Clarification and Statement to Date
BY: DUSYANTA DASA
Aug 21, 2011 — WALES (SUN) — In Caitanya-caritamrta Adi Lila 1.19 we find the actual definition of Vaisnava philosophy regarding how we approach the Divinity, which is appropriate and relevant to the Guru Tattva subject which impacts indirectly on the Ritvik issue.
"The Gaudiya Vaisnavas who strictly follow in the line of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu worship the Divinity by chanting transcendental sounds meant to develop a sense of one's transcendental relationship with the Supreme Lord, a reciprocation of mellows (rasas) of mutual affection, and, ultimately, the achievement of the desired success in loving service. These three Deities are worshipped in three different stages of ones development. The followers of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu scrupulously follow these principles of approach."
The relevance of this statement and instruction from Srila Prabhupada comes to bear when we apply this principle of "chanting transcendental sounds" to the presence of the Spiritual Master and how we access Him before and after His disappearance. Then, of course, the pursuance of receiving and accepting diksa, initiation, and how the Disciplic Succession is actually continued through this principle of transcendental sound and how the issue of Ritvik plays the part in initiation, if any at all, especially at the time when the Spiritual Master is no longer with us.
But first, there are many evidences that illustrate the role of chanting transcendental sound within the Vaisnava culture to further our association with the Spiritual Master and of course, with the Supreme Lord, Krsna.
As we are foremost followers of Lord Chaitanya in His disciplic line, then the Sri Sri Siksastaka stanza two is relevant. Of course, all the stanzas are relevant, but for the purpose of this presentation I am highlighting the relevance of this stanza two in connection with the presence and accessibility of the Spiritual Master after His disappearance.
"O my Lord, Your holy name can render all benedictions to living beings, and thus you have hundreds and millions of names, like Krsna and Govinda. In these transcendental names You have invested all Your transcendental energies. There are not even hard and fast rules for chanting these names. O my Lord, out of kindness You enable us to easily approach You by Your holy names, but I am so unfortunate that I have no attraction for them."
If we need any substantiating evidence that reinforces this instruction, then Srila Jiva Goswami's Bhakti Sandarbha, Anucceheda 153 fully supports this philosophical approach to transcendental sound chanting. Here we find the two processes described in relation to how to associate with Krsna after He has disappeared in His unmanifest form, called aprakata. The first process is called mantropasanmayi, or worship by chanting mantras, and the other process is called svarasiki, or direct relishing of rasa (relationship).
And if we need any more corroborating evidence, then Srimad Bhagavatam 3.9.11 explains this even more clearly:
"O my lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become cleansed, and You take your seat there. You are so merciful to Your devotees that You manifest Yourself in the particular form of transcendence in which they always think of You."
The presentational relevance of all this chanting of transcendental sound vibration is because of the flawed teachings that emanated from the GBC/Gurus just after Srila Prabhupada disappeared in 1977. To bolster up their flawed philosophy that they tried to teach in support of their role as Diksa Gurus, they had to invent the conceptualised physically present diksa guru theory. In other words, the philosophy that abounded in ISKCON in 1978 was that to receive initiation and the process of diksa, there had to be a physically present Diksa Guru to administer it. So at that time, the "living guru" theory was borne, that a Guru had to be corporeal to be functional.
But the Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy seems to contradict that conclusion through the chanting and association thereof of transcendental sound. The conception of the presence of the Spiritual Master is explained by Srila Prabhupada, not by the GBC/Gurus. In His book, Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, there is a section entitled "Knowing Krsna as He Is", which also means knowing the Spiritual master as He is rather than as the GBC/Gurus teach He is.
"There are two conceptions of presence-physical conception and vibrational conception. The physical conception is temporary, whereas the vibrational conception is eternal. When we enjoy or relish the vibration of Krsna's teaching in Bhagavad-Gita, or when we chant Hare Krsna, we should know that by those vibrations He is immediately present. He is absolute, and because of this His vibration is just as important as His physical presence. When we feel separation from Krsna or the Spiritual Master, we should try to remember their words of instruction, and we will no longer feel that separation. Such association with Krsna and the Spiritual Master should be by vibration, not physical presence. That is real association. We put so much stress on seeing, but when Krsna was present on earth, so many people saw Him and did not realize He is God; so what is the advantage of seeing? By seeing Krsna we will not understand Him, but by listening carefully to His teachings, we come to the platform of understanding. We can touch Krsna immediately by sound vibration; therefore we should give stress to the sound vibration of Krsna and of the Spiritual Master -- then we will feel happy and wont feel separation."
