November 7, 1998   VNN2473   See Related VNN Stories

North American IRG Meets With Alachua Temple Board

The questions will follow with the answers below the original question. Our answers will be enclosed thus < > and also be in BOLD.



1. In the proposed ritvik system, what is the mechanism for Srila Prabhupada to reject candidates for initiation?


< a) The mechanism is exactly the same as for the IDENTICAL ritvik system Srila Prabhupada operated when he was on the planet, from July 9th, 1977 onwards. The acceptance and rejection of disciples was to be done solely by the ritviks, without any involvement from Srila Prabhupada, with full power of attorney given to the ritviks by Srila Prabhupada:


"Srila Prabhupada: So without waiting for me, whoever you consider deserves ... That will depend on discretion.

Tamala Krishna Goswami: On discretion

Srila Prabhupada: Yes

( Room Conversation, July 7th, 1977, Vrindavan)


Thus the mechanism was that Srila Prabhupada had empowered the ritviks to handle this acceptance and rejection, on their 'discretion'.


DISCRETION: The freedom or right to make decisions and do as one thinks best (Chambers Dictionary)


b) The July 9th letter confirms this arrangement:


"After CONSIDERING the recommendation, these representatives MAY accept the devotee as an initiated ... " (July 9th Letter)


The letter clearly states that the whole process is to be handled by the ritviks without any involvement from Srila Prabhupada.


c) Further there is no record of Srila Prabhupada rejecting any candidate for initiation providing the requisite recommendation from the temple president had been given. Srila Prabhupada stated that as long as the requirements for following the 4 regs and chanting 16 rounds are followed, then they are automatically accepted as initiated devotees:


" Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules.

Disciple: As long as they are following, the he is ...

Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right.

(SP Morning Walk, 13/6/76, Detroit)


"In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles. THEN he is given the name of a Vaisnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, at least 16 rounds daily."

(CC, Madhya, 24:330, Purport)


Thus Srila Prabhupada gave a prescriptive process for automatically getting recommended and initiated in our society. The ritviks were given the responsibility for taking over handling these recommendations and issuing spiritual names. >



2. In his books, letters, conversations and lectures, Srila Prabhupada's style for communication is that he repeats a point many times to ensure that listeners grasp the message. Study of Srila Prabhupada's writings and instructions does not reveal a repeated emphasis on the establishment of the ritvik system after his departure. In fact, by reading Srila Prabhupada's books, the tenor is that the conventional diksa system of the parampara would continue upon his physical departure. Considering that establishment of the ritvik system would be a significant change from Vaisnava tradition, how can it be explained that Srila Prabhupada wanted the ritvik system, although he did not emphasize this point in his writings and instructions?



< This question merely ASSUMES a number of premises, the very premises which are in dispute. Thus the question assumes that which needs to actually be proven, at the outset. These assumptions are as follows:


a) That the establishment of the ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure is something that is significantly different in principle to what was in operation to when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet;

and thus would require 'repeated emphasis'.


The above assumption and hence the question can only have validity if the assumption is indeed proven. Since the ritvik system is simply the operation, in IDENTICAL TOTALITY, of what was occurring when Srila Prabhupada was ON the planet, its operation for a different timeframe would only need 'repeated emphasis', IF DEPARTURE has any significance to the process of diksa. If it does not then the above assumption and question has no validity. It is like asking that why didn't Srila Prabhupada 'repeatedly emphasize' that he would REMAIN the diksa guru of those he initiated. He did not since the question is absurd since the diksa RELATIONSHIP is not in anyway affected by physical distance. Neither is the diksa PROCESS. Thus unless the above assumption can be substantiated, the question assumes a priori, the very issue that is in dispute - that the departure of the Guru affects the ability of the Guru to grant diksa.


There is no need for Srila Prabhupada to 'repeatedly emphasize' that he is the bona fide diksa guru for ISKCON, anymore than he needed to 'repeatedly emphasize' this point for when he was on the planet.


The question is based on the unproven assumption that departure affects Srila Prabhupada's status as the diksa guru for ISKCON. Unless this assumption can be proven, the question is as absurd as asking why didn't Srila Prabhupada 'repeatedly emphasize' that he was still the diksa guru for those he had initiated even after departure.


