Ritvik Vada – A clear case of concoctions & Repetition of history

Ritvik Vada – A clear case of concoctions & Repetition of history

Article by Vijay Kumar. Please write your comments to [email protected]; my words are in ARIAL BROWN FONT.

Historical Facts (atleast 300 years before)

Let us a take a look at the historical incidents provided in Caitanya Caritamtra, by Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami.(taken from Gaudiya Kantahara)

The followers of Sri Advaita were of two kinds. Some were real followers (saragrahi) and the others were false (asaragrahi). Rejecting the false followers, I offer my respectful obeisances to the real followers of Sri Advaita Acarya, whose life and soul was Caitanya Mahaprabhu. (Cc. Adi 12.1)

At first all the followers of Advaita Acarya shared a single opinion, but later they followed two opinions as ordained by providence. Some of the disciples strictly accepted the orders of the acarya, and others deviated, independently concocting their own opinions under the spell of daivi-maya. The opinion of the acarya is essential. Anyone who disregards his order is useless (asara-grahi). (Cc. Adi. 12.8-10).

After the disappearance of Lord Caitanya, the gardener of the tree of love of Godhead, some of the sub-branches of the Advaita branch, for unfortunate reasons, deviated from His path. Some branches did not accept the trunk that vitalized and maintained the entire tree When they thus became ungrateful, the trunk was angry at them. Thus Lord Caitanya did not sprinkle upon them the water of His mercy, and they gradually withered and died. (Cc. Adi 12.67-69)

Reasons for deviations from Lord Caitanya’s path

As already mentioned by Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami, the reasons for deviations are “independently concoting their own opinions” irrespective of their basis in sastra. And such concoctions are one’s own opinions, without a clear basis on sastra & teachings of Advaita-Acarya. And also, it is said that the “asaragrahis” never cared to understand the opinion of Advaita-Acarya but stuck to their own foolish opinions & concoctions and fell down from the path of bhakti-yoga.

Fundamental Flaw of Mayavadis

The answer is simple. Indirect interpretation of Vedanta-Sutra, which was initially done by Lord Adi Shankaracarya to drive away the Buddhists from India, because they don’t accept the Vedas.

However Vaishnavas, the devotees of the Supreme Lord Vishnu do not accept the indirect interpretations of the Mayavadis, and can defeat all indirect interpretations of Mayavadis, and this is already done by Sri Ramanujacarya.

Difference between concoctions & direct interpretations

To make my point on “concoctions”, I need to first put my case that, in this article when I speak of interpretations, I mean direct interpretation of words spoken by Srila Prabhupada. When the interpretation is indirect, it will mostly never get to the real meaning of the any statement. For example, when we use the neti-neti process, to understand the spiritual nature of soul, we can say “You are not this body, you are not your finger, you are not your head, etc.” So in this way, we can say, many “not this, not that” type of statements, but the final conclusion about the spiritual nature & activities of soul will only come in direct way, through the revealed words from sastra & the medium of bonafide guru, and that is the way knowledge is presented in the Bhagavad-Gita by Sri Krishna. Let us take a look at some of the statements of Sri Krishna from the second chapter of Bhagavad-Gita:

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul.

He who thinks that the living entity is the slayer or that he is slain, does not understand. One who is in knowledge knows that the self slays not nor is slain.

For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

Bhagavad-Gita is as direct as the sun, and Prabhupada recommended everyone to understand the instructions directly and not indirectly. Let us take a look at an incident during the Morning Walks of Srila Prabhupada how he wanted things to be understood in a direct manner:

(Morning Walk 15 Dec 1973 LA), when Prabhupada asked his disciple: "What does it mean by athiest?", one disciple answered: "without theism"; then Prabhupada said "No. That is not explanation", then later another disciple told "who is not a believer in God". Then Prabhupada said: "Say like that, don't say in a negative way, in a positive way."

So we can understand from this that Prabhupada wanted to accept things in direct & positive ways, and he was against indirect/negative ways. And in many lectures Prabhupada condemned the Mayavadis & Sahajiyas, who do indirect interpretations of the Vedanta-sutra & bhagavatam and mislead the mass of people.

The next task is to re-look into the Final Order Book, whether the arguments presented in them were direct or indirect.

Analyzing few points of the Final Order to check whether they are direct or indirect interpretations:

Here is an excerpt from the July 9th letter, that Srila Prabhupada issued to all the temple presidents.

In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. (July9th, 1977 letter, the main basis of Ritvik Vada)

Here is the explanation provided in the Final Order book, in regard to the word “henceforward” from the above letter.

