fighting about Ritviks?
No, But it is about the ego and belief of one against the other. Also, i see this fighting a useless gain as No one will agree until Srila Prabhupada or other Acaryas descend again to clear this out.
Ritviks has been a good watchdog but that disintegrated in faultfinding in Vaisnavas and that caused their ruin. Despite the fact that No one can say they were 100% wrong; this is to say that if even they were right for even 15% of their claims, their cause was justified. For e.g. changes in Books where even senior devotees are against.
Now concerning Guru Tatva, If Spiritual People tend to fight and hate one another, then what will religious people do? This will disintegrate into perhaps what is for the Muslim case of sunni and shia
My opinion is relative realities cannot take into account what can endear us to Krishna i.e. the Supreme Reality , the absolute truth except love, appreciation for everything and tolerance.
Devotees should speak out boldly against all forms of apasiddhanta. Unfortunately not everyone can understand siddhanta, even when it is well explained.
Thakura Bhaktivinoda identified 11 sects that while claiming to represent Mahaprabhu’s precepts were in fact deviant. He was not shy to speak out against them. This tradition should be followed by those who represent his line today.
Gurumaharaja, will you consider doing something like what Bhaktivinoda did by identifying deviant groups? I just think it is much needed again in the Western world of Gaudiya Vaisnavism as there is much misconception and most of us do not have the sophisticated understanding of siddhanta to navigate the terrain. I know you speak about these topics quite extensively in SANGA, but a treatise of a sort might be a more concise way of asserting this issue.
What I imagine being helpful is a bold statement on the groups that are deviant in regards to the siddhanta of our lineage (representing the groups outside the circle) and then the groups within the siddhantic circle with whom there could be some significant concern about understanding of siddhanta or potential deviance. Then in addition to this an inner circle of groups that are well within the boundaries of siddhanta with whom there are some acceptable differences of opinion. And finally, an intimate circle within which slight variations are in harmony and therefore with whom we can feel in harmony (a much needed feeling).
I just feel that this would help us all better understand and boldly hear which groups embody negative-siddhanta (what siddhanta is not), which groups embody marginal-siddhanta (siddhanta on dangerously ambiguous grounds) and which groups embody positive-siddhanta (what siddhanta is). Might you consider something like this?
All I have to offer is my opinion. It’s the opinion of someone who has considerable experience as a devotee and as an editor. But if no one cares for it, that’s not my concern. You’re concerned about the books’ power; I have faith that Krishna has the power to protect the books’ potency from editors, translators, self-motivated book distributors, and people who give classes based on mistaken understanding.
As far as deviations are concerned, I was speaking against them in the ’80s, perhaps before you were involved with Krishna consciousness. If you mean to imply that I have any position of power in ISKCON or elsewhere, and therefore am in a position to bully anyone, you’re sadly mistaken. If you knew anything about me, you’d know that my home is on Hawaii’s Big Island, where there is no ISKCON presence. I’ve had no connection with ISKCON since 1985, and I’ve never worked for the BBT. I have friends who still serve in ISKCON, some of them as temple officers, some in the BBT, and some as GBC representatives, but I don’t hold that against them. If there’s any bullying here, it’s your trying to bait me from behind the cloak of a pseudonym.
It seems you have a strong opinion, and I’m delighted for you. It also seems you like to argue, and I’m sorry for that. If you want a protracted debate on the editing of the BBT books, I suggest you engage someone who has a vested interest in the issue. As I said before, I only mentioned the issue in connection with critcism of the cartoon. As I said: Pretty good cartoon. Have fun.
No I don’t like to argue, you are mistaken. And as strong as my opinion might be, still its only heard at convenience, if at all. What does it matter identities here then? The point I am making is not mine, its a very well known point that many have been trying to get across. Yet now you shift it to be an isolated “anonymous” bullying case. No I am not such thing. No I don’t like to argue. But if indeed you are one who understands the whole picture, and you understand the need of the moment, then you should know that, at this point, if we are to survive the power games and politics and give a real chance to this Krishna Consciousness movement, we, the nobodies, have to try and get our point across one way or another. We have had our golden days of submission and trusting. We were let down by leader after leader. Better count on a little call to accountability.
Bhaktikanda wrote, “And as strong as my opinion might be, still its only heard at convenience, if at all. What does it matter identities here then?”
