VNN Editorial - Reply To "Ritvikism"

EDITORIAL

November 25, 1998 VNN2554 See Related VNN Stories

Reply To "Ritvikism"

BY MONOHAR DAS

EDITORIAL, Nov 25 (VNN) — This is a response to the recent attack on ritviks posted on VNN by a person named as "Jagat Guru Swami" by Srila Prabhupada. (Jagat Guru Swami now goes now by the name of Swami B.G. Narasingha.) Like all other opponents of ritvik initiations in Iskcon, Jagat Guru Swami first constructs a strawman he feels safe fighting with and then blasts it with quotes from the sastras that are irrelevant to the discussion.

In what follows, we produce Swami B. G. Narasingha's remarks in full and then answer his accusations and other misleading statements point by point.

> Devotee: How can you say that the ritviks are the 14th sahajiya
> sampradaya?
>
> Narasingha Maharaja: "Actually the ritviks are not a sampradaya. By saying so I
> am simply using the word loosely. Ritvik conception is in the apa-sampradaya
> category or the anti-party section. Apa-sampradaya means to preach against the
> principles and practices of pure devotional service and sahajiya means to
> imitate the real process of pure devotional service. In this way the ritviks
> have become sahajiya-apa-sampradaya because their process eliminates the real
> thing and tries to establish an illusory standard under false pretenses. In
> the same way one could consider the ritviks as mayavadis. Mayavada means the
> philosophy of illusion. There is no actual mayavada philosophy mentioned in the scriptures,
> nor is there any ritvik system mentioned in the scriptures. So to establish either of
> these two conclusions is illusory.
> It is a symptom of Kali-Yuga that many concocted methods of devotional service
> will emerge but these will not be accepted by the intelligent class of men.
> Instructions regarding the actual science of Krishna consciousness and the
> process of pure devotional service have been passed down from guru to disciple
> in the parampara from the most ancient times until the present day. When we
> are in connection of the parampara system we do not feel the necessity for
> concocted methods of devotional service because all our anticipations are met
> by Krishna, Guru and Vaishnava."

We all agree that concoction is unwanted in devotional service. But what is the use of saying ritvik is a concoction if there is no proof of this? Jagat Guru Swami compares ritvik ideas to sahajiyism and other apa-siddhanta sampradayas, like mayavad, yet he offers no explanation or example that demonstrates how the ritvik system is a deviation. More importantly, he never explains why Srila Prabhupada arranged this system if it is a deviation. He simply assumes, and expects us to do the same, that the eternal parampara system is based on the physical contact of the guru with his disciple. Yet we see practically that Srila Prabhupada initiated many devotees without meeting them. No one has shown any scriptural reference indicating this ritvik practice is a deviation from siddhanta. In truth, the paramapara message is transmitted and received via transcendental sound. It neither depends on the physical contact of the guru with the disicple nor upon a particular formality of initiation. It depends only on the disciple's eager acceptance of the transcendental knowledge imparted by the sad-guru via sabdha-brahma. This is the verdict of all scriptures. Therefore all the slanderous remarks above must be understood as merely the false opinion of the Swami B. G. Narasingha. Why does he want us to blindly accept his opinion as if he were our guru? His words thus far are useless for understanding the guru issue in ISKCON.

By the way, why doesn't he go ahead and give his strawman a name? He can't do that, because the person mentioned herein as "Devotee" is not a person, surely not a person who represents the ritvik devotees, as we shall see below. This supposed ritvik devotee is merely an illusion created by Jagat G. swami.

> Devotee: That's true but there are no pure devotees present and therefore
> seeing the situation Srila Prabhupada has introduced a new system of
> parampara.

We know of no group or camp of devotees who claims either of the two ideas stated above -- that is, 1.) that there are no pure devotees, or 2.) because there are no pure devotees, Srila Prabhupada created a new system of parampara. Therefore most of what follows immediately below is again useless in understanding the ritvik discussion.

