© 1998 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 24, 1998 VNN2733 See Related VNN Stories Post-Samadhi Rittvik Issue BY JAYANTAKRID DASA EDITORIAL, Dec 24 (VNN) — Dear prabhus, please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I empathize with all those who have suffered from the errors made by the GBCs on the guru issue. The post-samadhi ritvik system seems to solve the burning issue of approaching a qualified diksa-guru. I have in the past (1985) been charmed with this idea, but have not embraced it not been able to reconcile it with our Gaudiya vaisnava siddhanta and by having thoroughly analyzed the case. Here are a few things I found: 1) In July 7 1977, if I am not mistaken about the date, when TKG asked Srila Prabhupada about rittviks for India, His Divine Grace answers like incredulously: "In India? In India I am here." To me, this clearly means that he is speaking of rittviks only for during his physical time with us. 2) In the July 9 1977 letter, it is written that 'the name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace's Initiated Disciples' book.' It is very clear, at least to me, that this can only mean during His Divine Grace's physical presence amongst us, or what do you mean by sending him the new names? To which address? Goloka Vrindavan? And there is the mention of his book of initiated disciples. Doesn't that mean that he can have initiated disciples (those initiated directly by him or through his rittvik representatives while he was physically present), and non initiated disciples (all those who accept him as their siksa guru.)? 2) In October 1977 in Bombay, there is a conversation about a Bengali gentleman who has flown from NY to take diksa from Srila Prabhupada. In this conversation, Prabhupada says that:" If I recover, by Krishna's grace I will start again, but I shouldn't be pressed. In this condition to initiate is not good." Again, this means that the rittvik system was only meant to last not even for his remaining physical days but only as long as he would be sick. Or what do you understand his words to mean then? He is and will be the maha siksa guru of all ISKCON devotees as well as of all those outside ISKCON who accept him as such, but why insist that he should be their diksa-guru? I fail to grasp the logic. What is wrong is modification B, and the system created by the GBCs who, since Prabhupada said that other rittviks could be added if needed, and since they insist on interpreting the nomination of rittviks as a nomination of gurus, have taken upon themselves the right to vote-in gurus, whereas Prabhupada said that votes had no jurisdiction over an acarya. But I can't help to agree to modification A. I also had the experience of associating a lot over the years with the late H.H. Gour Govinda Goswami, and that convinced me that Prabhupada had made at least one disciple qualified as a guru to represent our line within ISKCON. I have heard that Maharaja became a diksa-guru in 1985 when he asked the GBC the permission to follow Prabhupada's instruction to initiate his own disciples as Prabhupada had instructed him to do so. I also heard that he produced a letter of Prabhupada to that extent but don't know it for certain. So, reform, yes, but not throw the baby with the bath-water. Two wrongs don't make one right. Please send me your feedback. Your servant, Jayantakrid dasa jkd@infonie.fr See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET24-2733.html
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
