R. Dasa, India: Dear Bhakta Dasa and Gurukripa prabhus, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I came to Krishna Consciousness at age 15 in 1975, and was 17 when I joined the nearest Temple, a couple of hours drive away. Then I ended up staying at the Vrindavan Krishna Balaram Temple in the fall of ’77, when I got to see Srila Prabhupada. While there I got to see you, Gurukrpa prabhu, and really admired you and your band of men. I am not sure all the stories about you were true, but we pretty much thought of you being like a transcendental Robin Hood.
Anyway, I really appreciated someone like you speaking up about the (mis)leadership and what happened. I left ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada’s antya lila and had a preaching center for a few years, but mostly just preaching to my parents over the years. They have, as have I, noticed that many things are wrong in the state of affairs: repeated scandals, book changes, poor circulation of BTG, sannyasis condoning homosexuality/crazy artwork/watching sports, rubber stamped gurus, so-called devotees (female and male) criticizing Srila Prabhupada — AND NO ONE (in the institution) CORRECTS THEM, etc.
Now, here is my concern: when Srila Prabhupada was on this planet, he agreed to initiate people without meeting them, and simply on the basis of the recommendation of his senior disciples. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DEVOTEES WHO GOT INITIATED IN THIS MANNER NEVER HAD THE FORTUNE OF HAVING SRILA PRABHUPADA COOK FOR THEM OR RIDING IN THE SAME CAR, OR ANY PHYSICAL INTERACTION. Then just a few months (four) before departing, he agreed to formalize the ritvik system and never placed a time restriction on that. Sure, he wanted his disciples to be gurus, but that doesn’t mean they have to become diksa gurus, at least not inside the institution he founded. For example, in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Srila Prabhupada states in the introduction:
“…Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the first receiver of a new parampar? (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the Lord’s wish, therefore, to establish another parampar? in the same line of thought that was coming down from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted Arjuna to become the authority ….”
Even though it is stated that the Lord wanted to make Arjuna the first receiver of a new parampara, and an “authority”, we never find Arjuna’s name in the list of disciplic succession. In other words, one can still be guru/authority in the parampara, without becoming a diksa guru.
Now in the case of my parents, they do not have absolute faith in anyone except Srila Prabhupada. SO, IF PEOPLE IN THE PAST COULD GET INITIATED FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA WITHOUT MEETING HIM, WHY SHOULD WE DEPRIVE PEOPLE LIKE MY PARENTS FROM THE SAME OPPORTUNITY? After all, as Srila Prabhupada himself said, the real initiation is in the heart, and the ceremony is just a formality. He also told V… prabhu that just by reading his books, people are initiated.
Even IF the ritvik system goes against tradition (and that is very debatable), why deprive people in Kali yuga from getting initiated by the greatest Acarya ever known in the history of Vaishnavism, who carried the seeds of bhakti across the globe, and whose appearance was predicted in the scriptures? Did not Ramanujacarya, out of compassion, go up on the roof and start shouting out the mantra that could liberate the common man, even though he was told not to do so?
Sincerely,
R Dasa
Of course Srila Prabhupada has the potency to initiate still. The ritvk system he tried to institute in ISKCON is his special mercy for those who choose to follow him.
The Bhakta das (Thailand) refered to above is ANTI RITVIK . He is a waste of time. Guru Kripa has is into Gaudiya matha lets hope he can come to his senses by accepting the Ritvik System.
Srila Prabhupada has explained this point nicely :
Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva’s disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree.
Letter to: Kirtanananda — Los Angeles 25 January, 1969
Note: MONEY SCREWING SLAVERY MAKING ANTI-RITVIK GOONS are full of DECEIT and they try to hook-up INNOCENT devotees to worship their CONDITIONED SOUL BABOONS so-called diksa gurus manufactured by the bogus GBC. Below Srila Prabhupada ALSO explains “Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion.”
Letter to: Dinesh
—
Tittenhurst
31 October, 1969
69-10-31
My Dear Dinesh,
Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1969 along with a contribution of $25. I have already acknowledged receipt of your new record. Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.