It appears you’re asking why would it matter who we are here, as best I can tell. (I’m still working on the meaning of the second clause of that last sentence. I’d be grateful if you could help me.) As I alluded to earlier, that’s one of the biggest problems I see in what passes for discourse on the internet, especially among devotees. The idea for coming here, I assume, is communication. That’s something that goes on among particular persons. In the classical analysis of communication, there are four elements, one of which is the character of the speaker or writer, his or her qualification for making a particular argument. The use of fake names makes that impossible, and perhaps that’s deliberate.
Another problem is that, as strong as your conviction in your opinion may seem to you, it’s not strong enough for you to stand behind it with your good name. If I came on here using the name Karl Marx and accused you of all sorts of nasty things, who would be held accountable for my nonsense? Not I!
One of my long-time concerns has been the way devotees conduct public discourse among themselves. It has for a very long time been simply toxic, and this is one of the ways that toxin continues to spread.
As far as the problems with editing are concerned, all I’ve said is that my alarm has been tempered by my investigation of the issue, which has been informed by my long experience as an aspiring devotee and an editor. I’ve taken my concerns to the BBT editors, we have discussed them candidly, and my overall impression is what I’ve said before. If you hope to move me, you’d better try harder. Devotees whom I love dearly, and who love me, and who have stronger opinions (strong enough to attach their names to them) and better arguments than you have presented against BBT editing, have agreed with me that it’s more productive to find something more essential to discuss when we’re together. I fail to see how continuing to discuss it with a cipher can bear any fruit.
As far as power dynamics in ISKCON go, if you can’t trust the institution’s leaders enough to submit as you think they demand, find other company. I’ve had problems with the GBC since my mission to Peru, commissioned by the GBC representative for South America and confirmed personally by Srila Prabhupada himself, was aborted by their politics almost 40 years ago. And, as I mentioned above, I haven’t been under the GBC’s control for 25 years or more. If you search your heart, you may find it’s time for you to move on, unless you feel it’s your mission to just throw rocks.
I am moving on, I am voicing my objections (if you don’t mind). If you are really concerned with my well being and like to help, my complaint is still the same: Our spiritual leaders have failed us decade after decade and we pretty much had enough. And for some self appointed referee in the matter to come and add insult to injury and say that our complaint is illegitimate and we just should go away because the name Bhaktikanda is not enough, believe me, it does not feel like being thrown roses at.
Um, referee? How so? I’m just participating in a conversation. And I’ve never said your complaint was illegitimate. Heck, I’ve gone there myself, and way before you. But I reached a different conclusion with regard to the editing than you did. So are you saying my opinion is illegitimate? I’m just saying you don’t help your case by not taking responsibiity for it. I’ve done what I can to effect changes, and I’m frank enough, apparently, that I was suspended from giving classes at the ISKCON temple. And I continue to speak out where it’s useful.
And speaking of moving on . . .
I understand your point. However, Srila Prabhupada specifically stated and instructed that his disciples should think of themselves as “Saraswata” Gaudiyas.
So, within the Brahma sampradaya there are certain acharyas who contribute something special to the sampradaya and the parampara.
Therefore we have the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya and finally the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Saraswata Sampradaya.
That is the way it is and that is the way the acharyas have given it.
Jesus being Brahma himself is certainly in the Brahma-sampradaya, but there again only a certain level of deity is revealed by him.
We should also remember that Srila Prabhupada had no problem with the idea of people following Jesus even today, but what he had a problem with was the fact that they commit violence to animals in the act of meat-eating.
Too much animosity towards the ritviks is just about as unhealthy as the promoting of an illicit ritvik system that operates outside of GBC authority.
Srila Prabhupada didn’t instruct all his disciples to be ritviks.
He instructed them to become gurus.
The ritvik system was for the GBC to implement and oversee, not anyone else.
The anti-ritvik propaganda going around today is every bit as ugly and irresponsible as is the unauthorized practice of the ritvik system.
No, he taught us to think of his movement as the movement of Bhaktivinoda, and BSST taught his followers to think of themselves as the Bhaktivinoda parivara. The Sarasawata idea was more that of Sridhara Maharaja–Caitanya Saraswata.
Maharaja, I have based my statements off of these teachings of Srila Prabhupada:
Adi 10, 84 purport -
The siksha is there in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.
Srila Prabhupada taught this when he was here and it is written in his books as well. This is obviously nothing to do with SCS Matha and is Srila Prabhupada’s own design for his institution.