> Narasingha Maharaja: What you say is all concoction. Have you seen all the
> devotees of Krishna and Mahaprabhu present on this planet? No. But you condemn
> everyone to your own level of consciousness. Like Duryodhana - he could not
> see any qualified person anywhere. Whereas Yudhisthira saw that everyone was
> more qualified than himself. Persons with the mentality of Duryodhana can
> never understand who is a pure Vaishnava - while persons like Yudhisthira
> always find the company of pure devotees.
>
> The fact is that there are pure Vaishnavas on this planet (always have been -
> always will be) but you have not taken the time to search them out. Secondly
> what you have said about Srila Prabhupada not seeing any qualified person is
> also not true. He did not see a disciple fit to become the head of his ISKCON
> society and therefore he requested everyone to work in cooperation with each
> other (with a GBC at the head). He said, "Together I have some hope that you
> will do something." But he did not say that his disciples were unfit to carry
> on the parampara.
> One who introduces new systems, not authorized by the sastra and previous
> acharyas only creates a disturbance in society.
> "Devotional service to the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literature
> like the Upanisads, Puranas, Narada-Pancaratra, etc., is simply an unnecessary
> disturbance in society."
> Srila Prabhupada never created or concocted new systems. He simply said, "Do
> as I am doing".

No ritvik devotee I know of is claiming no pure devotee is present on the planet. No serioius ritvik devotee uses this argument to justify ritvik initiations. It is an unfair accusation to say that ritvik devotees claim there are no pure devotees. However, the quotes sited above in no way prove that Srila Prabhupada endorsed his disciples, or some of them, as self-realized souls. Srila Prabhupada said many things to encourage us, but it is presumptous on our part if we want to demand a post of Vaisnava acarya based on these statements, especially when there are many other statements from Srila Prabhupada warning us of pretenders who imitate paramahamsas. Srila Prabhupada often warns us, for good reason, of becoming such pretenders ourselves. "You can cheat, but it will not be effecitve."

We agree that Srila Prabhupada said, "Do as I am doing." But he never said, "Imitate me." Jagat Guru Swami (a.k.a. Swami B.G. Narasingha) is confused on the issue of following in the footsteps, as opposed to imitation. Had he been an iskcon guru, he might have used this statement of Srila Prabhupada to justify sitting on a big throne and accepting worship in front of the Deities. Srila Prabhupada was also translating and writing hundreds of volumes of commentary on the scriptures, and he was managing a large global society of devotees, and he was spreading Krsna consciousness all over the world. Can J. G. swami imitate this? It is easy to sit on a throne and accept worship from devotees, but who can replace Srila Prabhupada or imitate him or do all that he was doing?

> Devotee: Actually Srila Prabhupada was the first sannyasi to perform the
> marriage function ceremony for his disciples so that is at least one example
> of his starting a new system.
>
> Narasingha Maharaja: That is a foolish argument. Performing marriage or not
> performing marriage ceremonies has nothing to do with the parampara or the
> process of pure devotional service. That simply comes within 'ways and means'
> to spread Krishna consciousness - it is not a valid example of what we are
> talking about.

If we accept this point -- that marriage ceremonies in the Krsna consciousness movement have nothing to do with the parampara or the process of devotional service -- we might ask, "Why did Srila Prabhupada involve himself in such affairs at all?" Obviously everything Srila Prabhupada does is devotional service, and his actions are all related to the parampara of transcendental knowledge. What J. G. swami probably meant to say above (but failed to do so) was that the ediquette prohibiting a sannyasi from performing a wedding ceremony is not essential in pure devotional service, nor would the neglect of such restrictions by a paramahamsa sannyasi constitute a deviation from pure devotion. In other words, some of what Vedic culture prescribes may be neglected in favor of performing devotional service more efficiently or more directly. Some Vedic injunctions, however, can never be violated, because by doing so, one would create obstacles on the path of pure devotion or distort the actual practice of bhakti. Jagat G. swami has failed to show how ritvik initiations constitute such a deviation in sadhana-bhakti. In truth, the initiation ceremony and the way it is performed are formalities only. Srila Prabhupada explains that the real Initiator is the Holy Name, Who is delivered by the pure devotee, such as Srila Haridas Thakur or Srila Prabhupada.

