© 1998 VNN
| EDITORIAL 09/28/1998 - 2283 The Ritvik System Is Authorized Editorial (VNN) - by Agrahya das (completed 9/24/98) Discussing the system of ritvik acaryas instituted by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and pitfalls regarding current understandings of it A recent compilation and analysis entitled "The Final Order" has attracted quite a bit of attention in recent years. Many devotees have taken it as conclusive indication that the final and most significant instruction given by Srila Prabhupada addresses the issue of how initiations will continue in the future. They say that the letter of July 9th clearly expresses His Divine Grace's desire that this will continue in no other form than the ritvik system, with His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada as the sole initiator. "The Final Order" goes to great lengths to examine and address the various logical possibilities. It has convinced many persons that the ritvik system was intended to continue after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, and that he will be the only bonafide guru for all time. The logical conclusion one might draw is that the ritvik system should be implemented immediately. The strength of this conclusion is further supported by the mass of evidence that 99% of those who have acted as acaryas since the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada have not been and are not qualified according to the standards of our Gaudiya Vaishnava line. Many attempts have been made to respond to "ritvik" philosophy, as the ritvik system and especially the way it is commonly understood nowadays have come to be known. In most if not all of these attempts there has been no separation of the ritvik system from the philosophical understandings which have come to be attached to it. "The Final Order" seems to make its case quite reasonably on the basis of numerous quotes from Srila Prabhupada's talks, letters, and from his books. It argues for a literal acceptance at face value without motivated interpretation. In this paper we will take a careful and critical look, not only at points made in TFO, but at the particular interpretations of Srila Prabhupada's vani it suggests, and the reasoning employed to arrive at those interpretations. This paper does not attempt to refute the ritvik system. It is an authorized system instituted by Srila Prabhupada. Furthermore, it was instituted in a specific manner. Certain persons were deputed to act on behalf of His Divine Grace for the purpose of giving initiations. Previously sannyasis or GBC men would perform functions such as chanting on beads and even choosing names, but all initiations were approved by letter from Srila Prabhupada. But as Srila Prabhupada's health deteriorated in 1977, he instructed that these "ritvik acaryas" would act on his behalf without the necessity of his individual approval, and that the disciples initiated by the ritviks on behalf of Srila Prabhupada would be Srila Prabhupada's disciples. None of the above is subject to dispute. Some have coined the phrase "posthumous ritvik" to refer to the concept that Srila Prabhupada meant the ritvik system to continue after his physical departure. However, this was also done as approved by Srila Prabhupada in at least one case. My own brother, Datta das, received 2nd initiation from Srila Prabhupada with Tamal Krishna Goswami acting as ritvik. The only thing that is unusual is that the initiation was given in December, 1977 - after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure. Neither I nor anyone else I know of has ever questioned the status of Datta Prabhu's status as a twice-initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada, and I am sure there are other examples. One may ask, "What is the difference between ritvik initiations given while Srila Prabhupada is present by persons authorized to act on his behalf, and ritvik initiations given after his departure by persons authorized to act on his behalf?" Some detractors of the ritvik system have suggested that the "posthumous" ritvik system is akin to "signing a contract with a dead lawyer." Yet we cannot reconcile this analogy with the reality that even during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence he authorized his deputies or ritviks to initiate on his behalf without consulting him. So if we wanted to make a legal analogy, we could compare the "posthumous" ritvik system to "signing a contract with a lawyer who is acting as a trustee for the estate of a great personality who is no longer physically present." Such a contract is quite routine, and in fact it is not a bad analogy, as Srila Prabhupada clearly established a "trust" for the "estate" of his mission. He had some faith that some of his followers would act on his behalf and would not subvert his interests. Some individuals have argued that because of Srila Prabhupada's declining physical health, the ritvik system was simply a temporary convenience and was not intended to continue after the end of His Divine Grace's nara-lila. We can reject this speculation on the basis of existing examples of ritvik initiations given as late as 1979 (Calcutta). When questioned, the answers Srila Prabhupada gave were not nearly as specific as we might normally expect had he meant the ritvik system to terminate immediately upon his departure. Taking both these items together, we can accept that for some undetermined time, the ritvik system was meant to continue. One may then ask, "What did Srila Prabhupada intend to be the scope of ritvik initiations in which he is understood to be the initiator and someone else is acting on his behalf only?" This seems to be a valid and relevant question. Did he intend that ritvik initiations could continue for a month after his physical departure, until the return of Tamal Krishna Goswami and others from India? Did he intend it to continue for a year? For ten years? Until some of the ritviks or other disciples became fully qualified? Until anyone could be seen to have the symptoms of the uttama-adhikari described in his books and the literature of the Six Goswamis? Did he intend that he would be the end of the disciplic succession and there would never, ever be another qualified spiritual master? Or if not never, perhaps "not for at least 10,000 years" ? These are the questions we would like to address in this paper.
