A Word and a Staple, Part Four
BY: ROCANA DASA
Jul 22, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) — Today we continue to offer commentary on Madhudvisa das's writings on Rtvik-vada and guru-tattva in ISKCON. Following are the essential points made by Madhudvisa in his recent article, "Evidence and Clarification", followed by our own commentary. He wrote:
"Srila Prabhupada was not very convinced that ISKCON would go on very well after his disappearance. His mood seems to have been that "I have given you everything ..." and he was leaving the future in Krishna's hands."
We agree with Madhudvisa on this point, and have said so many times. The same sentiment was expressed by Srila Prabhupada's own Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.
We have suggested that Srila Prabhupada was purposefully vague in some discussions with his disciples about succession issues, because he knew they were ambitious neophytes, and he was not going to be pressured by them into giving specific orders that he didn't wish to give, and that he knew they would exploit, to the detriment of Lord Chaitanya's preaching mission. He simply acted on the basis of… "I have given you everything", just as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had done. The bona fide process for continuation of the disciplic succession via diksa initiation is completely laid out in sastra, crystal clear. One only needs to follow it.
But of course, his disciples didn't want to follow an eternal program for diksa that didn't feature them, in deputed roles of power as the successor Acarya(s). They wanted more, as clearly evidenced by their actions both before Srila Prabhupada ended his manifest lila, and afterwards. And the Rtviks know this. They know the history associated with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's mission, and how he handled the succession issue. They know all the unpleasant evidence of their own godbrothers' ambitions. They understand the parallels between the state of affairs existing when Srila Bhaktisiddhanta departed, and those existing when Srila Prabhupada departed. But for some reason, they cannot seem to bear the notion that Srila Prabhupada would depart without doing something different than Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had done – that he would leave without giving a definitive plan for future initiations… something different than, or in addition to the plan already set down in sastra.
We have difficulty understanding why the Rtviks find this so hard to accept. It is not a logical position they're taking. Unfortunately, the only explicable reason that rises to the surface when one studies the Rtvik movement is that by propagating their Rtvik-vada, they are essentially engaging in the same sorts of behaviors their godbrothers did – they are seeking a role, a position of power and distinction in Srila Prabhupada's movement. They are refusing to rely on the age-old system of diksa, and on Sri Krsna's role as Chaitya Guru, making arrangements for the initiation of sincere diksa aspirants according to time, place and circumstance. This, they will not accept. Instead, they say that the post-samadhi Rtvik system is what Krsna arranged. But we suggest that Krsna did not arrange it; the evidence shows that Srila Prabhupada did not arrange it. It is the Rtvik-vadis who are trying to arrange it.
Some suggest that the Rtviks are caught in the institutional paradigm, thinking a system for future initiations must somehow be enmeshed in the institutional framework, simply because Srila Prabhupada formed a spiritual institution. Thus, the "henceforward" post-samadhi Rtvik system must be right, since it's the only solution that could fit in the institutional milieu. Surely it couldn't be that individual aspirants – thousands and thousands of them in every town and village – would be left to rely on Chaitya Guru to arrange diksa for them?! (Never mind the fact that the Lord of the Heart is everybody's first guru.) No, that would be an impossible scenario, in their minds. Srila Prabhupada would never "abandon" the devotees by leaving them at the mercy of such a system. So instead, the Rtviks ignore the process set down in sastra, and essentially limit (in their minds) Sri Krsna's role with His devotees, opting instead for the contrived solution we know as Rtvik-vada, which is built upon speculation, mis-interpretation, and outright falsity of argument.
Much has already been written about this phenomenon by myself and others, but we'll summarize it once again, for presentation later in this series. For now, suffice to say that there's a major disconnect going on for the Rtviks in this regard. So much so, that they reject the notion that Srila Prabhupada would do what his own Spiritual Master had done. Instead, they have instituted their own asiddhantic religion, borne of their interpretation of the May 28th Conversation, the July 7th Conversation and the July 9th Letter, along with a few pieces of correspondence passed between the devotees themselves. This constitutes their solution to what they obviously see as a ‘big problem'.