And in Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.35, the similar presence of the Spiritual Master is instructed by Srila Prabhupada:
"The service of the Spiritual Master is essential. If there is no chance to serve the Spiritual Master directly, a devotee should serve Him by remembering His Instructions. There is no difference between the Spiritual Master's instructions and the Spiritual master Himself. In His absence, therefore, His words of direction should be the pride of the disciple....."
Which brings us round to the big question, I think, which is: "Who Is Guru?" And the famous verse which begins with vande 'ham sri-guroh sri-yuta-pada-kamalam........"
Srila Prabhupada translates in the word-for-word, "sri- guroh" as "of my initiating spiritual master or instructing spiritual master" equally. The singular guru specifically mentioned about in this verse from Cc Antya lila 2.1. may be either siksa or diksa-guru. And from the same verse in the word-for-word translation, "sri-gurun" translates as "unto the spiritual masters in the paramapara system beginning from Madhavendra Puri down to Srila Bhaktisiddanta". And of course now we can add Srila Prabhupada.
If and when we apply the principle aforementioned, that our association and relationships are developed through the chanting of transcendental sound, then we begin to understand how our relationships with our Spiritual Masters takes place. Through that chanting of transcendental sound the relationship becomes a functional principle with our Spiritual Masters in as much the same way as our relationship with Krsna develops through the chanting of the Holy Names. Sri Siksastaka stanza 2, "O my lord, out of kindness, You enable us to easily approach You by Your Holy Names...."
Having summarised our Gaudiya Vaisnava principle of transcendental sound vibration, it would seem that all is hunky dory in our Vaisnava family, but this is not the case. What has happened historically and rather hysterically is the infiltration of a rather "ceremonial-diksa" approach based on materially motivated principles that are temporary. From one side, ISKCON has been attacked by its very own GBC/Gurus via the conceptualised physically present diksa guru theory, where the principle of transcendental sound is bypassed in favour of the very physically present corporeal voted-in, rubber-stamped, ecclesiastically approved "diksa guru", and on the other hand the rather hopeful "rittik"-representative of the Acharya, via medium, of recommendation and acceptance of initiated devotees on behalf of Srila Prabhupada AFTER His disappearance. Again, a "ceremonial-diksa" process.
It seems that both these processes are fraught and plagued with problems of authorisation, qualification and application. Both of these processes share the same ceremonial-diksa problems. And both are essentially based on one principle of the process of Diksa -- the name/thread-giving ceremony.
In the via medium process of "rittik"-representative of the Acharya, the initiate is only accepted through the person of rittik. The rittik personality is to administer and create the name and thread where applicable. The debate on this process has been the application of the process in absentia. This is actually a very real philosophical problem for this process in reality, and really the process can only work on paper, not in actuality. The main problem for this is because of a philosophical change in the presence of the Spiritual Master from His Vapuh feature to His Vani feature.
In His Vapuh feature of physical presence, the Spiritual Master can only be found locally in one location because of the very nature of physical presence. And as ISKCON expanded substantially in the 1960's and 1970's, the process of representation was used to initiate newcomers at a huge rate. Vapuh by nature is temporary, and so the process associated with Vapuh of "rittik" representation can only ever be temporary, because the nature of Vani, eternal, is diametrically opposite, Vani mutually excludes the temporary "rittik" -representation.
The feature of unmanifested presence, aprakata, after the Spiritual Master's disappearance where He is accessed through His Vani feature through transcendental sound has separate features than those of Vapuh. The "rittik"-representation principle is redundant in this feature of Vani-presence though transcendental sound as the Spiritual Master is fully present and fully accessible universally at all times, and the representational principle is not required and also cannot be applied philosophically. After the Spiritual Master has disappeared, the Disciplic Succession principle of representation is required to continue the Disciplic Succession-Guru Parampara. When that is and who that is, is another question.
The two forms of representation are entirely different forms of representation. The Spiritual Master is a transparent via medium representation of Krsna Himself, whereas the "rittik"-representative of the Acharya has no independent existence outside of the Acarya's jurisdiction, authority and appointment.
The process of chanting and hearing transcendental sounds is the basis for the Gaudiya Vaisnavas to develop a sense of one's transcendental relationship with the Supreme Lord and with the Spiritual Master. We don't get to know the Spiritual Master through His bodily features, but by chanting His glories and hearing His words. As Srila Prabhupada wrote in Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, "We can touch Krsna immediately with sound vibration....", which is equally applicable to the Spiritual Master.
The "rittik"-representative of the Acharya process cannot be applied to this principle of chanting transcendental sound to develop our relationship with the Spiritual Master after He has disappeared. This type of representative process can only be applied when the Spiritual Master is physically present as He is present in His Vapuh.