Thanks for that citation.
Acyutananda Swami: When I suggested writing down the songs of Bhaktivinoda and Narottama däsa in English translations, His Divine Grace (Srila Prabhupada) said, “Yes, we must push on this mission of Bhaktivinoda.”
Bhaktivinoda paraivara ki jaya!
It is written once, in the reference you have cited. But I would not say that this reference speaks of something independent of the thinking of Sridhara Deva Goswami, who explained his idea of “Saraswatas” to Prabhupada before he wrote his books. I see it more as a reference in which SP shows deference to Sridhara Maharaja’s idea. Again, in my opinion it is not an idea he arrived at independently.
Maharaja, I have also suspected that possibly Srila Prabhupada originally came to know of the “Saraswata” conception from Srila Sridhar Maharaja considering their intimate relationship and Sridhar Maharaja being the senior Godbrother and sannyasi of the two.
We can only guess at this time, we have no proof, but most anyone who knows the truth about the actual relationship between Srila Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja might speculate on this conclusion.
There is a good chance that Srila Prabhupada originally learned the “Saraswata” conception from Srila Sridhar Maharaja – the Guardian of devotion.
It might not be possible to trace back the first disciple of Srila Saraswati Thakur to come up with the idea, but it is very likely that too was Srila Sridhar Maharaja. If it was, then the fact that Srila Prabhupada taught his disciples the “Saraswata” conception also speaks of his great respect for Srila Sridhar Maharaja as a siksha guru.
Yes, my sense entirely as well.
It is humorous to see how the comment “Yes, my sense entirely as well” keeps attaching itself to different statements because of the threads within threads feature of the board. You are currently agreeing with yourself.
Yes, I agree with that!
I agree with Gurumaharaja’s agreement
As well, most devotees don’t know this but the “Saraswata” in SCS Matha derives from Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s heritage in the Saraswata Brahmana community.
It of course has dual meaning, depending upon the audience.
Sridhar Maharaja came from a family of Brahmins in the Saraswata community and he always honored that heritage as well.
This is what I have long felt about why Srila Sridhar Maharaja adopted the ritvik system in his own mission in the same manner as Srila Prabhupada did:
Srila Sridhar Maharaja came to see the ill-effects that the GBC guru system was inflicting upon ISKCON. He grappled with the ritvik conception and came to the conclusion that in fact the concept was viable and actually preferable to the unfortunate disasters that have befallen ISKCON with it’s liturgy of fallen gurus, corruption, crime and mischief.
As such simply as an example to the world, ISKCON and everyone else he adopted the ritvik system exclusively for the purpose of backing and supporting what Srila Prabhupada had done in ISKCON with his ritvik system. It actually became necessary as well as Sridhar Maharaja himself was amassing a global following.
Srila Sridhar Maharaja came to see the utility and wisdom of Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik system and in fact adopted it himself during his life even as the GBC had rejected it after the passing of Srila Prabhupada.
So, at one time Sridhar Maharaja had several ritviks including Bhakti Sudhir Maharaja, Sagar Maharaja and maybe BKA Swami from Mexico. I can’t remember who all they were.
But, in the last days as Sridhar Maharaja finalized his will and declaration of spiritual succession he withdrew ritvik powers from all but Govinda Maharaja and made Govinda Maharaja the sole ritvik representative for the post-samadhi period.
I don’t think that Sagar Maharaja, Bhakti Sudhira Maharaja or any of the other senior western followers of Sridhar Maharaja ever understood the thinking and the desire of Srila Sridhar Maharaja.
Therefore they never expected or encouraged Govinda Maharaja to follow the ritvik system. In fact they insisted that Govinda Maharaja be recognized as a non-ritvik acharya in his own right as if Govinda Maharaja was the founding acharya of the Matha.
So, Govinda Maharaja was overwhelmed by this gaggle of screaming groupies who all insisted that the ritvik title be stricken from Srila Govinda Maharaja.
The whole episode was simply sad and unfortunate because actually ISKCON is the big loser in all this and the whole purpose of Srila Sridhar Maharaja was defeated just the same way that the purpose of Srila Prabhupada was defeated shortly after his passing.
I just wanted to go on the record as having made this clear so that if anyone out there really has an affinity for truth beyond all political and sectarian loyalties they can understand what really went down.
You may be alone in the world with you ideas on this topic. Good luck.
I always figured I was and that it was actually something quite special and sweet.