The 'ritvik system' simply keeps things the SAME as they always were. It is any CHANGE to this which requires 'repeated emphasis'.


b) The question also assumes that the 'ritvik system' was itself something 'different' to what was going on when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet. The 'ritvik system' of course is simply the use of representatives in one part of the initiation ceremony. All other parts of the ceremony had already been devolved by Srila Prabhupada to representatives. Yet we do not see any request for instance, that Srila Prabhupada needs to 'repeatedly emphasize' that the temple presidents will continue to recommend candidates for initiation. Why then must only THIS detail of the ceremony, the use of ritviks for final approval and name-giving, be 'repeatedly emphasized'?


c) The question also assumes that Srila Prabhupada did repeatedly emphasize the 'conventional diksa system'.


There are 3 more assumptions here that need to first be substantiated before this question has any validity:


1) That there is a 'conventional diksa system' clearly defined in Srila Prabhupada's books.

2) That such a system is continually mentioned in the same manner throughout Srila Prabhupada's books.

3) That this 'conventional diksa system' mentions that diksa can ONLY be taken from an acharya who is on the planet, and thus is radically different from a diksa system that allows Srila Prabhupada to continue to give diksa.


Unless all 3 assumptions are first proven, especially the 3rd one, the question is asking for answers to questions that have no meaning and are based on totally false premises and thus are self-defeating.


d) Next we have that 'considering that establishment of the ritvik system would be a significant change from Vaisnava tradition, how can it be explained that Srila Prabhupada wanted the ritvik system, although he did not emphasize this point in his writings and instructions?'


The above sentence makes 4 assumptions:


1) That there is a homogenous 'vaisnava tradition'.

2) That such a tradition is detailed by Srila Prabhupada.

3) That such a tradition would prevent Srila Prabhupada from initiating when separated from potential disciples by great distances.

4) That if ever Srila Prabhupada did do anything that was a departure from this homogenous 'vaisnava tradition' which Srila Prabhupada has clearly detailed in his books, then he would also 'repeatedly emphasize' these changes. (Please note it is meaningless to detail a CHANGE from a tradition, if that tradition is not itself first detailed.)


Again unless these 4 assumptions are first substantiated, the questions simply again ASSUME the very premises that lie at the heart of this dispute.


Thus in summary the above question simply assumes *9* premises. Unless the questioner can first substantiate these assumptions from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, the question must be invalid because a question based on false assumptions is senseless. A senseless question can not be answered sensibly.


It will be noted that the ritvik position is already defeated even before the question is answered, if we accept these 9 assumptions. Thus the question is not seeking answers but actually just reasserting the very fallacies that were exposed in the 'Final Order', and which the GBC have not been able to provide evidence for. >



3. Do you believe that a guru can never fall down from Krishna consciousness? If so, why would the acharyas warn against accepting too many disciples, or accepting unqualified disciples?


"God is always God, Guru is always Guru." (The Science of Self Realization, chapter 2)

"A spiritual master is always liberated." (SP Letter to Tamala Krishna, 21/6/76)

etc. etc.


<We accept whatever Srila Prabhupada states in this regards. He clearly states that the Bona Fide Guru does not fall down. We accept that Srila Prabhupada presented the conclusions of all the previous acharyas (and so do the GBC). If you try and judge Srila Prabhupada's teachings in light of your understandings of the previous acharyas then this is 'jumping over', something Srila Prabhupada condemned. We are not interested in independently understanding what previous acharyas may or may not have said. Whatever Srila Prabhupada states is the siddhanta, BAS.


Again your question simply assumes more than it asks. For the question to even be valid, you would first need to prove that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to consult the works of the previous acharyas to understand guru tattva that he has himself clearly detailed. Further one would need to show that Srila Prabhupada authorized any particular devotee to translate these works, or that he authorized us to read works translated by persons outside ISKCON. In a lecture in 1973, given in Los Angeles, Srila Prabhupada stated that one could only understand ANYTHING which even his own Guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had given (much of which of course was in English), directly through him only (the Brahma Samhita of course, Srila Prabhupada directly authorized).>



4. Srila Prabhupada said that "if you simply stick to your own religions ritualistic principles, don't try to understand the philosophy of everything, then you become a fanatic." Is it important to investigate whether the conclusions of "The Final Order" are philosophically supported in Srila Prabhupada's books? Or does "The Final Order's" interpretation of the letter of July 9, 1977 supersede all other considerations? (Please answer this clearly in your presentation. If you feel philosophical considerations are superseded, then please disregard the following questions).


