Is the ritvika claim true?
Question: Is the ritvika claim that Srila Prabhupada should be the final spiritual master in ISKCON true? If not, why not?
Answer: The claim is totally false and fallacious. Here’s a brief overview followed by the detailed answer.
Overview:
I. Background
II. Why the ritvikas are wrong?
1. No support from Srila Prabhupada’s statements
i. Numerous Direct Srila Prabhupada Statements that his disciples should become gurus
ii. The Misrepresented July 9, 1977 letter
iii. Srila Prabhupada’s last will.
2. No scriptural support or precedent
3. Fallacious arguments:
i. Only a liberated soul can become guru.
ii. Gurus can’t fall.
iii. None of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are uttama-adhikaris
III. Conclusion
I. Background
Srila Prabhupada in 1977, appointed eleven disciples to serve as ritvik gurus, or “officiating spiritual masters.” He authorized these ritviks to decide which candidates to accept, and to chant on the candidates’ beads and give the new disciples spiritual names. The ritviks were to do this on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and the new disciples were to be not those of the ritviks but of Srila Prabhupada himself. On July 9, 1977, Srila Prabhupada signed a document that makes these facts unmistakably clear.
The proponents of the ritvika-acharya theory, referred in short as the ritvikas’, claim that Srila Prabhupada intended that, even after his physical departure, his disciples would continue to serve as ritvik gurus by initiating devotees who would be not their disciples but his. They claim to substantiate this in their book “The Final Order,” referred henceforth as TFO.
II. Why the ritvikas are wrong?
1. No scriptural support:
i. Numerous direct Srila Prabhupada statements that his disciples should become gurus
There is no scriptural reference to support the claim that a guru continues initiation after his physical departure. Srila Prabhupada consistently taught throughout his life that, after the departure of the guru, the disciple becomes the next guru and thus continues the disciplic succession; numerous references can be found in the folio to support this. Here are a few examples:
a. I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual masters to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world. (Letter: November 2, 1967)
(Comment: When the devotees are at most just two years old spiritually, Srila Prabhupada is expressing the wish that they become spiritual masters)
b. … So if you simply preach this cult, “My dear friend, my dear brother, you surrender toKrishna,” you become spiritual master. You become spiritual master. You go door to door. …So I hope that all of you, men, women, boys and girls, become spiritual master, and follow this principle. Spiritual master, simply, sincerely, follow the principles and speak to the general public. ThenKrishnaimmediately becomes your favorite. Krishna does not become your favorite; you becomeKrishna’s favorite. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gétä, na ca tasmäd manuñyeñu kaçcin me priya-kåttamaù: “One who is doing this humble service of preaching work,Krishnaconsciousness, nobody is dearer than him to Me.” So if you want to become recognized byKrishnavery quickly, you take up this process of becoming spiritual master, present the Bhagavad-gita as it is. Your life is perfect…. (Lecture: London August 22, 1973)
(Comment: Srila Prabhupada is not only allowing, but encouraging, almost exhorting, disciples to become gurus and thus “become recognized byKrishnavery quickly”)
c. … This time I have requested allNairobiimportant friends that “Now you take sannyäsa and become guru. Krishna Caitanya Mahäprabhu asked everyone to become guru. amära äjïäya guru haïä tära ei deça. You have come toAfrica. Now become their guru and deliver them.” “Now, how shall I do it?” Yäre dekha täre kahaKrishnaupadeça: “Simply speak. Don’t become very big upstart. Simply speak whatKrishnahas done. That’s all. You become guru.”(Lecture: December 20, 1975)
(Comment: Throughout this lecture, Srila Prabhupada is, not only “requesting”, as he puts it, in his own humble words, his disciples to become gurus, but also appealing and almost insisting that they do so.)
Are these references talking about siksha-gurus only, not diksha-gurus, as some ritvikas claim? Srila Prabhupada doesn’t say so. In case somebody feels there is some ambiguity, here is an unambiguous letter in which Srila Prabhupada etches in stone, as “the law of disciplic succession”, that his disciples should “accept disciples without limitation” and “that will make me andKrishnavery happy.”:
d. “Every student is expected to become Acarya. Acarya means one who knows the scriptural injunctions and follows them practically in life, and teaches them to his disciples… Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bona fide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me andKrishnavery happy.” (Letter: December 2, 1975)
Moreover, on May 28, 1977, in view of Srila Prabhupada’s impending departure from this world, he was specifically asked by the GBC representatives how initiations would continue in his physical absence. Here is the relevant extract from that conversation:
Satsvarupa:….Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.