As previously mentioned, the July 9th order states that the ritvik system should be followed 'henceforward'. The specific word used, 'henceforward', only has one meaning, viz. 'from now onwards'. This is both according to Srila Prabhupada's own previous usage of the word and the meaning ascribed to it by the English Language. Unlike other words, the word henceforward is unambiguous since it only possesses one dictionary definition. On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila Prabhupada has used the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the possibility that the word could mean anything other than 'from now onwards'. 'From now onwards' does not mean 'from now onwards until I depart'. It simply means 'from now onwards'. There is no mention in the letter that the system should stop on Srila Prabhupada's departure, neither does it state that the system was to only be operational during his presence. (FINAL ORDER)

This is a perfect example of neti-neti process: not this, not that, etc. Here is how neti-neti is used.

1) The author says “henceforward” does not mean “from now onwards until I depart”, it simply means “from now onwards”,

2) And also the author says that there is no mention in the letter which says to “stop ritvik system” on departure of Prabhupada.

3) The author also raised a question that “no where it is said that the ritvik system was only to be operational during the presence of Prabhupada”.

All these arguments seem indirect to me. I leave it to the reader to make his/her own decision.

Here are some more statements used by the author to prove ritvik theory:

There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure. (FINAL ORDER)

There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra, other instructions… (FINAL ORDER)

There is no fault in the above two statements because they are valid thoughts. But still they can be considered as indirect for proving ritvik theory because the author has failed to think like this: “there is also no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada to continue ritvik system after his departure”, which is also a valid thought. But the author does not think like this because, it does not help to prove his ritvik theory, so he had carefully avoided this argument in trying to stick his own opinions.

Since there is no direct evidence stating that the ritvik system should have been abandoned on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the case for abandoning it could therefore only be based on indirect evidence. Indirect evidence may arise out of special circumstances surrounding the literal direct instruction. (FINAL ORDER)

Here the author is only worrying about: “there is no direct evidence to abandon the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.” While thinking like this the author does not think like: “there is also no direct evidence to continue the ritvik system on departure”.

Fundamentals of Ritvik-Theory deconstructed

The author of final order starts with an assumption that his point (ritvik system) is true, so he tries to prove his point by saying: “there is nothing in the letter, sastra, etc. to disprove his assumption, so his point must be true”. He does not prove his point in any direct ways. Not to worry, he does not also consider all indirect ways like “there is also no direct evidence to continue ritvik system after departure”.

Let us look more into some statements from final order book.

Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:

"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krsna Consciousness population." (SP Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/69)

Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?

Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada’s “law of disciplic succession”. Thefirst part of the “law” states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in hisown guru’s physical presence. Since this was the “law”, clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples initiating on their ownbehalf; Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of “officiating” initiation system as early as 1969.

Prabhupada wanted that all his disciples become expert in understanding and preach from sastra. But there is a condition set by Prabhupada that one should pass the above examinations (like bhakti sastri, etc…till bhaktivedanta) !! Even, if the disciples have passed those examinations, still they have to meet the other qualifications mentioned by Prabhupada & previous acaryas, most importantly those mentioned by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Nectar of Devotion & Nectar of Instruction.

Also the author is putting forward his conclusion that Prabhupada is thinking of this ritvik system even from 1969. While putting forward such statements as above, the author never cares a fig to know, nay understand the wishes of Prabhupada between 1966, 1972, 1976:

"So there is no bar for anyone, that one cannot become the spiritual master. Everyone can become spiritual master, provided he knows the science of Krsna. That is the only qualification." (New York, August 17, 1966)

"So far designation is concerned, the spiritual master authorizes every one of his disciple. But it is up to the disciple to carry out the order, able to carry out or not. It is not that spiritual master is partial, he designates one and rejects other. He may do that. If the other is not qualified, he can do that. But actually his intention is not like that. He wants that each and every one of his disciple become as powerful as he is or more than that. That is his desire. Just like father wants every son to be as qualified or more qualified than the father. But it is up to the student or to the son to raise himself to that standard." (San Diego, June 29, 1972)

So we got this information from His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that knowledge is still going on. You are receiving through his servant. And in future the same knowledge will go to your students. This is called parampara system. Evam parampara prap... It is not that you have become a student and you'll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprahu's mission. (Lecture Hyderabad December 10, 1976 )

Can the author of final order care to give me his direct or indirect interpretations of the above statements of Prabhupada?

Instead of doing so many indirect interpretations the author could have understood the wishes of Prabhupada from these quotes. But sorry, the above quotes of Prabhupada are deliberately missed out in the Final Order because they do not support the author’s opinion. If they say that they are ignorant of these quotes, then that is also a mistake. Without proper understanding of the wishes of Prabhupada and Sri Krishna, WHAT PHILOSOPHY CAN ANY ONE PREACH TO THE PUBLIC?

Modification a) : That the appointment of representatives or ritviks was only temporary, specifically to be terminated on the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
Modification b) : Having ceased their representational function, the ritviks would automatically become diksa gurus, initiating persons as their own disciples, not Srila Prabhupada's.

