A Rtvik By Any Other Name
BY: ROCANA DASA
Dec 09, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — In early November the Sun published a series of articles on the subject of guru-tattva, in a discussion initiated by Dusyanta das of the UK. His opening article, Absentia Diksa Guru Initiation was published on November 8th, and was followed by responses from Mahavidya das, myself, Gauragopala dasa and others. Dusyanta das did a follow-up article on November 10th, entitled "Following an Absentia Acarya", which he followed with one additional article that was not published.
Anytime we publish articles addressing guru-tattva and facilitate the presentation of opinions from Rtvik-vada proponents, we always get a heavy dose of pushback from some of the more fanatical anti-Rtvik Sun readers. Most notably, we can look forward to a torrent of sanctimonious blasts in our email box from our friend Balavidya das, a/k/a Acaryavilasa/Vaikunthanasa/Rasaprema, whose multi-name posting history was recently narrated by Harakumara dasa in his article, "Does Balavidya Have Rasaprema?". Balavidya das, and no doubt a handful of other Sun readers, become very offended when the post-samadhi diksa argument periodically resurfaces. In their mind the debate is over, done bas, and there should be no further discussion allowed.
The Sun editors, however, remain open to the presentation of new arguments, new evidence and new realizations on the subject. In fact, for several years now we have had a strict editorial policy on publishing pro-Rtvik articles in the Sun. They must either contain new evidence, new arguments or new realizations on the subject. We are not interested in publishing constant rehashes of the same arguments that have been chewed and chewed again, for years now in ISKCON. Still, it amazes us that some of our Rtvik contributors refuse to acknowledge this editorial policy, and never fail to get highly offended when we reject or chop content from their submissions, which present well-worn reiterations of the same old arguments. Rarely do such articles address, or even acknowledge, the long list of standing rebuttals and counter-evidence against their assertions. They just plough forward as though they are breaking ground in a new field, when in fact, the furrows are already deep and the dirt is rock-hard.
In the case of Dusyanta das, he has presented a somewhat novel approach, arguing the case for "diksa-in-absentia", based on the notion that Srila Prabhupada is our siksa in absentia, so why not our diksa? He said he could find no evidence that the guru has to be physically present, but of course, the standing evidence on this point has also been discussed threadbare over the years.
Dusyanta's presentation was challenged by several devotees, but Dusyanta refused to address their challenges, wishing to simply reiterate his own opening assertions. Unfortunately, that is not the Vaisnava tradition of debate – in fact, it's not anybody's tradition of debate, or even of intelligent reciprocal discussion.
Like so many pro-Rtvik advocates before him, Dusyanta's methodology is to focus on the GBC/ISKCON program for initiations within the institution. These practices are well known to be asiddhantic and dysfunctional. Arguing against them is a bit like taking candy from a baby… it makes for an easy show of 'winning the debate'. But as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Simply defeating GBC/ISKCON guru-tattva does not mean that one has established their own position as bona fide. What we don't find are defensible arguments from the Rtviks on guru-tattva that use Guru, Sadhu and Sastra as the baseline, rather than using the broken GBC/ISKCON system as the point of comparison.
We have put forward the Sampradaya Acarya thesis, which we believe offers a sastrically-sound and self-evidently correct position on Srila Prabhupada's exalted status, and on how he simply followed the previous Acaryas, instructing his disciples to follow the age-old sastrically accepted system for diksa initiations. Unfortunately, we are seldom successful in getting the Rtvik preachers to deal on that level. They much prefer to shoot at GBC/ISKCON guru-tattva, which is an easy target to hit.
We declined to publish Dusyanta das's third article because he had refused to address the rebuttals already presented to him. He had indicated in a previous email that he was unfamiliar with some of these rebuttal arguments, and it would require some study before he could respond. But rather than take up that study until he was prepared to meet his challengers, he instead offered a third article that basically hammered away at the same points he'd made in the first two articles, and informed us that he saw no reason to respond to his challengers. For that reason, we did not publish his third article.
In that third and unpublished article Dusyanta das made the claim: "I hope this is not too much like Rtvik-vada, I am not a Rtvik at all." In an email that followed, he said that he does not accept the July 9th Letter as having established a system for Rtvik post-samadhi diksa initiations. He also suggested that our use of the phrase "post samadhi diksa" was inappropriate, although he did not say why. And, he suggested that we have a "distaste for applying the word "prabhupadanuga'", although that is not the case.
While we cannot know Dusyanta's true feelings on the matter, because he has not stated them clearly, it does appear that he is one of a growing segment of the Rtvik population that is now distancing itself the heart of Rtvik-vada – the July 9th Letter as an order for post-samadhi diksa initiations. It's certainly understandable that one would choose to disassociate themselves from this concept after adequate time for consideration, given that Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "henceforward" is not always an absolute order for 'ever after', as has been proven in the 'henceforward rebuttals' that give examples of his use of the term in other contexts that were clearly not meant to say 'forever'. That, and the obvious fact that post-samadhi diksa cannot be supported by Guru, Sadhu and Sastra makes the Rtvik-vada entirely untenable.