Tamala Krishna: Is that called ritvik-acarya?
Prabhupada: Ritvik, yes.
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the…
Prabhupada: He’s guru. He’s guru.
Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order… Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
Tamala Krishna: No, he’s asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they’re officiating, giving diksa. Their… The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?
Prabhupada: They’re his disciple.
Tamala Krishna: They’re his disciple.
Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is granddisciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamala Krishna: That’s clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer…
Prabhupada: When I order, “You become guru, “ he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it. …..
Comments:
- Srila Prabhupada uses “That’s it” to indicate that the topic is over; he has given whatever instructions he wishes to give on the topic. In this conversation are indelibly included the words “granddisciple”, “regular gurus” and “disciple of my disciple,” which all strongly show that he is continuing the regular way of initiation.
- The TFO, in order to screw out a meaning suitable for their purposes, claims that Srila Prabhupada often referred to himself in the third person; so when he uses the word “he” in this conversation, he is referring to himself. But a folio study doesn’t support this claim. Moreover this argument amounts to tampering with guru-vani, to placing one’s own words in the guru’s mouth. By choosing whichever words one wants and replacing them with whichever words one wants, one can make Srila Prabhupada say whatever one wants.
- The word ritvika-acharya is introduced by Tamal Krishna Maharaja, not by Srila Prabhupada. This and the repeated clarifications sought by him and Satsvarupa Maharaja indicate that they were eager to understand and implement Srila Prabhupada’s will, not that they were trying to make Srila Prabhupada speak that they (his disciples) could become gurus, as TFO alleges.
- The definition of “ritvik” in the Sanskrit dictionaries and in Srila Prabhupada’s books is not “proxy” or “non-initiator” or anything of the sort. The definition of “ritvik” is simply “priest,” and a look at Srila Prabhupada’s books will show “ritvik” defined as “priest,” or something similar, again and again. The word “acarya” does not mean “priest,” so “officiating acarya” cannot literally mean “officiating priest.” Nor is the word “officiate” limited to the meaning of performing a ceremony. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “officiate” can also mean “to perform the duties and functions of an office or a position of authority.” Literally speaking, then, “officiating acarya” can only mean “someone who performs the functions of an acarya,” a meaning which does not support the ritvika theory that the ritvikas are meant to be just that for all time to come.
- The ritvikas use grammatical word jugglery to screw out a meaning suitable for them from this conversation. To help decide whose understanding should be taken seriously – those who heard it or those who interpret it, Sriman Bharatasrestha Dasa, (William G. Wall, Professor of Vaishnava Literature and Theology; BA (summa cum laude), MA, Ph.D in English) clarifies: “We are dealing with complex grammars operating in the `understood’ mode. Noam Chomsky built a career on that. A 2 year old’s one syllable sentence is grammatically complete according to the Theory of Innate Grammar, and it is also true according to parents, who do, in fact, understand the child’s utterance despite the fact that grammatically necessary ingredients have been omitted, just as those present in the room understood Srila Prabhupada to mean that after Srila Prabhupada’s passing new devotees would be disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. (See JL Austin, Searle, Strawson, Griece and Speech Act Theory.) I’m sure you can find other cases where Srila Prabhupada used clipped speech, denying a pronoun its formal antecedent. If Srila Prabhupada had been writing for publication, it would be a different matter. The authority in this case, according to Speech Act Theory, would be Tamala Krishna Goswami [to whom Prabhupada was speaking]. Srila Prabhupada meant what those in the room say he meant. Period. This is, by the way, Philosophy, not Grammar.” And Tamal Krishna Maharaja as well as all the other devotees present in the room unanimously state that they understood Srila Prabhupada to be continuing the standard guru parampara system.