Summary:

We have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence supporting the termination of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure, nor the subsequent transformation of the ritviks into diksa gurus - assumptions a) and b) . Even if there was extremely strong indirect evidence supporting a) and b) , it would still be debatable whether it could actually supplant the direct evidence, since this usually takes precedence. However, as just demonstrated, there is not even a shnavy of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure. Thus:

1. An instruction was issued to the whole Movement to be followed - Direct evidence
2. An examination of the instruction itself, as well as other supporting and subsequent instructions, only supports the continuation of the ritvik system - Direct evidence
3. There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure
4. There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra, other instructions, special circumstances, the background, the nature and the context of the instruction, nor anything else we can conceive of, that gives valid grounds for stopping the ritvik system at the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure. Interestingly, in examining these other factors we find only further indirect evidence supporting the continued application of the order.

In Summary:

The author first says that there is NO direct evidence for "terminating the ritvik-system after departure of Prabhupada" -- and thus the theory is supported. Just because there is NO direct evidence, how does it make it true ? Can't the author see that there is ALSO NO direct evidence to "continue the ritvik system after Prabhupada's departure"; why can't he see this option? Ofcourse, the assumption (b) is wrong, that ritviks become diksa gurus, as we have already seen that Guru is by qualification and not rubber stamping by a few GBCs or a by "mass-approval of gurus". Next the author goes on to say : "there is not even a shred of indirect evidence supporting the discarding of the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada's departure"; first of all there must be some kind of theory to terminate it, if there is no such "ritvik-theory after departure of Prabhupada", why should any "indirect evidence" discard it? Are we, Vaishnavas, supposed to take things directly or by indirect interpretations? If we use indirect interpretations to support some "manufactured" theories, without considering from all angles of vision, then it is nothing different from the Mayavada practice, which they do with Vedanta Sutra.

Has the author ever considered to look at the direct statements of Prabhupada between 1966, 1972 & 1976. Why did not he interpret these statements of Prabhupada?

Here is a point-by-point refutation:

1) In the first point, after doing indirect interpretations, and after so much blah, blah, the author is asking us to accept his indirect interpretations as "direct" -- like Mayavadis.

2) How did he examine July 9th letter? Directly? How about the "Subsequent instructions" - did he understand them in direct ways? After all this, the author insists that because he thinks his assumptions must be true, so everyone should accept his assumptions -- thus distributing "his benefits" to the world. Why can't he take help from other devotees, who can help him out? Did Prabhupada wanted devotees to work alone or work by qualification or work based on competency??

3) In this point the author says: "There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering the termination of the ritvik system upon his departure"; Can the author also consider this: "There is no direct evidence of Srila Prabhupada specifically ordering to continue the ritvik system upon his departure"? This is also a kind of "indirect" option, if the author can consider my point!

4) I like this point very much :-) :-), because, the author says "There is also no indirect evidence on the basis of the instruction, sastra"; Now I got the point. He cannot understand Sastra directly, BUT ONLY BY INDIRECT METHODS. Can the author give us any "direct" evidence that Prabhupada used INDIRECT METHODS? Or any other Vaisnava Acaryas? Then how is that, in the guise of Vaishnava devotee, the author is relying so much on "INDIRECT" interpretations & indirect evidences? Why? "Indirect" method is supposed to be the life and soul of Mayavadis, not the Vaishnavas.

In conclusion

1. On July 9th 1977 Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 ritviks to carry out firstand second initiations ‘henceforward’.

2. There is no evidence in the May 28th conversation that can be used to modify the July 9th order, such that the appointed ritviks must cease their duties on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

3. There is also nothing in the May 28th conversation that can be used tomodify the July 9th order such that the ritviks were to metamorphose into diksa gurus as soon as Srila Prabhupada left the planet.

4. The one thing clearly established in the May 28th conversation is that the ritviks were to operate after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

I would like to make a point on point number 1. Bhaktivonda Thakura said in his book "The Bhagavata: It Philosophy, Its Ehics & Its Theology" says: "In the Bhagavata, we are advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words". Because we try to express the spirit using "words"; we should try to understand the spirit from "words", but our author is only concerned about "words" like “henceforward”, “future”, “continue” etc.

Here is some stress given to word “future”:

There were other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, and his secretary, in the days following the July 9th letter, which clearly indicate that the ritvik system was intended to continue without cessation:

“...the process for initiation to be followed in the future.” (July 11th, 1977)

“...continue to become ritvik and act on my charge.” (July 19th, 1977)

“...continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.” (July 31st, 1977) (Please see Appendices).

In these documents we find words such as “continue’”and “future” which alongwith the word “henceforward” all point to the permanancy of the ritvik system.There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada that even hints that this system wasto terminate on his departure.