The answer to the question is, a rittvik is not a rittvik when the Spiritual Master is absent. The rittvik is unable to represent the Spiritual Master in giving a name and thread at a diksa ceremony because the Spiritual Master is fully and equally accessible universally already to the disciple and the so called rittvik, whereas when the Spiritual Master is physically present He is not fully and equally universally accessible to all. Srila Prabhupada was definitely not fully accessible universally in His physical presence, so He created the process of "rittik"-representative of the Acharya for this purpose of initiation for all the disciples He was not able to initiate Himself personally. The representative process was especially meant for the ceremonial diksa principle of name-giving and thread-giving, which Srila Prabhupada could not physically attend personally.
In the paper entitled The Final Order there are mistakes made on a number of levels. The author employs the backward logic of inventing a non-existent premise and by defeating this non-existent premise, establishes his own proof. But it fails because the premise is non-existent.
In the section entitled "Objections......" on page 7 there are four points made that are not included in July 9th Letter. Each one starts with, "The July 9th Letter also does not state......" This way of establishing what does not exist proves nothing. And we could list ad nauseum also what does not exist in the July 9th Letter, as well as that the July 9th letter also does not state "the ritvik system must carry on after Srila Prabhupada's departure."
In section 3, the question posed by the author is whether it is feasible to follow a ritvik system without the physical presence of the person whom set it up. The answer given is that the ritvik system was set up specifically to be operational without any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever.
Physical presence and physical involvement are different considerations the author doesn't account for, but again the author gives no clue where we can find proof of this assertion. In fact, Srila Prabhupada was physically involved with the whole process because it was He who set it all up originally. He also appointed the 11 rittviks and then He also approved the July 9th Letter by signing it with His physical involvement. But the original question was not even answered: is it feasible to follow a rittvik system without the physical presence of the person whom set it up? This means the rittvik system that Srila Prabhupada set up whilst in His Vapuh, physically present, can still be followed in His Vani, eternal vibrational presence.
The two DIFFERENT operational systems would have to operate in different principles because of the changing dynamics of "presence". Vani and Vapuh. The author does not appear to have considered the different aspects of phases of presence of the Spiritual Master, but just applies the system homogeneously as if nothing changes after disappearance. In fact, the author speculates that the system would indeed operate in an identical way in every respect to how it was practised whilst Srila Prabhupada was in His Vapuh presence. In the July 9th Letter there is no evidence that this would be the case. In fact, there is no evidence that this could be philosophically the case. The only literal interpretation of this can be on paper only, not from a practical application of the system.
Again in point 5, page 8 we find the same assumption made by the author. "The July 9th order clarified for everyone precisely how initiations were to proceed in His (Srila Prabhupada's) Absence."
Well no, it did not do this. There was no clarification of how initiations were to proceed in His absence. The July 9th Letter did not deal with this topic at all, otherwise there would not be a debate going on over 30years later. The July 9th Letter is reproduced on page 56 and 57 of the same paper and there is nothing about the time when Srila Prabhupada is absent. The word "absent" is not even mentioned, what to speak of how initiations are to proceed in Srila Prabhupada's absence.
In fact. the paper known as "The Final Order" is riddled with such inaccurate points. After two weeks of going through this paper, I found flaws, inaccuracies and less than whole truths littering every page, and the whole paper needs re-writing, updating. The author of "The Final Order" assumes that the dynamics of the presence of the Spiritual Master is equal in His physical presence to His vibrational presence. Philosophically and actually this can't be true. The rittvik process cant be implemented in the same structure as outlined in July 9th Letter for these simple reasons.
The July 9th letter outlines a process that Srila Prabhupada has to appoint rittviks and then appoint some more to be added later,"HDG has SO FAR given a list of 11" the next appointees never came. The July 9th letter outlines Srila Prabhupada naming these rittviks and finally Srila Prabhupada has to approve the July 9th letter;quite alot of physical invovlement and physical presence. The July 9th letter is directly related to Srila Prabhupada's physical presence to exist because it was from His physical presence that the letter was borne. The letter does not deal with any aspect of when Srila Prabhupada is Absent and does not deal with how it could be practised in His Absence.
Srila Prabhupada describes the conception of presence in TWO definitions -- Vapuh, physical presence, and Vani, vibrational presence. The application, inception and process of "rittik"-representative of the Acharya is only rationalized in relation to Vapuh, physical presence by way of evidence from the July 9th Letter itself as authoritative documented evidence approved by Srila Prabhupada Himself. The only way this process could work would only be by the way the process is practiced, as directed by the Letter of July 9th; any other way would only be an interpretation of the Letter itself.