- The ritvikas allege that this conversation has been tampered. But Mr. Norman I. Perle (American Board of Recorded Evidence Nationally Certified Expert), the forensic expert who examined the tape, certified that he found no sign of signs “suggestive of falsification” on the entire length of the relevant section of recording of the May 28 conversation,
In summary: Srila Prabhupada consistently said – over the entire period of his ISKCON preaching – that he wanted his disciples to continue the parampara by becoming regular gurus, giving initiations and accepting disciples. Srila Prabhupada reconfirmed these instructions on 28 May, 1977, when specifically asked by the GBC at a time when his departure seemed imminent.
ii. The Misrepresented July 9, 1977 letter
The July 9 letter, written by Tamal Krishna Goswami and approved by Srila Prabhupada, is claimed by the ritvikas as the “final order” regarding how initiations should go on forever. Here is the letter:
July 9th , 1977
To All G.B.C., andTemplePresidents
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “ritvik” – representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:
His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
His Holiness Tamala Krishna Gosvami
His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami
His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
His Holiness Harikesa Swami
His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari
In the pastTemplePresidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives,TemplePresidentsmay henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative. After theTemplePresidentreceives a letter from these representatives giving the spiritual name or the thread, he can perform the fire yajna in the temple as was being done before. The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative who has accepted him or her to Srila Prabhupada, to be included in His Divine Grace’s “Initiated Disciples” book.
Hoping this finds you all well.
Your servant,
TamalaKrishnaGosvami Secretary to Srila Prabhupada
Approved: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
The ritvikas use the word “henceforward” in the sentence “Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple” to claim that this – the representatives should initiate on his (Srila Prabhupada’s) behalf – is his final order for all time to come. This argument is flawed because:
- This letter was a response to a June 7 conversation that specifically dealt, from the beginning, with how to deal with the backlog of initiations that had accumulated due to Srila Prabhupada’s ill health, not with what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure.
- This letter is written not by Srila Prabhupada, but by Tamal Krishna Maharaja. So he is the best person to tell what the word “henceforward”. Here’s what he explains, “Henceforward’ means something like, `in the foreseeable future,’ or, `until further notice.’ My service was to encourage Srla Prabhupada to survive his illness. I made every effort, both when speaking with him, and in correspondence, to be positive about recovering from his disease and continuing to physically lead the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a healthy condition. In fact, I believed this is exactly what would happen, and not until the final days did I ever think otherwise. Therefore, the word `henceforward,’ in fact the entire letter, in no way refers to a situation after Prabhupada’s departure, a situation that I was not prepared to normally think of. That situation was already addressed by Prabhupada in the May 28th conversation,”
- Jayadvaita Maharaj in his Where the Ritvika People are Wrong, states,” If we’re being literal, as the argument says we must, then let’s be literal. Though the letter says that Srila Prabhupada has “so far” given a list of eleven ritviks, he never added to the list. So this is it. The only authorized ritviks are these eleven. There is no mention that any of them may ever be removed or replaced, nor is there any mention of any successor. Nor does Srila Prabhupada provide that the list may be altered by the GBC. Henceforward, these eleven.” So there is no way for the system to continue after these eleven representatives. Jayadvaita Maharaja continues, “And when it comes to ritviks, you’re still stuck with these eleven—and only these eleven. Good luck. Of course, one could take “henceforward” in a more elastic and informal sense. For example, I might say, “Henceforward I shall take my walk onJuhuBeach every day.” Must that mean literally from now till the end of my life? Or, still more literally, from now through eternity, even after I’m physically gone? Or could it simply mean from now till I leaveBombay? Take the word super-literally if you like—but then be prepared to embrace all the consequences.”
iii. Srila Prabhupada’s last will.