It is not possible to fully address all possible issues, and even this partial attempt is plagued by the author's own defects and weaknesses. Yet hopefully it will be accepted by sincere Vaishnavas who are able to extract the essence and leave aside whatever is useless. What are the qualifications of a ritvik acarya?To me this is the single most important question with regard to any attempt to consider implementing the ritvik system. Who is qualified to be a ritvik to act on behalf of Srila Prabhupada? We can start by examining the selection made by His Divine Grace. He initially selected 9 disciples, later adding 2 (Bhavananda and Hamsaduta). This selection was not made randomly or willy-nilly. Specific persons were proposed as ritviks and rejected by him. So we cannot accept that such a criterion as "anyone who is Srila Prabhupada's disciple and chants 16 rounds and hasn't fallen in the last 5 years" would have been acceptable to His Divine Grace. If such criteria were not acceptable in his physical presence they should certainly be even less applicable now, when so much time has separated us from his guidance and so much potential for deviation has been there. Even taking such a liberal criterion as "any initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada" gives us pause. Do we take literally that anyone initiated by ritvik initiation is immediately fully qualified to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada? To understand this, we should carefully consider whether there are any criteria described in what we have been taught. If a professor has got a student who has understood the ABC's, it should not be necessary to spell everything out. We may question to what degree Srila Prabhupada considered his senior disciples to have understood the basics, but we can at least accept that he considered some disciples more qualified than others. Some persons argue that qualification is secondary to extracting the most literal meaning of orders. It is a fact that we do not become qualified by being "overly intelligent" or by scholarship or intellect or by any other means, but by the quality of our bhakti. The lotus feet of our spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, are the abode of pure bhakti. sri guru carana-padma, kevala-bhakati-sadma. Also, yasya deve para bhaktir, yatha deve tatha gurau: for one who has devotion to Sri Guru as much as to Krishna, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are revealed. So the position of this author is that we must dive deep into the instructions in Srila Prabhupada's books not by Folio searches and cutting and pasting, but by realizing these things within the heart. guru-mukha-padma-vakya, cittete koriya aikya: Make the words from the lotus mouth of Sri Guru one with your heart. The qualifications of a ritvik acarya would have to at least match those of a Vedic guru. srotriyam: he must have properly heard and understood from his own spiritual master. brahma-nistham: he must be fixed in Transcendence. It is also given sabde pare ca nisnatam: he must have fully realized the truths of the Vedas. Given such simple criteria from the Upanisads, leaving aside for the moment the descriptions of Srila Rupa Goswami and Raghunath das Goswami, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur, and others in our specific line, we are left with a very high level of qualification indeed. Yet it is not unattainable, and we have the assurance that while a Vedic brahmana expert in all six brahminical activities may not be guru if he is not a Vaishnava, even a dog-eater who has become a Vaishnava is certainly qualified to be guru. Still, we should not think it is a cheap qualification. But let us also consider whether there are any specifics to being a ritvik acarya. Certainly one's spiritual master must have expressed a desire to be represented in this very specific way. And it also stands to reason that he should have had the opportunity to appoint one or more persons to act as his representatives for this purpose. One may therefore argue that in appointing ritviks, it is within the discretion of the maha-bhagavata guru to select whomever he pleases. He may even select someone knowing of their sensual tendencies (as with Bhavananda) but also recognizing the dedication of that disciple to serving his Gurudeva. Yet in the physical absence of the guru, who is qualified to say, "Now I (or someone else) am qualified to be a ritvik acarya." There are many statements by Srila Prabhupada regarding those who were worshipped as gurus in his presence. This happened in Germany and in New Vrindavan, possibly in other places. Devotees should have known better but they didn't. Srila Prabhupada should never have had to point out that one should not take disciples in the presence of one's spiritual master unless specifically requested