Before moving on to other strawman arguments attacked by J.G.swami, we should carefully note that no one has found quotes from the sastra that support the idea that ritvik initiations are a deviation from siddhanta and in opposition to the process of sadhana-bhakti. At least the opponents of ritvik should try to find some Vedic instructions indicating that ritvik initiations are a deviation from Vedic social customs -- but of course even this they cannot do. Why is it a deviation to present oneself as only the representative of ones spiritual master? One my argue for his right to go out on his own and initiate his own disciples, but why should such ambitious persons condemn honest devotees who prefer to remain ritviks in the institution Srila Prabhupada personally created?

> Devotee: Nonetheless, I think it is safe to say that since none of Srila
> Prabhupada's disciples are pure devotees that no one should initiate.
>
> Narasingha Maharaja: This is another one of your concocted statements. Show me
> even one place where Srila Prabhupada has said that his disciples or none of
> his disciples are pure devotees. You cannot.

Narasingha Maharaja (Jagat G. swami) really blasts his nameless strawman. Problem here is that, again, no one but the strawman above is saying, "Because there are no pure devotees, no one should initiate." Most ritvik devotees simply say, "Because Srila Prabhupada ordered us to initiate on his behalf, we should do it that way, at least in ISKCON." What is fascinating about these false arguments are the extremes that guru-wanna-bees go to avoid this simple order from Srila Prabhupada, which conveys the real essence of guru parampara. No genuine Vaisnava will claim he has divine rights to be guru. He thinks of himself as fallen and unqaulified. Because Srila Prabhupada almost always presented himself as merely the humble representative, or ritvik, of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, ambitious disciples thought, "Anyone can be guru. It is so easy. Just repeat like a parrot and sit on a big throne. I can do this!" This is the wrong idea. We cannot be gurus by imitation. Rather we may become fit as teacher candidates when we accept our positions as students who always abide by the order of Sri Gurudeva.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta said, "One who thinks he is guru, is garu (or cow)." It is foolish for an immature devotee to claim that he is the best of Vaisnavas and thus worthy for the most exalted post of Spiritual Master. All great devotees, even Lord Caitanya Himself, present themselves as the humble representatives, or as students or "fools", in relation to the Acarya, who takes the absolute and infallible position of the Supreme Lord. The acarya takes the position of the Absolute Lord only when directly ordered by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to do so. This truth is illustrated in the instance of Sriman Vallabha Bhatta's asking Sri Gadadhar Pandit to initiate him. Sri Gadadhar Pandit declined this request, stating, "The work of acting as initiating spiritual master is not possible for me ... (without an order from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)."

> Narasingha Maharaj: On the contrary Srila Prabhupada many times stated the qualifications to
> become a pure devotee and insisted that this was the only business of his
> disciples. He did not say, "None of my disciples are pure devotee." He
> actually stated many times just the opposite. First we should know what pure
> devotional service is.
>
> anyabhilasita sunyam, jnana-karmady-anavrtam
> anukulyena krsnanu, silanam bhaktir uttama
>
> "First class devotional service must be devoid of all material desires,
> knowledge obtained by monistic philosophy, and frutive action. The devotee
> must constantly serve Krishna favorably, as Krishna desires." (Bhakti-
> rasamrta-sindhu 1.1.11)

Again Jagat G. swami argues with the strawman. We can also punch this rascal stawman. Surely Srila Prabhupada created many pure devotees. They are the ones who fight and slave to preserve his mission, the ones who toil day and night doing menial service or book distribution or preaching or Deity worship with no motive but to serve the mission Srila Prabhupada created. They are not the ones who pretend to be acaryas (guru-bhogis). They are not the guru-tyagis who abandon the Acarya's mission.