< 'The Final Order' contains hundreds of quotes from Srila Prabhupada. The conclusions are thus philosophically supported by reference to Srila Prabhupada's books.>


5. In the CC, Srila Prabhupada says, "The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksha-guru and diksa-guru." Do you accept this statement, or can you provide a contradictory scriptural reference? If you accept it, please consider the next question.


< This statement was made in a very particular context. It does not say that EVERY time anyone uses the word 'guru' it is equally applicable, or that anytime Lord Caitanya or Srila Prabhupada uses it, it is equally applicable. Rather the phrase is mentioned specifically in relation to smarta brahmana considerations. The recent GBC paper 'Prabhupada's Order' also tried to isolate this phrase to falsely give it a different meaning. We present below the answer we gave to that paper, which presents the WHOLE purport from which the phrase comes:


"We demonstrated in TFO that Srila Prabhupada's many uses of Lord Caitanya's order to 'become guru' - amara ajnaya - (C:C, Madhya 7:128) was not an encouragement for all his followers and disciples to become diksa gurus, but simply to become preacher/siksa gurus. It seems the GBC realized that without these numerous quotes, they would be stripped of anything to support their dubious interpretation of the May 28th conversation, and thus they have attempted to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada is referring to diksa when repeating this order for everyone to become guru. By doing this they presumably hoped to expand their pool of quotes from the usual old chestnuts from a handful of private letters to ambitious deviants (Tusta Krishna etc), to take in many quotes directly from Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures. This they have attempted to accomplish by using a sentence that is found in another purport to a different verse in the C:C - Madhya 8:128.


We will quote this sentence from the purport in question, see what the verse and whole purport states, and then we will examine in detail if indeed the purport in Madhya 8:128 proves once and for all that Madhya 7:128 refers to diksa gurus.


1. The Evidence


In section 3 of their paper, the authors present the following from the C:C (Madhya 8:128) as evidence that the 'amara ajnaya' verse (Madhya 7:128) from Lord Caitanya refers to diksa guru:


"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura also states that although one is situated as a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, brahmacari, vanaprastha, grhastha or sannyasi, if he is conversant in the science of Krsna he can become a spiritual master as vartma-pradarsaka guru, diksa guru or siksa guru. The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartma-pradarsaka guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the shastras is called the diksa guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the siksa guruÖ


kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya


The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka guru, siksa guru and diksa guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, this Krsna consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's intentions, prthivite ache yata nagaradi-grama sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult must be preached all over the world." (Madhya, 8:128)


2. Selective Quoting


a). What is interesting to note is that parts of the purport before the underlined sentence but after the Sanskrit have been omitted, an omission that is not indicated by the authors. This is noteworthy since the sentence before the key quoted sentence might well clarify the context.


b). Also the quoted part comes right at the end of the purport. What is also interesting is that after the evidence is quoted by the authors there are only 5 more lines to the whole purport. As well as providing the words before the evidence one would also have expected the words after. Thus one might question why the authors only quote the next 3 lines but leave out the final 2.


We will now re-examine the 'evidence' by again looking at this section of the purport but this time including the sections missed out by the authors. (Later on we will take a look at the entire purport as a whole). What follows is the complete section relating to the part of the purport the authors have quoted; the sections which have been omitted by the authors shall be in italics:


"However, a Vaisnava brahmana is not selected on the basis of his birth but according to his qualities. Unfortunately, those who are unintelligent do not know the difference between a brahmana and a Vaisnava. They are under the impression that unless one is a brahmana he cannot be a spiritual master. For this reason only, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu makes the statement in this verse:


kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya


If one becomes a guru, he is automatically a brahmana. Sometimes a caste guru says that ye krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya means that one who is not a brahmana may become a siksa-guru or a vartma-pradarsaka-guru but not an initiator guru. According to such caste gurus, birth and family ties are considered foremost. However, the hereditary consideration is not acceptable to Vaisnavas. The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, this Krsna consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world. According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's intentions: prthivite ache yata nagaradi-grama sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult must be preached all over the world. This does not mean that people should take to His teachings and remain sudras or candalas. As soon as one is trained as a pure Vaisnava, he must be accepted as a bona fide brahmana. This is the essence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's instructions in this verse."