to do so. Considering these many points, we can conclude that far from "lowering the bar" for the qualification of a ritvik acarya, we might consider that it would be quite presumptuous to appoint any additional ritviks in the physical absence of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. But this leads into the next question: How long did Srila Prabhupada intend the ritvik system to continue?Did he intend it to continue forever or only until his departure? Or does the truth lie somewhere in between? We have already discussed the second possibility. Apparently not even those who were appointed as ritviks, including Tamal Krishna Goswami, accept that ritvik initiations could not take place after Srila Prabhupada's departure. We can therefore reject out of hand the possibility that Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to end abruptly after his departure. Let us consider the first possibility. If Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system to continue for all time, what would happen when the ritviks appointed by him have left or are otherwise unfit to perform their duties? He appointed 11 ritviks, but he does not appear to have made any clear provision for increasing their number. As discussed above under qualifications, such expansion would have to be extremely conservative if it is truly driven by a concern for representing Srila Prabhupada's desire. We can continue hypothesizing and assume the ritvik system was meant to continue. This would require continuous expansion of the body of ritviks. The criteria for qualification and selection would have to be well-understood on the basis of shastra. The natural question, as raised in the previous section on qualification, is this: what really is the difference in qualification between one who acts as a ritvik and one who initiates on behalf of his spiritual master? In considering the hypothesis that the ritvik system is meant to continue ad infinitum, it is paramount to consider the desire of Srila Prabhupada. He did not appoint ritviks willy-nilly, and if anything we should be far more cautious than the maha-bhagavata. Therefore we are left with a very high qualification, and the necessity that the purity or strength of the line is maintained. This issue of purity is crucial to understanding whether the ritvik system was meant to be perpetual. Let us assume that "ritvik acarya" is someone who may initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada but it is understood that the initiated disciple is actually Srila Prabhupada's disciple. It is also understood by some persons that the ritvik acarya is not a liberated soul and may not even have a complete understanding of the truths in Srila Prabhupada's books (a-tattva-jna). Let us assume for the sake of argument that the ritvik's ability to select a successor is on average 50% higher than the selection ability of other non-liberated souls. What will happen after a very few generations is that the succession of ritviks becomes adulterated, to the point where the original selection criteria have been forgotten, realization of the truths in Srila Prabhupada's books is superficial at best, and the process of initiation becomes a ceremony with no more significance than the sentiment attached to it by society in general. It is simple mathematics. If the first generation's ability to select qualified successors is only 50% higher than average, the second generation's ability will be closer to 25%, the third generation's close to 12%, etc. Is this what Srila Prabhupada envisioned? Certainly not, in the opinion of this author. Simply considering the adulteration inherent in a new type of parampara where qualification is not important, we cannot accept that this was Srila Prabhupada's intention. Some persons claim that it is not our business to consider whether this system will be successful or not, we should follow it blindly. We also reject this speculation because there is a reasonable alternative. The alternative is this: Srila Prabhupada intended that those who were appointed as ritviks should initiate disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada for some time, at least until those who came to Krishna consciousness while Srila Prabhupada was physically present and waited for a year or more during late 1976 and 1977 had received ritvik initiation. Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada did not nail the definition down clearly, so that those who considered themselves qualified as bonafide gurus in our parampara could act in that way. If they had not learned by this time to wait for the necessary qualification, it is unlikely anything that Srila Prabhupada said would make any difference. It is clear from examining the conversations in May 1977 that there was some lingering doubt. The letter of July 9th was quite clear but did not clearly define the scope. The obvious implication is that the ritvik system should continue until the qualification would be totally obvious. Let us consider this: would there be any harm for ISKCON to continue for 1 year or even 10 years after Srila Prabhupada's departure, with all the leaders taking humble positions, no high seats, high titles, and high budgets, and all disciples initiated understood to be disciples of Srila Prabhupada? Would there be any harm in looking to senior Vaishnavas like Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja for guidance, as Srila Prabhupada suggested, rather than using him to justify extravagance? We should all take note of the words from Srila Sridhara Maharaja's mouth when first told by the 11 ritviks, "Prabhupada