> Narasingha Maharaja: But what? Do you believe in Srila Prabhupada and what he
> says or do you think he spoke nonsense? What is your position?
>
> Srila Prabhupada has stated on many occasions that his disciples were pure
> devotees to the extent that they follow his instruction. The key is there - in
> your hand - simply follow his instruction. In 1975 Srila Prabhupada commented
> that he wanted disciples who would follow his instructions and become pure
> devotees. He said that he would have been satisfied if even one of his
> disciples had become a pure devotee but that he was fortunate because Krishna
> had sent many pure devotees to become his disciples.
>
> (Srila Prabhupada: "I want one student who follows my instruction. I don't
> want millions. Ekas candras tamo hanti na ca tara-sahasrasa. If there is one
> moon in the sky, that is sufficient for illumination. There is no need of
> millions of stars. So my position is that I want to see that at least one
> disciple has become pure devotee.
>
> Of course, I have got many sincere and pure devotees. That is my good luck.
> But I would have been satisfied if I could find out one only." (c)
> 1991 by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust)

What does any of this have to do with ritvik initiations? Jagat Guru Swami is confusing the issue of becoming a pure devotee with the issue of becoming a guru. He also confuses issues involving the external formalities of initiation with the eternal parampara. It is not a fact that all pure devotees initiate and take charge of their own disciples. To become a pure devotee and to become a guru are separate issues. The sastras say only an uttama-adhikari can deliver real diksa. The sastras say a guru must be empowered and directly ordered to take up the work of Initiating Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupada confirmed this fact, saying, "One can be guru when he is ordered to be guru. That's all." The service of guru is not cheap and easy. It is not something we choose. > Devotee: But the final order of Srila Prabhupada is there.

Finally the stawman comes alive and says something of value. So what is the answer? Srila Prabhupada gave some instruction regarding how initiations were to be continued in ISKCON. But the gbc does not follow that instruction. What is the reason?

Another question that comes to mind at this point -- Why does Swami B.G. Narasingha, who left the institution Srila Prabhupada created, care so much about this question of institutional practice in ISKCON? No one is coming after him, challenging his role as guru. It may be argued that headstrong sadhus who cannot accept any practical guidance or authority or institutional role would do better to leave ISKCON and start their own missions, like Jagat Guru Swami did, rather than disrupt ISKCON with their guru enterprise. When did Srila Prabhupada say that everyone needs to live within the ISKCON institution?

In what follows Narasingha Maharaj fails to answer this one valid statement of his strawman ritvik devotee but merely rambles on irrelevantly.

> Narasingha Maharaja: Yes, the final order is there, the first order is there
> and the second order is there. All the orders are there and all these orders
> are the same, "Become pure devotee."
>
> If not even a single disciple (as you are proposing) becomes pure devotee then
> the mission of the spiritual master is a failure. If no disciple has become a
> pure devotee then people will begin to rumor that the spiritual masters
> teachings have no potency or that he has no mercy to bless his disciples etc.
> So when you say that no disciple of Srila Prabhupada is qualified to become
> Guru then in effect you are saying that Srila Prabhupada and his mission have
> failed. It is intolerable to hear such nonsense - I can not agree.
>
> Devotee: They can become siksa-guru but not diksa-guru.

Again the strawman emerges. First Jagat Guru Swami should answer the real question, that is, "Why not initiate disciples and preach in the precise way Srila Prahbupada recommended? What is the fault with Prabhupada's ritvik system? Where is the Vedic injunction that prohibits the ritvik system from continuing in the the way Srila Prabhupada set it up? He said ritviks would initiate disciples on His behalf without consulting Him personally. This was his final arrangement. Other concocted arrangements made by other devotees have all been fantastic failures, beginning with the famous gaudiya matha deviations. Srila Prabhupada personally condemned the ideas of his Godbrothers who said, "Acaryas may not necessarily be self-realized or infallible. We can appoint some men to do this work. To preach and initate devotees, we need an acarya, an absolute leader with flesh and blood, even though such leader is still unfit for the position."

> Narasingha Maharaja: The siksa guru is categorically in a higher
> position than the diksa-guru in that he is the manifestation of Sri
> Govindadeva the Lord of abhideya-tattva. The diksa-guru is the manifestation
> of Madan Mohanji the Lord of sambandha-tattva.
>
> In Caitanya Caritamrta the position of diksa and siksa-gurus are mentioned.
> Categorically it is such but to make discrimination between different gurus is
> an offense. Both are equal manifestations of Krishna. If one is a pure devotee
> according to the measure of the sastra then he is fit to become either siksa
> or diksa-guru or both.