Jayadvaita Maharaja writes, “Srila Prabhupada’s will stipulates that each new executive director for the ISKCON properties must be “my initiated disciple.” The logic (of the ritvikas), again, is that since Srila Prabhupada must have wanted to protect these properties forever, he must forever have direct disciples, initiated through a ritvik system. Tracing the history of the will shows that the word “direct disciples” came there not from Srila Prabhupada’s instruction, but as a result of a linguistic oversight, as further explained by Jayadvaita Maharaja, “If after Srila Prabhupada disappeared he would cease to initiate, why did the devotees working on the document use the phrase “my initiated disciple”? Why not language that took into account that both Srila Prabhupada and his disciples would soon disappear? “We weren’t used to thinking like that,” says Giriraja Swami. “In retrospect it’s very naive.”…. One might argue, then, that since accepting the dictionary meaning of “disciple” would have the unexpected result of requiring the entire system of guru-parampara to be put aside, here an interpretation is legitimately called for. In fact, however, no such interpretation is required. The dictionary does fine. Going to the Oxford English Dictionary, we find that a disciple is “one who follows or attends upon another for the purpose of learning from him; a pupil or scholar.” More explicitly: “A personal pupil or follower of any religious or (in more recent use) other teacher or master.” This is the definition we’re most used to, and it’s the one the ritvik people have in mind. But there’s more. Here’s the next definition, equally valid: “One who follows or is influenced by the doctrine or example of another; one who belongs to the ‘school’ of any leader of thought.” This is the sense in which anyone who wants to can, beyond a doubt, become Srila Prabhupada’s disciple. Any sincere person can follow Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and example. Anyone can join his school of thought, or, still further, his International Society for Krishna Consciousness. And ultimately one can become not only his disciple in spirit but his “initiated disciple” through the guru-parampara system. In this sense, by the grace of Srila Prabhupada, one can become not only his disciple but at the same time the disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the six Gosvamis, and all the other acaryas in Srila Prabhupada’s line. “This,” as Srila Prabhupada writes (Bg. 18.75), “is the mystery of the disciplic succession.” One is linked through the transparent medium of the bona fide spiritual master, but at the same time “the experience is still direct.” We might envision the day when those who believe they have become directly “initiated disciples” of Srila Prabhupada through a ritvik— or from a picture, or in a dream—might challenge in court that they alone have the right to serve as executive directors for ISKCON properties. Only the direct disciples are bona fide, they might claim, not those who profess to be merely disciples of his disciples in succession. We leave it for you to decide how well this would conform—legally and spiritually—to the intention of Srila Prabhupada’s will.”
After surveying the evidence supposed to prove the ritvika idea, Jayadvaita Maharaj concludes, “If Srila Prabhupada had wanted to initiate even after his physical departure, he wouldn’t have merely disclosed this privately to only one conspiratorially minded disciple. Or packed it all into one pregnant word. Or left it for us to infer from a phrase about property directors. Had Srila Prabhupada wanted to revolutionize the entire parampara system, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have spoken about it for days and hours and weeks on end. But he didn’t, because he simply expected us to follow the normal system he had taught us for the past ten years. Asking us to believe anything to the contrary is, again, simply asking too much.”
2. No scriptural support or precedent
In addition to the total absence of support in Srila Prabhupada’s words, there is no reference to support the ritvika idea in any other scriptural writing, nor is there any historical precedent in any Vaishnvava – or even Vedic – sampradaya. Jayadvaita Maharaja elaborates, “Srila Prabhupada usually did what was done by the predecessor acaryas. And never in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, nor any other form of Vaisnavism, have we found any instance of a post-samadhi ritvikguru system. Yes, Srila Prabhupada could have put in place an unprecedented system. He could have done anything. But the lack of precedent gives a good reason to doubt that he did.”
3. Fallacious Arguments:
Faced with the fact of not having any scriptural support for their theory, ritvikas devise several devious arguments to give credence to their concoction. Firstly, these arguments, even if true, don’t in any way prove the ritvika system right. Nonetheless, as these are aimed at discrediting the time-honored guru paramapara system existing in ISKCON, lets analyze a few of these arguments:
i. “Only a liberated soul can become guru”
This argument is in direct contradiction to Srila Prabhupada’s teaching: “ThisKrishnaconsciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme, liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of the material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: `By My order you may become a spiritual master.’ One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.18.5p)
ii. Gurus can’t fall (A liberated soul can’t fall /A maha-bhagavata can’t fall)
The guru is a devotee serving as initiating and/or instructing spiritual master. There is no reason to believe that he or she cannot have problems. Srila Prabhupada explains: “A spiritual master must be very careful in this regard. Such business is going on all over the world. The spiritual master does not accept a materially opulent disciple just to advertise the fact that he has such a big disciple. He knows that by associating with such visayi disciples, he may fall down. One who accepts a visayi disciple is not a bona fide spiritual mas-ter. Even if he is, his position may be damaged due to association with an unscrupulous vitsayi. “ (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 24.330p)
Similar references are available for liberated souls and maha-bhagavatas.