appointed us as his successor." Srila Sridhara Maharaja said, "I don't think so." But as they did not listen to Srila Prabhupada they did not listen to him, and later made him the scapegoat for their excesses and offenses to all devotees great and small. It is very, very hard to see what harm there would be in ISKCON continuing in a humble way, following Srila Prabhupada rather than blatantly imitating him. One who is actually qualified never thinks, "I am so qualified." Rather, he simply acts according to his guru's heart's desire without even being told or ordered. One who is qualified never demands the respect of others. He would not dream of telling a Godbrother, "Now your connection to Prabhupada is only through me." One who is qualified is more tolerant than a tree, humble like the blade of grass, and always ready to offer all respect to others. Yet others, on meeting such a person, naturally want to offer him all respect. This is the meaning of "command respect, don't demand respect." One who is unqualified simply waits for a chance to jump up on the Vyasasana, despite lack of qualification. Those who are unqualified are very quick to blame others and to avoid showing respect to those who are more qualified. But they call this lack of respect "Prabhupada loyalty." Those who are unqualified loudly demand the respect of others in so many ways. They delude themselves into accepting the praise of blind followers, and think that those who do not praise them are simply envious. So how did Srila Prabhupada see ISKCON continuing? We cannot avoid the conclusion that his vision relied on his disciples following him, not imitating. What does it mean to follow Srila Prabhupada? It means that we must become 100% pure, not 12%, 25%, or even 50%. We cannot deliver ourselves, much less any disciples, with partial realization. We must become fully Krishna consciousness. There simply isn't any alternative to this. Did he intend that those named as ritviks would automatically be qualified to act as gurus after his departure?In considering this we must re-examine the issue of qualification. It is clear from numerous statements that our Srila Prabhupada did not think much of the appointment of a successor to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur in the Gaudiya Math. The emphasis in Srila Prabhupada's books is on qualification, not appointment. This brings us full circle to how ISKCON could have continued after Srila Prabhupada's departure. It could only have continued with full humility on the part of the leaders. The little devotees must also take some responsibility. Although we were told, "Surrender to your authorities" in the name of cooperation, as if cooperation is a one-way street, still could we little devotees perhaps have done something other than slavishly serving the follies of leaders who got increasingly too big for their britches? Did we really help the Emperor by keeping silent while he nakedly paraded his new clothes? But sadly there were those who spoke up and spoke out, and they were promptly thrown out or silenced in other ways. This attitude continues to prevail in ISKCON today, albeit in slightly different form. There is no real discussion of any topic, no recognition of anything other than the brute force of raw, unqualified authority. If we must look for roots to the problem of misused power and lack of qualification, we must look back to at least 1974 or earlier. It is during this period that ISKCON began taking a lucrative but very different direction under the guidance of leaders who were not fully obedient to Srila Prabhupada's will. They did not deal with others in love and trust. In short, they were not really qualified, but they were willing to do the job. In a treeless country, even a bush passes for a tree, so even from the time Srila Prabhupada withdrew from management of the movement's day to day affairs he had to rely on leaders who were not qualified. Did problems result from such unqualified leadership? Estimates may vary, but it is hard not to find a host of them, ranging from the Robin George case and closing of numerous temples to the estrangement of thousands of sincere devotees. But at the same time Srila Prabhupada was supportive of his unqualified leaders, having faith that if they continued to follow the instructions given in his books sincerely they would be purified of their anarthas and would eventually become qualified. Therefore it was better to make the effort and become qualified rather than to simply say, "We're not qualified." So it is hard to believe that Srila Prabhupada would pass on full approval to act as initiating guru for those who were so barely qualified. At the same time we cannot accept that Srila Prabhupada never intended that anyone would be qualified. We consider this a great insult to Srila Prabhupada. If one says, "You can remain in this school all your life but neither you nor anyone else will ever make it past third grade," it is a way of saying the school is bogus. Srila Prabhupada gave us a bonafide school, the school of Srila Rupa Goswami. We should not dishonor him by claiming otherwise, but we should apply ourselves diligently to becoming qualified rather than claiming we're qualified. What is the difference between Srila Prabhupada's physical presence (vapuh) and his instructions (vani)?This is another crucial topic. According to Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, there are three most powerful substances: the remnants of pure devotees, the dust of their feet, and the water which has washed their feet. We also understand that there are two types