As we can see significant RELEVANT portions have been omitted which appear both before and after the 'evidence' in question.


1. BEFORE the evidence:


"They are under the impression that unless one is a brahmana he cannot be a spiritual master. For this reason only, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu makes the statement in this verse:"


2. AFTER the evidence:


"As soon as one is trained as a pure Vaisnava, he must be accepted as a bona fide brahmana. This is the essence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's instructions in this verse."



So immediately we have the context for the evidence in question. The statement is made specifically to address smarta-brahmana considerations ONLY. Notice Srila Prabhupada states that defeating the smarta-brahmana objection is the ONLY reason for the verse, and that this is also the ESSENCE of the verse.


Thus on closer examination of the whole verse it becomes apparent why such selective quoting has been applied. One immediately sees that the whole verse argues against restrictions being placed on becoming a guru being based solely on smarta-brahmana considerations. In this sense such bogus smarta considerations cannot obstruct gurus emerging from any one of the three mentioned categories - hence the verse applies to the word guru in general, being equally applicable to vartma-pradaksa, siksa and diksa guru. As we will see in the 'amara ajnaya' verse the context is quite different, and the subject has nothing to do with lifting smarta restrictions from potential gurus. Rather, the verse is simply ordering everyone to be a specific type of guru. This order is still compatible with the above verse since an order to be a siksa guru is not simultaneously restricting any sort of diksa activity based purely on bogus smarta-brahmana considerations. It is only that the particular order in question, amara ajnaya, is simply calling for instructing gurus; if another instruction to also become a diksa guru is given then that is also equally applicable- once more devoid of smarta considerations. We will also see later that though the word 'guru' is equally applicable to all types of gurus, it can ALSO be used in a restricted sense; it is not that every time the word 'guru' is used in any context or any circumstance one must automatically take the word guru to mean diksa, siksa and vartma-pradaksa guru. If this were so there would not be the need for three specifically defined types of guru, there would be just one homogenized term GURU which would simultaneously generically apply to all types of guru.


(In section 4, when this section is quoted again, the authors do provide the sentences before the evidence in question, but by this time the analysis has already been done in section 3, which they refer back to.)


3. Now let us go directly to the verses before the evidence:


"Sometimes a caste guru says that ye krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya means that one who is not a brahmana may become a siksa-guru or a vartma-pradarsaka-guru but not an initiator guru. According to such caste gurus, birth and family ties are considered foremost. However, the hereditary consideration is not acceptable to Vaisnavas. .The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, siksa-guru and diksa-guru."


Thus by examining the parts which were omitted, the context of the phrase becomes clear. In reference to 'hereditary considerations', the 'word guru is equally applicable'. This of course no one disputes. Thus what is being stated by this verse is not a clarification of the 'amara ajnaya' verse, nor an elaboration on Srila Prabhupada's many instructions to his disciples to be guru, but simply a very basic tenet of Krsna Consciousness - that one's birth is not in itself a bar to taking up any spiritual role - be it a pujari or a diksa guru.


Thus by seeing the context, we see that what the sentence is NOT saying is that ANYTIME the word GURU is used, it must automatically mean siksa or diksa guru, which is what was presented by the authors.


4. Further examination of the whole purport, which is quite long, reveals this theme all the way through:


"In his Amrta-pravaha-bhasya, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that one should not think that because Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was born a brahmana and was situated in the topmost spiritual order as a sannyasi, it was improper for Him to receive instructions from Srila Ramananda Raya, who belonged to the sudra caste. To clarify this matter, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu informed Ramananda Raya that knowledge of Krsna consciousness is more important than caste. [...]

It is stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa that one should not accept initiation from a person who is not in the brahminical order if there is a fit person in the brahminical order present. This instruction is meant for those who are overly dependent on the mundane social order and is suitable for those who want to remain in mundane life.. [...]