The “Dev” in Sridhar Dev Goswami derives from the Saraswata Brahmana heritage of Sridhar Maharaja. In that community when a Saraswata Brahmana takes sannyasa they adopt the “Deva” as titular with the swami status.
I think BS Goswami taught me that back in the early days of SCS Mandir in San Jose, Ca.
If it is incorrect you can blame him.
If it correct he gets the credit.
I am not sure this is correct. According to the Sri Caitanya Saraswata Matha Sridhara Deva Goswami was born in India in 1895, in a respected Brahmana family of the Bhattacarya order, not Saraswata.
Here is an article on the suffix “Deva” in his name (http://gosai.com/writings/sridhara-deva-gosvami). It seeks to comprehensively deal with this issue and in doing do does not mention the point you raise. Also in the many explanations of the name of his matha (Sri Caitanya Sarawata Matha) Sridhara Deva does not mention the point you bring up. However, he does mention Saraswata brahmanas of Maharasta and refers to them as Gaura Saraswata brahmanas. He then identifies them with the aryan civilization mentioned in Manu-samhita and with Vyasa who resided on the banks of the Saraswati river that is represented in Nadiya as the Jalangi. So from Saraswati (the river) stemming from the Himalayas where the Bhagavata was written to Nadiya where Gaura appeared and the Caitanya Bhagavata was composed. He combines this idea with the idea of the Gaudiya linewage stemming from Sri Caitanya and coming down through Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati to arrive at his “Sri Caitanya Saraswata Matha.”
Incidentally, it was BV Narayana Maharaja who objected to the use of the suffix “deva” being attached to Sridhara Deva Goswami’s name.
And the most curious thing is that the “Saraswati” in BSSG derives from his “Siddhanta Saraswati” title award of the astronomical society or whatever it was.
How a title for astronomical achievement and contribution then becomes part of the Vaishnava honorific titles is another curious thing.
Any clue?
I guess when you add the “Bhakti” onto “Siddhanta” you get the spiritual Saraswati instead?
There are always more questions than answers.
“Saraswati” is also one of the ten principle sannyasa names, arguably the “highest.” “Siddhanta” would then be a qualifier.
Aha! That is about the only explanation that really does qualify it.
This is not a matter of opinion. In this, one conclusion has to be correct and the other incorrect. There is no other way. I sustain that the conclusion which I happen to embrace is the correct one because it is the one which concurs with the principles of properly honoring saints. It doesn’t matter how qualified materially the editors are for strictly editing a text. They are automatically disqualified to edit spiritual texts when they sit in Mayapur in a meeting with fellow administrators and do not raise any objection to the offensive words of Hari Sauri towards Srila Sridhara Maharaja.
And if you don’t see the conneciton between that aparadha and the disqualification to be touching sacred texts, then you yourself don’t have a damned business boasting to know the mind and the heart of Srila Sridhara Maharaja either.
Bhaktikanda wrote,
I’m not sure it’s true that they do not raise any objection. If you include Jayadvaita Swami in that “they,” I know for a fact that he objects strongly to such aparadha. I heard a class he gave in Mayapura, called “Don’t Badmouth Sadhus,” in which he says clearly that none of us has any business criticizing devotees, especially elevated devotees such as Srila Sridhara Maharaja, whom he specifically names. I have also heard him cite Srila Sridhara Maharaja by name in classes given at ISKCON centers. Even someone like me, who’s hardly an ISKCON insider by any imaginative stretch, is aware that there’s much about JS’s frankness that is not well appreciated among ISKCON’s leadership. As far as the other editors, none has said anything critical of SSM to me, or within earshot (either literally or figuratively). If they had, I’d take them to task for it, as I have a couple of GBC members and temple presidents.
I should also make it clear, as I’ve already alluded, that I don’t necessarily endorse every change in the books. There are many things that I’ve checked out that I would not have recommended changing. However, I wasn’t given that responsibility; neither was I ever consulted. And I’m no fan of many of the philosphical misunderstandings supported by some of the editors, whatever their reason. That I’m friendly with them doesn’t mean that I’m one with them in all respects.
I certainly do see the connection, and I do agree that any complicity in such aparadha compromises them. But I also don’t think that Srila Prabhupada or his books are fragile enough that moving a dot here, a tittle there, or trying bring them more into conformity with modern publishing practice necessarily drains them of all potency, any more than what happens when they’re translated into Rumanian and edited by a Rumanian editor.