of remnants: remnants of prasad, and remnants of Hari-katha. At the same time we understand there is no difference between serving the spiritual master by cooking, massaging, etc. and serving him by carrying out his orders. In particular Srila Prabhupada sometimes used to quote from Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur's commentary on the Fourth Canto of the Bhagavatam, saying that one should not only take the order of the spiritual master on one's head, considering it his life and soul, but one should actively find a means to carry it out. We have to find harmony between these different understandings. While it is essential to absorb and serve the vani or instructions, at the same time one should never ever minimize or neglect the importance of serving the spiritual master directly. In one purport (Cc Adi-lila 1.35) Srila Prabhupada goes so far as to say, "The service of the spiritual master is essential. If there is no opportunity for direct service, one should serve the orders of the spiritual master." The implication here is that one should always seek to render some direct service to the pure devotee. Interestingly, it is in this same purport that Srila Prabhupada speaks about serving the spiritual master's order in his physical absence, then he cautions us, "But if one thinks himself above taking guidance from anyone, including a spiritual master, he at once becomes an offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such an offender cannot make any spiritual advancement." (my emphasis added). It is in this same purport to vande gurun isa-bhaktan (my obeisances unto the spiritual masters and the Lord's devotees) that Srila Prabhupada mentions there may be only one initiating spiritual master but many instructing spiritual masters. chadiya-vaishnava-seva, nistara payeche keba: without serving the pure Vaishnava, no one can be delivered. Others will certainly be benefited by reading Srila Prabhupada's books, but will we claim there is nothing to be gotten from his direct association? Or can we claim that we will be effective in spreading this Krishna consciousness movement without becoming sadhus ourselves? What is the meaning and relevance of sadhu-sanga?If there is a defect in most current understandings of the ritvik system, it lies most glaringly here. According to Srila Rupa Goswami, sadhu-sanga means specifically "svato vare", those who are superior to oneself. To claim that "we are all equal under our Messiah, Prabhupada" is in effect to reject sadhu-sanga. Can we claim we are following Srila Prabhupada if we attempt to amputate one of the five limbs of bhakti, in fact the one that is named first by Mahaprabhu Himself? The fact is that sadhu-sanga means to associate with and serve those who are realized souls, person Bhagavatas. Such persons have no motive to exploit us for their personal gain (gold-plated bathroom fixtures, Swiss bank accounts, etc. etc) They deal with us in a way that helps us in our Krishna consciousness. They do not ask anything in return, but if we sincerely hear from and take inspiration from such persons we may want to offer something in return. This may sound like mythology to some, but such association exists. If we are sincere Krishna will help us to find it. But some will then claim, "Srila Prabhupada didn't want us to associate with his Godbrothers. We can only find sadhu-sanga within the arena of Srila Prabhupada's disciples." In response to this, we say that Srila Prabhupada had different relations with different Godbrothers. He also had close relations with other Vaishnavas who are not his Godbrothers, such as Srila Govinda Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja. It is apparent to some of us that these restrictions on associating with Godbrothers were aimed mostly at those who were openly critical of Srila Prabhupada and his preaching, and that to a large extent they were meant to prevent us from committing offenses. We also find that toward the end of Srila Prabhupada's nara-lila he emphatically announced, "The war is over." Will we hold up previous instructions given in other circumstances over the final instructions? More specifically, will we neglect the many instructions in Srila Prabhupada's books to associate with advanced Vaishnavas in the name of party spirit? Will we then fall victim to the mentality condemned by Srila Jiva Goswami (as quoted by Srila Prabhupada) that one should not accept a spiritual master in terms of ecclesiastical convention? The great concern of many disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada like myself, who have found genuine shelter and connection with advanced Vaishnavas, is that in the proposed ritvik system there will continue to be a "closed-door" policy. In one ritvik preaching center there are no Gita or Bhagavatam classes, only tapes by Srila Prabhupada. We should hear from Srila Prabhupada directly, but can we afford to neglect his order by not discussing our realizations of his instructions? Are we so weak that we think if we hear from "other" Vaishnavas we cannot discern what is in harmony with the conclusions of Srila Prabhupada's books and what is not? Some persons claim that there are boundaries to sadhu-sanga, that we can only look within a certain societal or ecclesiastical boundary for sadhu-sanga. But this is not supported by shastra nor by Srila Prabhupada nor by our acaryas. There are boundaries only in the sense that we do not ever associate with those who are critical of our spiritual master, though we may respect them from a distance. Others try to make sadhu-sanga out to be a cheap thing, as