Factually the qualifications of a spiritual master depend on his knowledge of the science of Krsna. It does not matter whether he is a brahmana, ksatriya, sannyasi or sudra. [...]


One who is actually advanced in spiritual knowledge of Krsna is never a sudra, even though he may have been born in a sudra family. However, even if a vipra, or brahmana, is very expert in the six brahminical activities (pathana, pathana, yajana, yajana, dana, pratigraha) and is also well versed in the Vedic hymns, he cannot become a spiritual master unless he is a Vaisnava. But if one is born in the family of candalas yet is well versed in Krsna consciousness, he can become a guru. [...]


If a person is born in a sudra family but has all the qualities of a spiritual master, he should be accepted not only as a brahmana but as a qualified spiritual master also. This is also the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. [...]


However, a Vaisnava brahmana is not selected on the basis of his birth but according to his qualities. Unfortunately, those who are unintelligent do not know the difference between a brahmana and a Vaisnava. They are under the impression that unless one is a brahmana he cannot be a spiritual master. For this reason only, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu makes the statement in this verse:


kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya


If one becomes a guru, he is automatically a brahmana."



Thus this purport is simply making the point that one's birth does not bar one from taking up the role of a diksa guru. One simply needs to know the science of Krishna.


This is completely different from stating as the authors have done in introducing this purport:


"In his purports to Caitanya Charitamrta, Srila Prabhupada quotes his own spiritual master, who directly refutes the claim that the order to become guru cannot refer to diksa guru"


As we have seen this purport makes no reference to the 'amara ajnaya' ORDER but only to the QUALIFICATION that anyone who knows the science of Krsna can be a guru." >



6. In the philosophy of initiation by ritvik, must the ritvik guru be qualified to be a siksa, or instructing guru for the initiate? If No, please explain how the ritvik guru is qualified to be a guru of any kind. If Yes, please explain "The Final Order's" assertion that Srila Prabhupada designated certain disciples to act as siksas gurus without considering them qualified to be diksa gurus.


<Srila Prabhupada stated that anyone who repeats what he has heard is qualified to be an instructing guru, and that it requires 'no qualification'. Thus EVERYONE not just a ritvik is qualified to be an instructing guru to any devotee who is junior to him, providing he faithfully preaches what he has learned. It is not that the ritvik has any special or specific role in the life of the initiate. Srila Prabhupada only authorized the ritviks to accept disciples and give a name.


However Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated that the sad diksa guru must be a pure unalloyed devotee, maha-bhagavata.


Quotes for all this are presented in 'The Final Order'. >



7. Srila Prabhupada said, "Not guru is manufacturing. Guru says on the strength of sastra. Therefore sadhu, guru, sastra, three things must be there. Guru must be speaking on the strength of Vedic knowledge, not manufacturing. He's a rascal. Guru cannot become by manufacturing nonsense ideas. He's not guru. He's a rascal. Whatever guru will speak must be evidenced by the sastra. That is guru." (SB 1.16.25 -- Hawaii, January 21, 1974). Do you agree that, as a bona fide guru, whatever Srila Prabhupada said would be supported by the sastras and sadhus? If No, please explain why not. If Yes, please cite one scriptural reference or example from an acharya in our line of initiation by ritvik, or proxy, on behalf of a departed acharya.


< Again the question assumes that the physical distance between the Guru and disciple at the time of initiation is a scriptural principle. The distance between the Guru and disciple at the time of initiation is a particular detail of the initiation ceremony, just as much as the nationality of the Guru is. There is no scriptural reference or example of an AMERICAN giving initiation. Unless again, one can substantiate the assumption that is contained in the question i.e that the physical distance between Guru and disciple during the initiation ceremony is a sastric principle, one cannot ask that it be substantiated by sastra, anymore than one can ask that the nationality of any particular guru must be specifically supported by sastra. Both the idea of an American giving diksa and Srila Prabhupada giving diksa are both supported by the same sastric principle - that one must accept initiation from a BONA FIDE diksa guru, coming in parampara. There is no mention that such a principle is restricted by time, distance or indeed bodily considerations.