And I’m a little mystified by your second clause here. When have I ever boasted about knowing the mind and heart of Srila Sridhara Maharaja? I’d like to, and I have discussed such things frankly with members of ISKCON as well as members of Sripad Narayana Maharaja’s sanga. I have a strong appreciation for the depth of his devotion and am very strongly influenced by his presentation of Krishna consciousness (and have been since the early ’70s). And I have chosen to associate most closely with devotees who at least have such appreciation. But I don’t remember when I’ve ever represented myself as you characterize above. If you could point out where I’ve done so, I’d consider it a favor.
Yes, the mission of Bhaktivinoda must be pushed on to spread KC all over the world.
But, Maharaja, I am sure you would be the first to acknowledge that even Srila Saraswati Thakur was not a “Saraswata” rather the Saraswatas are Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja and the other wonderful disciples of Srils Saraswati Thakur?
Saraswata as a principle means something however which is not purely or strictly delineated by Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
We know that Srila Saraswati Thakur and Srila Lalita Prasada had their differences yet both were disciples and sons of Thakur.
Saraswatas like Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja do not reveal their gopi or gopa names or identities as possibly did Thakur and his two sons. Prohibition of certain readings of certain Goswamis is also unique feature of the Saraswatas.
So, really, a true Saraswata cannot and does not attempt to emulate or imitate the raganuga bhajan of Bhaktivinoda of BSST. The great Saraswata acharyas that we speak of are Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja prominently amongst others and they clearly have banned such practices from their branches of the Sampradaya.
Of course not everyone will agree with this analysis.
My impression was never that things like not revealing one’s svarup or reading certain books were requirements of the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta. I have always thought it was rather that the former does not have much utility in the present day and could be misunderstood and used to justify an imagined bhajan on the part of others, and the latter is simply irrelevant (and therefore potentially harmful) to 99% of sadhakas’ lives, if we are being honest and introspective. A truly realized sadhu could certainly read whatever and remained chaste to Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta’s vision.
Srila Sridhar Maharaja helped define what is Saraswata.
He explained that Srila Saraswati Thakur had issued a mandate that his disciples were not to read Ujjvala-nilamani and possibly Govinda Lilamrta. Yes, there are quotes from both in the books of Srila Prabhupada.
Such strictures as this is what defines Saraswata from the rest.
Does that mean he is not in the group, or that the group is not entirely defined by such strictures. I think the latter. BSST also did not allow his disciples to read the 4th chapter of CC adi-lila, but SSM read it and SP published it and sold it all over the world. So these strictures were aspects of his sect and they have a sprit to them that should be kept in place that my not always play itself out literally.
The quotes in Srila Prabhupada’s books taken from the prohibited reading material forbidden by Srila Saraswati Thakur were either within the texts of the CC for example or in the commentaries of the acharyas.
These quotes were not inserted there directly by Srila Prabhupada. They were already in CC or TLC. So, there was nothing like Srila Prabhupada violating the stricture as he was not quoting directly in his own commentary. He was simply translating.
So, I don’t think anyone can say that there is any evidence in Srila Prabhupada’s books that Srila Prabhupada made a personal study of any of those books or passages and referenced them in his preaching apart from what was in CC.
Kb,
Prabhupada’s purports are full of references to Ujjvala-nilamani. Especially TLC (Prabhupada wrote this entire book!) and Cc. SSM also used to cite Gita-govinda and had studied the book. Prabhupada also introduced songs from Gita-govinda. But there is nonetheless a principle that should be adhered to regarding such texts that does characterize the approach of BSST and I understand and honor that.
So, I guess the idea they were trying to impress upon us was the idea that we are supposed to follow their advices and not imitate.
Such dictums as this by Sridar Maharaja is my basis of understanding.
KB, be cautious when using the figure of speech, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. You said, “it will come irresistibly within you if you go on with sravana kirtana”. For some of Prabhupada’s disciples (more and more of them as time goes on) including Swami Tripurari… this may have already happened, and thank goodness. Now you may have guidance in studying some of those scriptures under the guidance of someone who has experienced these topics ‘irresistibly’.