We, on the other hand, do not see a problem. Nor do we accept that Srila Prabhupada would institute a sea change in the Sampradaya's eternal system for continuation of the disciplic line via diksa, on the basis of a few casual conversations and Tamal Krishna Goswami's "rittik", "henceforward".
We have already given sound arguments defeating the notions put forward by Madhudvisa and the Rtviks about the July 7th Conversation and the Letter that followed. We won't repeat them here, but refer new readers back to Part One, Two, and Three of this ‘Word and a Staple' series, in which our arguments are laid out.
As we move on to the next point, we again emphasize for the reader the obvious contradiction between Madhudvisa's idea that Srila Prabhupada instituted a system for post-samadhi diksa initiations, and the notion that he was "leaving the future in Krishna's hands." Madhudvisa writes:
"But as far as the facts are concerned… it is certainly a fact that Prabhupada established a ritvik initiation system in ISKCON in the early 70's where he would appoint representatives to perform the fire yajnas for his disciples on his behalf.
It is a fact that he gave these "ritviks" more power as the years went on."
Madhudvisa's "facts" have been rebutted in our Part Two.
Madhudvisa writes:
"And in the July 9th letter he gave them complete power to accept disciples on his behalf and chant on their beads and give them a name, without having any physical involvement in the matter at all."
Yes, Srila Prabhupada did depute some men to act in this way without his physical involvement, but Madhudvisa should be more accurate, pointing out (as we did in Part Three) that Prabhupada did not remove himself entirely from the adjusted process discussed on July 7th. He indicated that he would continue to be part of the process, in India.
Madhudvisa writes:
"It is also a provable fact that Srila Prabhuapda did not consider that any of his disciples were qualified for the position of acharya. Therefore it is very reasonable to say that Srila Prabhupada did not appoint any successor acharyas. Prabhupada is clearly stating that his disciples are immature and not qualified for the post of acharya."
Agreed.
"So it is a fact that the system Srila Prabhupada used in ISKCON to accept disciples in his physical presence was ritvik, 100% ritvik in the later years.
Even Tamil confirms this in his Topanga Canyon talks. He says clearly that Prabhupada only appointed ritviks."
Again, Madhudvisa is playing very loose with the terminology. The words "rittik" and "ritvik" were not introduced until 1977. Srila Prabhupada never used the word prior to that in reference to initiations in ISKCON or to diksa initiations anywhere, for that matter. Srila Prabhupada never put a name to his system for handling initiations prior to 1977. Madhudvisa is simply creating this label to suit his position.
We have already given many reasons why the assumption cannot be made that Srila Prabhupada's pre-1977 system was "rtvik", and we won't repeat them here. The introduction of evidence in the form of Tamal Krishna's statement is not presented in context by Madhudvisa. Further, it is impeached by Tamal's own adoption of the Zonal Acarya role, which is completely contrary to his Topanga statement.
Madhudvisa again mentions letters from Tamal to Hansadutta and Kirtanananda, but obviously, private correspondence between three of the most corrupt and fallen of the godbrothers can't be taken as proof of anything that's attributed to what Srila Prabhupada thought, said, or meant. It is simply one of the many convenient connections made by Madhudvisa and the Rtviks to bolster their arguments.
Madhudvisa writes:
"Also it is a fact that Tamil and Prabhupada were talking about the ritvik idea and clearly this was in regard to how initiations will go on in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada left our physical vision. This is proved by those letters from Tamil to Hansadutta and Kirtananda where he is saying "you should remain ritvik."
By personal letter, and by repeated reference in this article series, we have been asking Madhudvisa das to provide citations or copies for the letters he is referring to, where Srila Prabhupada says "you should remain ritvik." We find no such reference in the Vedabase, and a Google search for the phrase, "you should remain ritvik" returns only Madhudvisa's statement, in his Sun article. So Madhudvisa is again encouraged to come up with actual copies of this ‘proof'.