Thus Srila Prabhupada's books and all sastra DO state the principle that the ritvik system simply maintains, and that is that one must take initiation from a bona fide diksa guru coming in the parampara. Nowhere is there any mention of the 'timeframe' or physical distance being a limiting factor to this process of accepting the current link bona fide diksa guru . It is the questioner who has MANUFACTURED the idea that the diksa process is dependent on physical considerations, and it is this manufactured idea that needs to be substantiated. If one cannot substantiate this assumption, then this question like many of the others is meaningless since the ritvik system is bona fide AXIOMATICALLY, since it merely maintains a situation - the acceptance of the bona fide current link Guru Srila Prabhupada - which it is admitted is in line with sastra for one timeframe (when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet), and since this process is not affected by any considerations of time and distance, must be sastric for all timeframes. >


8. One of the ritvik circulars states that Srila Prabhupada, as an acharya, could establish an ongoing ritvik system without needing any precedent. In support of this statement, the circular offers the example of women living in ashrams as another 'unprecedented' policy by Srila Prabhupada. Although the Gaudiya Math did not allow women to live in ashrams, there are many scriptural examples, such as Sita devi and Valmiki. Can you cite any examples of Srila Prabhupada's actions that are actually unprecedented or at least unsupported by sadhu and sastra?


< Again the question is complete nonsense. The statement 'Can you cite any examples of Srila Prabhupada's actions that are actually unprecedented or at LEAST UNSUPPORTED BY SADHU AND SASTRA' is nonsensical since it implies that either Srila Prabhupada's actions could ever be deviant from sadhu or sastra or that we believe this. Since both of these assumptions are bogus this part of the question is also similarly bogus.


In reference to activities which are simply UNPRECEDENTED, there are many, for the word unprecedented simply means things which were done that do not have any similar parallel. Of these there are many. For instance:


Initiation given via the mail. Second initiation given to women. Gayatri given via a tape-recorder or via OTHER DISCIPLES - see Saradiya in 1971 whispering mantra to her husband. Nor as far as we know was a ritvik system used for when the Guru was on the planet. Nor has a sannyasi ever married his disciples. etc. etc.


Though again the issue is not whether the acharya does activities which are unprecedented. Srila Prabhupada states that every acharya will do this:


"Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaisnavas."

(S:B, 4.8.5, purport)

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was an ideal acarya. An acarya is an ideal teacher who knows the purpose of the revealed scriptures, behaves exactly according to their injunctions and teaches his students to adopt these principles also. As an ideal acarya, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu devised ways to capture all kinds of atheists and materialists. Every acarya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual

movement with the aim of bringing men to Krsna consciousness. Therefore, the method of one acarya may be different from that of another, but the ultimate goal is never neglected. Srila Rupa Gosvami recommends:

tasmat kenapy upayena
 manah krsne nivesayet
 sarve vidhi-nisedha syur
 etayor eva kinkarah


An acarya should devise a means by which people may somehow or other come to Krsna consciousness. First they should become Krsna conscious, and all the prescribed rules and regulations may later gradually be introduced. In our Krsna consciousness movement we follow this policy of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. For example, since boys and girls in the Western countries freely intermingle, special concessions regarding their customs and habits are necessary to bring them to Krsna consciousness. The acarya must devise a means to bring them to devotional service. Therefore, although I am a sannyasi I sometimes take part in getting boys and girls married, although in the history of sannyasa no sannyasi has personally taken part in marrying his disciples."

(C.c., 7:37, purport)

The actual point is that an acharya will never perfrom activities that break scriptural injunctions. The ritvik system merely facilitates persons taking initiation from the current link bona fide Guru. This principle is stated in all sastras - that we must take initiation from such a person. It is the GBC who have manufactured an idea which is not in any sastra - that Srila Prabhupada can not be this person because he is 'disembodied'. And yet we say the guru is the SPIRITUAL master NOT the MATERIAL master. >



CONCLUSION


As we have shown above all these questions either raise issues that have already been answered in the FO, or simply assume bogus assumptions that already conclude that ritvik must be wrong in advance.


We would recommend therefore that these assumptions are first substantiated in order for some of these questions to make sense. If a question is based on a bogus assumption the question is similarly bogus. We challenge the questioners to prove their assumptions not just conveniently assume them.

 See Related VNN Stories