Alluding to contents of the Letter that are not included in the Letter proves nothing. If we are to fairly assimilate and evaluate the contents of the Letter of July 9th, then we can't add inferences that dont exist, as in "The Final Order", and we can't take away words that do exist.
The framework that the July 9th Letter prescribes is based on Vapuh, physical presence, not Vani, vibrational presence. However, Srila Prabhupada does deal with aspects of the Spiritual Master's absence in His Books. Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.35, for example. Elevation to Krsna Consciousness, pages 56-57. Srila Jiva Goswami's Bhakti Sandarbha, Anucceda 153.
The general understanding of "ceremonial-diksa" was gathered from the experience of devotees from 1966-1977. Actual diksa is a spiritual process based on the Gaudiya Vaisnava way of chanting and hearing transcendental sounds. The disciple is hearing the transcendental sounds through his ears, that are transmitted from the Bona Fide Spiritual Master. The process of diksa and siksa are intimately connected. And in the Srimad Bhagavatam we find examples of siksa being the diksa process directly, Sri Narada Muni being a prime example of this type of initiation through the instruction from the sages that He attended to (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.6.2-10 - Conversations between Narada and Vyasadeva).
Caitanya-caritamrta 1.35: "Generally a Spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his Initiating spiritual master later on."
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12 32: "It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between the siksa guru and diksa guru, and generally the siksa guru later on becomes the diksa guru."
First we accept siksa from the Siksa Guru or Diksa Guru, which emphasizes the importance of the siksa process, and the siksa guru becomes the diksa guru for the disciple later on, as the disciple follows the process and naturally advances.
The problem that has arisen in ISKCON is that if we take Srila Prabhupada as the Siksa Guru through His books by receiving His transcendental sound, how does that later on translate as Him being our Diksa Guru? How can we accept His Siksa in absentia, but not His Diksa in absentia? If we distinguish between the functionality of the Siksa Guru and Diksa Guru then we fall into the trap of committing an offense in devotional service due to discriminating between them both. The dealings are different, but the functionality is the same. "They are identical because both of them are phenomenal manifestations of the Supreme Truth." (Caitanya-caritamrta Introduction)
The 1977, the GBC/Gurus argued this very point, that now Srila Prabhupada was absent , "we" needed a physically present Diksa Guru to perform the "ceremonial-diksa". In other words, the conclusion of the GBC/Gurus and the Rittvik movement is they both equally can't accept that Srila Prabhupada is capable in His Vani presence to initiate a disciple, there has to be a physically present "Diksa Guru" or "Ritvik" to accept the disciple as an initiated devotee of Srila Prabhupada. The 1977 camp wanted to claim the disciples as their own, which has now mutated to many variations ranging from "ISKCON Initiates" or "Parampara Initiates", or "On behalf of Srila Prabhupada Initiates", and more, whereas the Ritviks have always maintained the same line, that the "rittvik" is accepting the disciple on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, which is a via medium to Srila Prabhupada, not a direct discipleship. The Ritviks maintain that disciples are direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada through this process, but this process has to be in place to accept the disciple as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, which in effect means it's a via medium process -- if you take the process away completely then how does it work?
It works in this way: There are no ritviks, but through the process of transcendental sound. There is no via medium to the Spiritual Master, the disciple is a direct disciple of the Spiritual Master through the transcendental sound. He is approached in the same way we approach Krsna through His Holy Name, and it's an easy process for the neophyte. The "Diksa Gurus" of ISKCON are redundant because their physical presence cannot afford the disciple more than Srila Prabhupada's Instruction. The "living guru" process is a smokescreen that we have all believed since the 1977 GBC/Gurus explained it, because it's a comforting explanation and holds the strings of power. We can't have disciples just being initiated by SOUND. Who is going to control them, anyway?
The "Ritvik" process is redundant because the need for a via medium to Srila Prabhupada in His Vapuh is also not applicable in His Vani. We can approach, inquire and serve the Spiritual Master in His transcendental sound and we can directly develop the mellow of rasa with the Spiritual Master through transcendental sound.
What does it all boil down to, is what about the "ceremonial-diksa" formality? Who gives you your name and thread, that's all! And that's exactly why we are so afraid of following the Gaudiya Vaisnava process of transcendental sound. We need security in formality, three dimensions, and anybody who will give us a name, and lastly the power and the glory. We can't all be right, now can we? Perhaps the GBC/Gurus and the Ritviks are all wrong. Seems like it to me.
Your servant,
Dusyanta dasa
PS. We get our names and threads from the Brahmanas!