Madhudvisa writes:
"After Srila Prabhupada's disappearance the "chosen 11" did not immediately know what to do. Srila Prabhupada left in November but the did not announce that he had appointed them as his successors until January.
It appears to me that Tamil was quite keen about the ritvik idea. He wrote the July 9th letter from that 11 minute conversation with Srila Prabhupada that I posted a few days ago. The 'henceforward' word is Tamil's. It seems at that time he likeD the ritvik idea and was pushing it."
While it is only speculation, Madhudvisa says that the "chosen 11 did not immediately know what to do". We assert that history indicates they knew exactly what they were doing… what they wanted to do, what they were planning to do, how and when they would execute their plan… and then they did it. I see no indication of confusion, only of strategizing and attempts at positioning.
Madhudvisa states that the "chosen 11" did not announce that Srila Prabhupada had appointed them as his successors until January. He doesn't provide citations for this January communicae, and it's not something I'm familiar with. In fact, as a Temple President, I attended the Mayapur meetings in March 1978, and at the start of the meetings, no one there appeared to know what their plan was. It was a suspense-filled mood… we all knew something was going to be happening, but no announcement had yet been made. At the start of the Mayapur meetings, the 11 men were not even presenting themselves in terms of having been named on the July 9th Letter. They were simply acting in the role of ‘the senior men'.
When the leaders finally emerged from their so-called GBC meetings, they announced to the temple presidents, most of whom were there in Mayapur, who their new Zonal Acarya was going to be. This they did with a great deal of conviction, and no one had a chance to discuss or disagree. I remember the day very clearly. Hansadutta was walking on air, just ecstatic that he was now an "acarya". The rest of us were just dumbfounded by the whole thing.
So I don't know where Madhudvisa's statement about a January announcement comes from, but it is incorrect.
Madhudvisa writes:
"I can not say it is a fact but it is my feeling that they all knew that Srila Prabhupada had established a ritvik system and desired the initiations to go on in ISKCON via this ritvik system when Prabhupada left his body but something happened between November and January that changed their minds. And I think that was their conversations with Sridhar Maharaja and I get the feeling that Satsvarupa also was very keen to become acharya."
Although this statement falls into the category of ‘convenient connections', we appreciate that he admits it's speculative, not fact. He does not tell us what the basis is for his notion that "they all knew" Srila Prabhupada desired a post-samadhi Rtvik system to go on. It certainly wasn't based upon the July 7th Conversation or the July 9th Letter, as we've clearly demonstrated.
In the past, I've written at length on the subject of the devotees going to Srila Sridhar Maharaja to get advice on succession, and I won't insert that volume of material here. Basically, my position is that Jayapataka Swami, who had been associating for years with B.R. Sridhar Swami, knew full well what advice Maharaja would give, and the party crossed the river to get statements of support for a plan they had concocted well before. The trip to Sridhar Swami was simply another step in the execution of that plan. One day soon, we'll present arguments that the May 28th Conversation is another indicator that their plan was well underway before November, or January.
Madhudvisa writes:
"There is really no alternative. If we accept that Prabhupada did not appoint successor acharyas, and I think practically everyone accepts that now, and if we admit the system Srila Prabhupada was using in ISKCON to accept disciples was 100% ritvik, and he had organized in the July 9th letter that this could go on without requiring his physical presence in any way at all, and we can consider that Prabhuapda did instruct that things should go on without any change after his departure then it is quite clear it would seem that the ritvik initiation system should have continued.
It was clearly a great mistake for these children as Prabhupada called them to elevate themselves falsely to the position of acharya..."
Here we have the crux of Madhudvisa prabhu's argument. This is where the staples, the rubberbands and the paperclips all meet reality.
