© 1999 VNN
|
WORLD January 13, 1999 VNN2839 See Related VNN Stories Hansadutta Blurs Distinctions BY IRG INDIA, Jan 13 (VNN) — Official Response by IRG to HG Hamsadutta Prabhu's VNN posting - 'Role of the Rittvik Representatives of the Acharya' By Adridharan das (Calcutta) His Grace Hamsadutta prabhu's recent VNN posting - 'Role of the Rittvik Representatives of the Acharya'- starts off very well but then veers off around the middle into the wilderness and self-contradiction of 'soft-ritvik'. Having stated that the July 9th order allowed the ritviks, for the first time, to accept new disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf without consulting him, Hamsadutta then says: 'This was new. This in effect gave these eleven "Rittvik representative of the Acharya" all the responsibilities and authority of a GURU' What sort of guru is the author referring to? Surely not diksa. The Temple Presidents recommended new disciples to the ritviks. Very often the disciples would not even meet the ritvik. Therefore what has this got to do with being a guru to these new disciples? The Temple Presidents would play more of an instructing and monitoring role to future initiates than the ritviks. That would appear to be the whole purpose, to keep an objective distance between those recommending, and those accepting disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. The job of the ritvik was simply to ensure that the standards set down by Srila Prabhupada were being met in every temple. To be trusted, as an overseer of initiation standards certainly required the ritviks to be following strictly themselves; but this is so of all disciples, there is no extra guru status for a ritvik than is afforded to any vartma pradarsaka instructing siksa guru. Hamsadutta goes on to say: 'They were apprentices of the spiritual master' Here Hamsadutta refers to the ritviks as 'apprentices'. By this he implies that at some future point the ritviks will themselves become the initiators. This is 'soft-ritvik' and is not supported by the final order, or any other generally applicable instruction from Srila Prabhupada to ISKCON. Hamsadutta elaborates by using the example of an emperor employing a viceroy: 'Such a viceroy would not automatically become a king upon the death of the king; rather, he would continue to act as the viceroy until the next emperor or king was installed on the throne.' There is no authority for anyone to usurp Srila Prabhupada's current link status within ISKCON. No one will be installed in Srila Prabhupada's place as the sole or joint initiator within ISKCON (at least legitimately). Thus this analogy is highly inappropriate. He goes on: 'Although Srila Prabhupada spoke of all his disciples becoming Gurus, he never once ordered any disciple to be a Guru' If Srila Prabhupada 'spoke of all his disciples becoming (diksa) guru' then what is wrong with ISKCON now? Why is Hamsadutta so critical saying it is a shambles? After all, even if they should not have done it straight away, it has now been more than twenty years since Srila Prabhupada left. Who is Hamsadutta to say none of them is qualified? How much longer must they wait? Of course there are no institutional directives ordering all Srila Prabhupada's disciples to become initiators, that is the whole point of the controversy. Srila Prabhupada only ever authorised ritviks and vartma pradasaka siksa gurus. Hamsadutta's 'soft-ritvik' is simply a time-delayed MASS (multiple acarya successor system). It is a 'guru through the back door' philosophy as transparent as it is contradictory. 'I have one last concern, and it is this idea I get from Krishna Kant's paper "The Final Order" that the "Rittvik representative" is nothing more than a priest who performs a ritual initiation, and afterwards is no more significant in the spiritual life of a disciple than a clerk at an army recruiting station'. I have addressed this above. The ritvik must be following strictly, and be proven as a reliable and consistent follower of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, including the fact that everyone should preach. This is explained in 'The Final Order' very nicely on page 52 of the printed version. We agree that ritvik is not a fix all, but it is certainly a good first step. 'The equation is "Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another." This is the litmus test. If someone claims to be a Rittvik representative of the Acharya, then "things (Rittvik representative) equal to the same thing (Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acharya) are equal to one another (Rittvik representative)'. No one 'claims' to be a ritvik. They must be appointed either by Srila Prabhupada or the GBC. The ritvik is not expected to be equal to Srila Prabhupada, this is nonsense. He must be strictly following, that is all. He goes on: 'So there must be actual love and trust amongst the Rittvik representatives and their supporters or followers' Ritviks do not have followers. All followers belong to Srila Prabhupada. Ritviks train people to be followers of Srila Prabhupada, like all other ISKCON members. It is precisely this blurred understanding which led to the suspension of the ritvik system in the first place. The Temple Presidents will invariably play more of a role in the training of aspirants lives than the ritvik, and no one is suggesting that they have their own 'followers'. We are advised: 'Therefore, quarreling or fighting with those who are not in agreement with Srila Prabhupada's order to "act as Rittvik representative of the Acharya" is not the solution'. This is a bit rich coming from someone who just spent months in court 'fighting' ISKCON over the books. It is perfectly legitimate to correct the GBC if they are not properly following Srila Prabhupada's instructions. He goes on: 'The solution is to act as Rittvik representative of the Acharya, and by demonstrating and by example, the sincere souls will naturally gravitate towards and be truly connected to Srila Prabhupada·' The ritvik system has no meaning outside of ISKCON. It was a system specifically set up to operate within ISKCON. People should not be encouraged to 'gravitate' towards the ritvik, but towards Srila Prabhupada. Towards the end Hamsadutta becomes very confused indeed: '·every Guru, every Acharya would technically be a Rittvik representative of the Great Acharya Srila Vyasadeva. The Vyasa-puja day is the day the representative of Vyasa is honored by the disciples, and that representative, the Guru Acharya, sits on "the seat of Vyasa." So under all circumstances, every devotee is a representative of the Acharya, and thus our line is a Rittvik line'. Hamsadutta claims our line is a 'rittvik line'. Where did Srila Prabhupada ever state this? Every acharya in the disciplic succession accepts their own disciples. The whole point of a rittvik is that he does not. Certainly we must keep this distinction clear in the difficult months ahead as we seek to put ISKCON back on track. I wish no offence to Hamsadutta prabhu, but I do hope he will reflect on these points since we all hope he will contribute constructively towards ISKCON's future. All Glories To Srila Prabhupada. See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story This story URL: http://vaishnava-news-network.org/world/WD9901/WD13-2839.html
|