if when we rub elbows with other Prabhus at the Sunday Feast this is all we need. We should always associate with single-pointed devotees and avoid the association of materialistic persons, but we should especially seek out the association of those who are advanced in pure devotional service. This is the injunction of Upadesamrita. What went wrong and who should and should not be held accountable?At some point in ISKCON's past, things went wrong. This much is clear. How far back we should look and where we should look for the source of difficulty, these are the topics of debate. Some look outside ISKCON for its troubles. But Srila Prabhupada said that our movement cannot be destroyed from without, only from within. If things are going more wrong after so many persons have been driven away, the answer may not be to drive more away but to try to find where things went off track. Was it in 1991, when some devotees began taking guidance from Srila Narayana Maharaja? Was it in 1994, when those devotees abandoned him for the sake of positions? Was it in 1996, when Srila Gour Govinda Swami left ISKCON (and this world) in disgust? Was it in 1978, when ambitious persons climbed vyasasanas and declared themselves paramahamsas? Was it when those same persons went to Srila Sridhara Maharaja and didn't take his advice, or was it in 1982 when they turned against him and began a wave of offenses that continues to this day? Was it in 1977, when Srila Prabhupada's last desire to have his disciples come to him in Vrindavan was ruthlessly thwarted? Was it in 1974, when nondevotee clothes, wigs and the change-up were introduced, supposedly with Srila Prabhupada's full blessings, and we heard "by hook or by crook" but not so much the other paragraph in the letter? We may never know the exact point of deviation, but cannot accept that it began even at some point after Srila Prabhupada's departure. The important thing is to get back on track. This means to re-examine the priorities, re-examine the attitudes, and try to implement things as Srila Prabhupada intended. If we want to hold any party accountable, we can look deep in our own hearts first, and cast out any desire for profit, adoration, distinction, and duplicity. Only then can we consider who is fit to lead, otherwise the danger is that we simply become blind followers of powerful and ambitious men who promise continued facility for sense gratification in the name of preaching. We should not look outside the very walls we have painted black with the ignorance born of Vaishnava aparadha and red with the blood of the devotees who have been driven away by cruel ambition. What was really the final order of Srila Prabhupada?The final order is to "do as I have done." That means we should become fully, 100%, pure devotees, single-pointedly fixed in the highest conception of Krishna consciousness. "Everything is in my books." Everything is there, indeed. All the works of the Goswamis are mentioned, many of them in terms of "one must read." Sadhu-sanga is mentioned over and over and over. Everything is there, and we just have to accept the process given to us with full faith in His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada have certainly given us the order. amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa: on My order, become guru and deliver this country. We have seen the problems that result from unqualified persons assuming the role of maha-bhagavatas. ISKCON has suffered not only from unqualified persons acting as guru, but from unqualified sannyasis, GBC members, temple presidents, gurukula teachers, preachers, and brahmanas in general. If we will abolish the service of initiating guru on the pretense of lack of qualification we might as well abolish all these others as well. Alternatively, we can say that in the order "become guru" there is not only the implicit order "become qualified" but the empowerment and ability to do it by surrendering ourselves wholeheartedly to the process of cultivating pure devotional service as described by Srila Prabhupada, Srila Rupa Goswami, and all our acaryas. ConclusionThe purpose of this paper is not only to critically examine the ritvik system and possible flaws in interpretation, but to re-examine how we may get ISKCON back on the track Srila Prabhupada intended. To do this will require a monumental effort of cooperation, and may involve considerable pain. But if we are sincere and above all want the priceless gift of pure Krishna consciousness, there is no sacrifice too great and no price too high. We may remember the verse containing the Sanskrit phrase from which Srila Prabhupada coined the term "Krishna consciousness": krsna-bhakti-rasa-bhavita-matih Krishna consciousness, or full absorption of the mind in the mellows of Krishna-bhakti, should be purchased wherever it is sold. There is only one price, and that is laulyam or intense eagerness. It cannot be obtained even by 10 million births of meritorious activities (sukrti). If we compromise, if we lower our standards, if we aim for anything less, we will surely be cheated. Srila Prabhupada founded this society for Krishna consciousness. Let us become pure Krishna conscious devotees and fulfill his desire. This will benefit us and others as well. We cannot become pure devotees by imitation, but by surrendering fully to the process of pure devotional service without any tinge of jnana or karma. Vaishnava dasanudas, Further reading:On Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/srila_sridhara_mj/affection/oag_contents.html Back to Essays NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