If Srila Prabhupada did not appoint successors (agreed);
if we admit that Srila Prabhupada was using a 100% ritvik system (rebutted, in practice and in terminology); and
that he "organized" the July 9th Letter so this could go on without his physical presence (except his presence was involved in India);
and given that he instructed "things should go on" without change after his departure…
then, according to Madhudvisa,
And just what are the problems with Madhudvisa's conclusion? Well, among the many errors of fact, logic and interpretation we've already pointed out, there are the following:
the term "ritvik" as it's used in sastra is not in the context of diksa initiations, even on behalf of a living guru, let alone one who has taken samadhi;
the term "rittik" or "ritvik" was introduced by Tamal Krishna, and ok'd by Srila Prabhupada in a conversation related to solving a problem Tamal and associates had created; there wasn't even a remote reference to "post-samadhi";
post-samadhi rtvik diksa initiation has never been practiced or condoned in the extremely long history of the Brahma Vaishnava Sampradaya;
and the practice itself goes against the fundamental principles that are set down in sastra for diksa initiation.
At the end of the argument loop, we are faced with the fact that the whole concocted post-samadhi diksa initiation system hangs on the single word "henceforward" – a word Srila Prabhupada never used in the July 7th Conversation, and didn't instruct Tamal Krishna to insert into the July 9th Letter.
Nor does Madhudvisa deal with the fact that when Srila Prabhupada said so many times to his disciples, "Do not change", he was not referring to the July 9th Letter's "henceforward". He was referring to all his instructions, to his books, to the words of the previous Acaryas, to sastra, and to the philosophy itself. Not that he was referring to a letter written to solve a problem created by disciples who had arbitrarily broken his earlier instructions. He was certainly not referring to a single word in such a letter which, if taken all by itself as gospel, represents a sea change in the Sampradaya's eternal diksa initiation system – a word that means changing many, many other critically important instructions in sastra that Prahbupada had preached on repeatedly. In other words, one only has to use their common sense to understand what "no change" applies to.
Madhudvisa writes:
"I think to this point these are all reasonable points that can be established and proven from facts."
We are sorry, Madhudvisa prabhu, that we do not find these to be "reasonable points" that you are presenting. They are not proven facts, but just the opposite – the majority of your key statements have been disproved. Therefore, they establish nothing, let alone the asiddhantic philosophy of Rtvik-vada.
In order to keep this article to a reasonable length, we will pick-up at this point in our next segment, addressing the heart of Madhudvisa's conflicting statements wherein he promotes both post-samadhi Rtvik, and Srila Prabhupada's disciples becoming diksa gurus.
In the meantime, we would like to let the readers know that we have exchanged several emails with Madhudvisa dasa over the last few days. He has been quite unhappy about the fact that we have not published all his responses, right up front. He feels that we are preventing him from representing himself in rebuttal to our commentaries.
As we've tried to explain to prabhu, the reason for this is that we have attempted to present a progressive dialogue: we began with Madhudvisa's opening article from the Prabhupadanugas forum, and our response to it. We then published his next piece, ‘Evidence and Clarification', and commenced our response to that, which continues in today's segment.
We had not yet published any of Madhudvisa's subsequent articles and forum postings, of which there are several. But one of these he is particularly anxious to have the Sun readers informed of, so they will not misunderstand his overall position. Although we wanted to wait until we'd finished dealing with ‘Evidence and Clarification' before introducing the next new item, in deference to Madhudvisa, we've gone ahead and published his next piece today, entitled "Rtvik Lies and ISKCON Lies".
We will continue to work our way progressively through Madhudvisa's writings, and with at least one more segment to go on ‘Evidence and Clarification', we will not get to the newest "Lies" article for a number of days. But hopefully, Madhudvisa will have the satisfaction of getting a more rounded version of his position out there, right now.
SEE ALL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
A Word and a Staple, Part One
A Word and a Staple, Part Two
A Word and a Staple, Part Three
A Word and a Staple, Part Four
A Word and a Staple, Part Five
A Word and a Staple, Part Six
The Truth is Very Powerful
Evidence and Clarification
Ritvik Lies and ISKCON Lies