You also said, “When it will come it will awaken within you. It won’t be awakened by any other person.” Let me add something to that…. We are taught very clearly by Gurumaharaja Swami Tripurari that it is not by our efforts that we acquire realization. It is a gift from above, and coming through the grace of a realized guru. This is a very relational mystical path… and again, thank goodness. (GV is placed squarely within the post-modern world…. not in the modern pioneering world of individualism.) It is not that we ourselves are powerful… but rather in touch with the source of all power. We do sadhana with the sense that harinama can change us… and with such an effort as to embarrass ourselves and get the sympathy of Sri guru and gauranga.
I should have cited Sridhar Maharaja on that last quote. That whole last post was a quote from Sridhar Maharaja.
I never make such claims on my own authority. I was simply trying to refer to the “Saraswata” position on a few important issues.
If you look at the post again maybe you can see that I was quoting Sridhar Maharaja and not making off-hand statements.
I am a Saraswata in the Bhaktivinode parivara.
There is of course a section of devotee that would like to have it the other way around. I am not one of them. I think the notion is misguided.
Bhaktivinode didn’t mastermind Gaudiya Math or launch a supercharged version of the Gaudiya Sampradaya as did Saraswati Thakur. Therefore, if anyone prefers to sidestep the Saraswata innovations and attempt to imitate Bhaktivinode, they will be neglecting some important and inspired developments in the Gaudiya Sampradaya and defying the advice, guidance and leadership of great Saraswata acharyas like Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada etc.
It just seems like the true Saraswata conception of Srila Saraswati Thakur as most perfectly preserved in the ideals of Srila Sridhar Maharaja is getting trampled asunder by the stampede of neophyte gurus flooding the Hare Krishna movement nowadays as some westernized deviant version of the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya is being promulgated as the real thing.
In fact Srila Sridhar Maharaja alone is the finisher of the Saraswata ideology as it is his teachings wherein the actual standards and definitions of “Saraswata” are most fully and completely delineated for the whole of the Krishna consciousness movement to know.
Nowadays we see widespread violations of the Saraswata creedo being committed by many supposed devotees in the Krishna consciousness movement. The safeguards and protections initiated by Saraswati Thakur are being trampled on by a stampede of neophyte voyeurs looking to get a peep into the private affairs of Radha and Krishna by reading books that are banned in the Saraswata sampradaya.
This was not what Srila Saraswati Thakur wanted or what Srila Prabhupada taught.
The high and the holy is becoming all too accessible to the unfit who will harm themselves by premature dabbling in something that is way beyond their level of adhikar.
The genie is out of the bottle and the offenses are reaching new heights as the Saraswata ideology gets lost and some American made version replaces it.
That’s what many Indian Gaudiyas said about Prabhupada’s movement. But never the less there may be some truth to what you have said in essence. However, if so, it is certainly not limited to American versions.
Mahraja,
KB das mentioned how some of the Saraswata conception is not preserved properly by some of the contemporary followers and some other version has replaced it, and in certain ways you think there may be some truth in it.
This idea may sound iconoclastic and in some sense naive, but is there any way to objectively scrutinize the changes and come up with a list of merits/demerits.
Something like Gaudiya Vaishnava baseline Ver 0.0, Ver 1.0 , etc, and then come up with merits and demerits based on variety of factors.
Most of the times in debating about ritvik and the traditional parampara model usually scripture/SP quotes are used. Using other factors, I guess would bring a new perspective. E.g. Which model would increase membership? Or maybe which is the best model for enhancing spiritual education, or devotee dedication, etc etc.
Or maybe think of other potential models, say new model where there are no regulative principles. One subject all these models to the method of rational critique and then it will be clear which of them is the winner in a certain situations.
Bhushan, I think your idea of analyzing Gaudiya models with logic is not a bad one, but such endeavors can only apply in the realm of details, of which the rtvik system is not one. We may reassess what is ideal clothing, terminology, emphases, vows, etc., but we cannot ever seek to change fundamental aspects of siddhanta and then compare the different “models.” If you change the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you are no longer speaking about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you are speaking about something else. The siddhanta itself (which has a logic that adherents subscribe to) is our standard by which to assess the world and all other religious conceptions.
Certainly many many adjustments to the teachings could result in increased membership and other “good” things, but all of them are useless or worse if they are built on a foundation of something that is not the teaching. As Srila Sridhara Maharaja said when a godbrother of his proposed a rtvik-like system in relation to Bhaktisiddhanta, “Your sentiment is nice, but we are not Sikhs.” If one is attracted to the format and ideal of Sikhism (or any other sect), that is fine, but we cannot try to turn Gaudiya Vaishnivism into something it is not.