Although admitting that it is an offense to distinguish between the siksa-guru and diksa- guru in terms of being higher and lower, as clearly stated by Srila Prabhupada in the purports of Caitanya-Caritamrita, J.G. Swami does precisely that, using this rasa-tattva explanation as an excuse. In any case, this point is also irrelevant to the discussion of the ritvik system of initiations. Most ritvik devotees feel that Srila Prabhupada will remain both the siksa-guru and diksa-guru in ISKCON forever. Srila Prabhupada gave us 100 volumes of instructions and thousands of hours of taped lectures and conversations. His every word is fully empowered. Shouldn't we try to encourage others to study those instructions carefully? And if they do this, when will they have time to study other instructions? Moreover, what would be the need? Therefore, what need for promoting ourselves as siksa-gurus? What instruction will we give that Srila Prabhupada hasn't given? Devotee leaders should just admit that their positions are more like that of tutors and guides for slow students or less experienced devotees.

We all should try to train junior devotees to hear carefully from Srila Prabhupada and serve his mission. Yet Jagat Guru Swami thinks Iskcon devotees need to go out and search for self-appointed gurus in India to get the blessings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. This was never Srila Prabhupada's advice. He never said we need to go globe trotting, looking for hidden gurus. He recommended sadhu-sanga with his own sincere followers. He said, "I have given everything in my books." He also created elaborate institutions to facilitate sanga among his disciples. With the time and energy thus saved in avoiding needless wandering, devotees can stay at home or at the local ISKCON temple, reading Srila Prabhupada's books in the association of other devotees devoted to the same study.

> Devotee: But so many, what you are calling pure devotees, have fallen down - a
> pure devotee can not fall down.
>
> Narasingha Maharaja: Oh. This is very interesting point that you are making.
> On one hand you say that a pure devotee can not fall down but on the other
> hand, yourself and other ritvik proponents, are of the opinion that all living
> entities in the mundane world have fallen from eternal lila with Krishna in
> Goloka or Vaikuntha - is it not?
>
> Devotee: Yes. But...
>
> Narasingha Maharaja: So in the spiritual world were these fallen souls pure
> devotees or not? If they are not pure devotees then how can they be with
> Krishna in eternal lila. Therefore by your own admission a pure devotee can
> fall down - is it not?

This statement borders on blasphemy. He thinks Vaisnava acaryas like Srila Prabhupada may fall down, because potentially every jiva may fall down. What he fails to understand is that a Vaisnava acarya is not an ordinary jiva. He is fully empowered by Lord Nityananda. He is Sri Gurudeva, a direct manifestation of Lord Nityananda, the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead. Such eternally empowered nitya-siddha devotees are as infallible as the Supreme Lord Himself. They have never fallen and will never fall. To talk of the possibility of their fall is absurd and offensive. Yet this idea provides the seed of the gaudiya matha's and iskcon's deviation. The leaders of the bogus guru clubs want to convince us they are qualified to be gurus, in spite of their frequent mistakes. They claim that even mahabhagavatas make mistakes, so what is the problem if self-appointed gurus fall down or make mistakes?

Nitya-siddha acaryas are always infallible and perfectly empowered by the Supreme Lord and His internal potency. Like Sri Krsna, great acaryas, such as Srila Prabhupada, are always above the influence of maya. By dint of divine empowerment, their status is equal to or greater than that of the Supreme Lord Himself, and their words are full of spiritual potency.

Srila Prabhupada said a soul's fall from Vaikuntha is inconcievable from our present perspective. Therefore our acaryas have advised us not to speculate on this topic. Sincere devotees should know, however, that an acarya like Srila Prabhupada never falls down. He is fully empowered by Krsna and resides far beyond any possible influence of maya. He is the embodiment of guru-tattva, not an embodiment of the marginal or fallible jiva. Narasingha Maharaj would do well to brush up on his scriptural study in this regard. It is also an offense to suggest the residents of Vaikuntha Dham or Goloka Dham sometimes become offenders and fall down. Such a suggestion is directly opposed to the cultivation of pure devotion.

