Not in Accordance with Guru, Sadhu and Scripture
BY: B.S. DAMODAR
Jul 09, 2011 INDIA (SUN) I have been following with avid interest Rocana dasa's article on the guru-tattva issue. In the history of the Gaudiya, the word 'rtvik' or representative of the acarya had been used specifically in the instances when the guru was physically unable to attend due to various reasons like ill health, and thus he entrusted this task of initiation to his disciple.
It is common etiquette that during the presence of one's spiritual master, the disciple is forbidden to give initiation to others except with His order. On the disappearance of the spiritual master, the word rtvik does not have the same nomenclature as connoted before.
To derive a verdict on any issue there must be ample evidence not only from the words of the guru, but the Vaishnavas and the scriptural tenets. HDG Srila Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami Maharaj was most self-effacing in his illuminating career. He was the epitome of real humility and would never ever admit his identity as a guru, and would always give all credit to his spiritual master Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada for any success. However, when questioned about the posthumous rtvik guru followers, He was displeased and remarked that they (rtviks) were trying to destroy the disciplic succession. Generally, all the exalted disciples of Srila Prabhupada (Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur) were undivided on this issue.
There is no ample proof of this rtvik guru deviance from any established Vaishnava scriptural texts. Rather, Narahari Sarakar's (associate of Mahaprabhu) treatise which explains guru-tattva has proven to be just the opposite.