In fact, what to do when a guru falls down or has difficulties is explicitly discussed in the book Krishna bhajanamrita written by Srila Narahari Sarakara, a close associate of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This important book was referred to by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and its instructions form the basis of several ISKCON laws in regard to gurus’ falldowns, etc.
So guru falldown, though unfortunate and undesirable and uncommon, is nonetheless possible and has to be dealt with according to scriptural recommendations – not by rejecting the time-honoured guru system and resorting to the ritvika concoction.
iii. None of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are uttama-adhikaris
Some ritviks concoct a new doctrine about gurus and uttama-adhikaris. First of all, they point out the following statement of Srila Prabhupada as found in his purport to the fifth verse of the Nectar of Instruction, “A disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.” Then they boisterously claim that there are no uttama-adhikaris within ISKCON because “so many gurus have fallen down,” etc. They misleadingly quote descriptions of the uttama-adhikari that he is one who “constantly sees Krishna,” etc. and say that it is only such an uttama-adhikari who is “constantly seeing Krishna within his heart” that one should accept as a spiritual master. They say, “Since Srila Prabhupada (alone) is such an uttama-adhikari, everyone in ISKCON should accept Srila Prabhupada as their diksa guru and be saved.”
However subjective definitions of an utttama-adhikari like “one who is seeing Krishna” are unverifiable and so cannot be used to decide one’s guru. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada, in the same purport, gives externally distinguishable symptoms of the uttama-adhikari:
l. “very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord,”
2. “strictly following all the regulative principles,”
3. “chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads,”
4. “always thinking of how to expand theKrishnaconsciousness movement “
5. “devising means by which to spread the holy name ofKrishna,” and
6. “spreading theKrishnaconsciousness movement all over the world.”
Any sincere and non-envious person will be able to see that there are many souls with these symptoms in Srila Prabhupada’s Krishna Consciousness movement (ISKCON). Therefore, according to the clear definition given by Srila Prabhupada in this purport, such souls have to be recognized as uttama-adhikaris and can be accepted as spiritual masters.
Moreover the allegation that none of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are uttama-adhikaris implies that Srila Prabhupada did not have the potency to make any of his disciples pure. It is said that the potency of a Vaishnava is measured by his ability to convert the fallen souls into Vaishnavas. Srila Prabhupada said that his mystic potency was that he converted so many low-born Westerners into Vaishnavas. According to ritvikas, Srila Prabhupada could not even create one bona fide spiritual master.
Thus the ritvika propaganda (“Prabhupada was so great, but all his disciples are unqualified”), ostensibly meant to glorify Srila Prabhupada, actually minimizes Srila Prabhupada (“Prabhupada was so impotent that none of his disciples became qualified”).
III. Conclusion: Ritvikism is a deadly weapon of Kali
Kali spreads its influence by creating dissension among devotees. The meaning of Kali is “quarrel”. Srila Prabhupada wanted that we express our love for him through unity and cooperation. He also said that this movement cannot be stopped by any external agency, but it can be broken from within. Irresponsibly spreading ritvikism instead of Srila Prabhupada’s bona fide teaching creates confusion and dissension among Vaishnavas.
Further, ritvikism leads to Vaishnva-apradha, even guru-apradha, and can destroy one’s spiritual life. Therefore, for the protection of devotees, the GBC has outlawed ritvikism.
ISKCON Law 6.4.7.2, from the section “Specifically Outlawed Doctrines and Practices” (amended, 1999)
6.4.7.2 “Ritvikism” aka “Posthumous Ritvik Theory,” “Post-Samadhi-Ritvik Theory,” “Proxy Initiation Theory,” “No Change Theory,” etc:
“The doctrine that Srila Prabhupada desired to continue to act as diksa guru after his departure from this world and did not desire any of his disciples to give diksa in succession after him is a dangerous philosophical deviation. Ritvikism directly goes against the principle of parampara itself (of successive diksa-and siksa gurus), which sustains the pure teachings and practices ofKrishnaconsciousness. This principle has been established by Krishna and is upheld by all Vaishnava-acaryas. Indeed, it is accepted by all followers of Vedic culture. Ritvikism is thus an extreme deviation. It is utterly erroneous to espouse it, deluding and misguiding to teach it, and blasphemous to attribute it to Srila Prabhupada. No one who espouses, teaches, supports in any way, or practices ritvikism can be a member in good standing of ISKCON.”