> Narasingha Maharaja: Why many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have fallen down
> you do not know. Despite spending hours together discussing and gloating over
> their fall down you still do not know why they have fallen. You do not know
> the secrets of devotional service. How can a faithful disciple fall from
> Krishna consciousness - especially after having rendered so much valuable and
> intimate service to the spiritual master? You should stop to consider. You
> should consult the senior Vaishnavas and the scripture and you will come to
> know that such disciples can fall down only due to nama-aparadha and
> particularly Vaishnava-aparadha.

We agree with the paragraph above. But, again, ritvik initiations have little to do with the fall downs of self-proclaimed gaudiya matha and iskcon gurus. Their flamboyant failures are syptoms of their deviation from the order of the Acarya. Or as Jagat Guru Swami mentions, their falls are due to nama-aparadha or Vaisnava-aparadha. The same question arises here, again unanswered: If the spiritual master is a genuine guru and pure devotee, why is he making severe offenses?

Jagat Guru Swami mentions that a sincere disciple can fall down only due to the two offenses mentioned above, but this in not a fact. Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada mentions six principle causes of fall down. It appears Jagat G. Swami is lacking even in this fundamental knowledge. Or maybe he feels advanced devotees are already beyond these cautionary guides from Srila Rupa Gosvami. This is another sahajya idea. Even Bharata Maharaja appeared to fall down, just to teach the example that even advanced devotees may fall due to inattention to the details of sadhana or the developing emotions in the first stages raganuga. (There is no pastime of a Vaisnava acarya falling down.) Why devotees fall down is no great mystery if one is properly educated. Inattention is the mother of all offenses. But again, this has nothing to do with questions regarding Srila Prabhupada's system for initiations in Iskcon.

In summary, we have demonstrated that Jagat Guru Swami (a.k.a. Narasingha Maharaj) offers no useful insights relating to the guru issue in ISKCON. He makes the bold claim that the idea of ritvik initiations constitutes "the 14th sahajiya sampradaya" and may be compared to mayavada. Such high-sounding condemnations are childish at best. He offers not even one scriptural quote indicating the system for ritvik initiations must be terminated in ISKCON. He offers no evidence at all that ritvik initiations are a sahajiya deviation. Thus his condemnations are meaningless and offensive, as are his suggestions that nitya-siddhas fall down.

Regarding the jiva's fall to the material world, Srila Prabhupada mentions that it began when the jiva had some slight desire for the position of Sri Krsna. The acarya assumes the position of the Supreme Lord for the sake of preaching, but only by dint of divine empowerment, not by imitation or self-promotion. False gurus may be compared to mayavadis because they want to take the position of the Supreme Lord by false propoganda. They say any neophyte transcendentalist can become the Acarya by self-appointment and pretense as long as his guru is dead. This is similar to the way mayavadis think. Mayavadi disciples sometimes want to kill the Guru or God to become the Guru or God. Srila Prabhupada warned us of this demoniac mentality in his story "The Sage and the Mouse." It is ironic that Jagat Guru Swami accuses the ritviks of being mayavadis and sahajiyas. The ritviks don't claim to be as good as Krsna or Srila Prabhupada. They don't say that devotees can become mahabhagavatas by imitation or self-promotion. Pretentious sadhus who imitate paramahamsas for the sake of personal ambition degrade the term "guru," and they often make a mockery of the path of pure devotion.

Devotees should not gloat over the falldowns of false gurus. Those who are jealous of Srila Prabhupada and those who try to exploit others in the name of preaching are already fallen and will expose themselves completely in due course, as we have seen repeatedly. Srila Prabhupada said, "One who imitates a paramahamsa will eventually become degraded." His warning is clear; the examples are many.

See Related VNN Stories

This story URL: http://vnn.org/editorials/ET9811/ET25-2554.html

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on