There are many devotees who understandably refuse to accept the GBC/ISKCON version of guru-tattva, and who are adamantly opposed to it. Unfortunately, many of them think Rtvik-ism is the only alternative. But as more and more devotees are recognizing the weakness of an absolutist interpretation of "henceforward" in the face of inarguable sastric evidence against post-samadhi diksa -- and no evidence for it -- they are now looking for new avenues of expression. Committed to their positions against GBC/ISKCON guru-tattva, some are now taking up positions like Dusyanta prabhu's, focusing simply on the notion that one does not need a living spiritual master. Such conclusions are often presented under the umbrella of "Prabhupadanuga" rather than "Rtvik", for obvious reasons.
We also reject the GBC/ISKCON version of guru-tattva, but we do not believe that Rtvik-vada is any more siddhantically sound or bona fide. Both are asiddhantic deviations, and neither can be supported by Guru, Sadhu, Sastra. So we again urge devotees who are rejecting either or both of these positions to carefully consider the Sampradaya Acarya position, which we believe is a viable and sastrically supported approach to diksa initiations in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON.
Although most members of the Rtvik movement have little to show by way of solid preaching results after all these years of promoting their philosophy, they never hesitate to misappropriate the success of ISKCON Bangalore for that purpose. How often have we heard the Rtviks touting the glories of Bangalore as if they themselves had performed these successes… as if it were the very essence of post-samadhi diksa Rtvik-ism that was the cause of Bangalore's success? Of course, we do not hear word one from the Rtviks about the recent disclosure by Madhu Pandit dasa that in all these years since Bangalore declared its independence from the GBC, not a single Rtvik initiation has taken place at the Bangalore temple. Not one. But when have you ever heard a Rtvik disclose that fact? Instead, they talk in glowing terms about how the Rtvik philosophy has proved itself absolutely – just look at "our success" with Bangalore for the proof.
What we really see at ISKCON Bangalore is exactly the opposite of proof in favor of Rtvik-vada. In fact, one could argue that the great success of Bangalore much more appropriately illustrates the success of the Sampradaya Acarya position. The Bangalore devotees, under the direction of good leadership -- Madhu Pandit das, Chanchalapathi das and the other leaders -- have obviously got a formula that works beautifully. The temple is vibrant, the preaching, book distribution, prasadam distribution and harinama go on non-stop, they are opening temples, teaching facilities, restaurants and varnasrama related operations all over India. And what is fueling their tremendous success? Good leadership and a sincere dedication to serving Srila Prabhupada.
There is no indication that Madhu Pandit and associates are having to browbeat their congregational members, pressuring them into hanging around, waiting impatiently for the day they can get post-samadhi Rtvik diksa initiation in order to keep them engaged in their service. Obviously they are serving enthusiastically, with great dedication to Srila Prabhupada, who is always kept at the center.
So without the formalities of fire yajna and name giving, without the assumption that Srila Prabhupada somehow consents, post-samadhi, to accept any and all diksa candidates (a very risky assumption for one's spiritual life), the devotees at Bangalore are still enlivened and offering service. And all those devotees have an opportunity for Chaitya Guru to make personal arrangements for them to take diksa, when the time is right. Obviously, 'diksa-on-demand' is not a required ingredient in order for the yatra to demonstrate laudable success, year after year. No matter what the Rtviks outside of Bangalore try to tell you.
With respect to the current state of the Rtvik camp, we would like to point out another new phenomenon unfolding. There is a growing movement afoot amongst Rtviks who no longer wish to focus on "henceforward" as absolute, and are having difficulty defending their Rtvik program of post-samadhi initiations conducted by self-appointed rtvik priests who are working outside of the institutional system Srila Prabhupada arranged during his ISKCON lila. Today there is a growing cadre of such persons who are putting less emphasis on promoting themselves as Rtvik priests, and are instead going back to the list of representatives named in the July 9th Letter, and promoting them as the official Rtvik priests. They apparently think this gives an added degree of credibility to Rtvik-ism… never mind that these are the same eleven personalities they have enthusiastically defamed and decried for so many years now.
Most notably, Hansadutta das is back in the show, and we are amazed to see that he has managed to attract a small circle of supporters from the Rtvik camp. Of course, given that Kirtanananda is back on the vyasasana in Pakistan, wearing crowns and having his feet bathed in the company of young boys, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at anything.
Some long-time staunch Rtviks, like Nara Narayana Visvakarma das, have become so disgusted by this trend in the Rtvik community that they are denouncing Rtvik-ism altogether. In Nara Narayana prabhu's case, he is now focusing instead on the Direction of Management (DOM) solution, which he has long advocated.
We can only wonder at how any self-respecting Rtvik justifies becoming a supporter of Hansadutta. Of course, Hansadutta has now 'gone country', and is conveniently preaching self-sufficiency and homegrown Vaisnava values, which some devotees find very attractive. It seems that straw behind the ear is an acceptable replacement for straw between the teeth. But this should not distract anyone from remembering Hansadutta's history as a destroyer of Srila Prabhupada's movement, not a guardian of it.
Anyone attracted to Hansadutta as the solution for a viable post-samadhi diksa program needs to sit down and revisit the similarities between his history and Kirtanananda's, Bhavananda's and Satsvarupa's. What's the difference? Why not engage them all on behalf of the Rtvik community, to serve as officiating Rtvik priests? That would be equally bona fide, wouldn't it?