Thank you for your comment. You mentioned that ritvikism is departure from siddhanta and I concur with that, but you also said that since it is a departure from siddhanta it cannot be considered an alternate model. Why not?
There are so many forms of Christianity, Arianism, Diaphysite, Orthodox many forms of Protestantism, Calvinism etc. And they don’t simply differ by small details. Arian Christianity has different siddhanta compared to Catholic. There is an excellent book on this topic ‘A History of Christianity: The First 3000 years’. – Diarmaid MacCullough.
I am unable to understand, why ritvikism is equated to Sikhism. Yes somethings are common, but Sikhs don’t worship Shri Shri Radha Krishna. They worship an impersonal form of God and the Granth Sahib which the ritviks don’t do.
So would you consider ritvikism as some form of Vaishnavism? Maybe apasiddhantic Gaudiya Vaishnavism ? Or to be polite maybe we can call it ritvik Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
I am not defending siddhanta of ritvikism here, but trying to promote multi-culturalism and pluralism of ideas.
The way I see it, ritvikism is a reaction to the acharya personality cultism that was fostered in ISKCON. When a singular acharya is hailed as more important than the entire sampradaya, all sorts of deviations become possible, because a single word or a sentence of that acharya supposedly trumps centuries of tradition practiced within that sampradaya.
When you turn your guru into a legend, none of his disciples can ever be good enough to succeed their guru. Ritvikism makes sure that this ‘never good enough’ system is justified and perpetuated. Thus one fake philosophy follows another, poisoning the parampara and tradition it is supposed to represent.
Well said!
Another point is that ritvikism cannot be convincingly addressed in a debate without addressing the underlying issue of personality cultism which causes it to manifest itself. You can beat around the bush, so to speak, trying to combat that misconception by citing shastra or traditional practice, but for a person who thinks that one word from his guru is more important than 500 years of tradition, that is all irrelevant. And this is what we see in this discussion here as well.
All gurus exist in the context of their parampara, not the other way around. A guru which substantially changes the way his parampara is carried out simply does not properly represent his lineage. I do not think Srila Prabhupada intended to create his own separate sampradaya but wanted his disciples and ISKCON to remain within Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya.
Dear Maharaja
So much of this is over my head. Is there any chance that you can summarize the issues, contentions, dysfunctional applications you have observed, conclusions, and practical applications for the future – for those of us who are less informed? I would like to understand at least the appropriate conclusions.
Your servant, Ishan das
Pranams Bhushan,
What I meant is that it cannot be considered an alternative model of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, no more than Christianity, or indeed, Sikhism, can be considered alternative models of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. They are alternative worldviews entirely. It is like saying that someone espousing that Mahaprabhu is the combined being of Krsna and Balarama as opposed to Krishna and Radharani is a “different model” of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The Gaudiya Math in contrast to rural, relatively reclusive ashrams is a “different model of Gaudiya Vaishnavism,” for example.
The comparison to Christianity is somewhat irrelevant. You see, just because all these different sects have followers does not mean they are viable models. The Devil also has worshipers. Similarly, just because any number of apasampradayas, from the Bauls to the Rtviks (if you want to call the latter a sampradaya), have some adherents, that does not mean they carry real weight. Gaining adherents is not the goal of a sampradaya, individuals’ attainment of Krishna-prema is. So yes, the only form of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that I think it would be appropriate to term rtvikism is “apasiddhantic Gaudiya Vaishnavism.”
Pluralism is good and valid, but only as much as it is rooted in siddhanta. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is already pluralistic in a real way. It is externally pluralistic in that it acknowledges the reality of different spiritual goals, both impersonal and personal, and it acknowledges a variety of methodologies to attain those. It is further pluralistic in that Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself culminates in the beautiful diversity of rasas of Vraja, each of which is perfect and absolute. Pluralism is highly valued in our culture and considered beautiful, but something can only be as beautiful as it is true. Sastra teaches that one attains love of God via a direct guru-disciple relationship. To give a contrary idea credence for the sake of amicable dealings is to support a delusion, and that is never beautiful. This is how I understand this topic.
The comparison to Sikhism by Srila Sridhara Maharaja was alluding to the idea of no longer needing a teacher, only the book. For the Sikhs it is the Guru Granth Sahib, for Rtviks it is the original, unedited books of Srila Prabhupada.