Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic categories :
Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the "amara ajnaya guru hana" verse from the Caitanya-Caritamrta.
The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure.
Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned.
Looking first at category 1):
The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Caitanya-Caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada:
"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krishna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128)
However, the type of guru, which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become, is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse:
"That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krishna mantra and preach the instructions of Krishna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport)
"One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krishna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)
We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus. This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa guru:
"It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport)
To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krishna Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus, not diksa gurus.
This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru:
"yare dekha, tare kaha, Krishna-upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krishna has already said, you repeat. Finish. don't make addition, adulteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krishna. Then it will act [...] Anyone can do. A child can do." (Srila Prabhupada Evening darshan, 11/5/77, Hrsikesh)
"Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, [...] He said that "Everyone of you become guru." (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
"You simply say [...] "Just always think of Me", Krishna said, "And just become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances." Kindly do these things." So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?" (Srila Prabhupada Conversation, 2/8/76, New Mayapur)
"Real guru is he who instructs what Krishna has said....You have simply to say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?" (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
"...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru ?' There is no need of qualification...Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krishna has said. That's all. You become guru." (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu)
(Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for "minimally qualified diksa gurus"*(1), an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures or conversations).
An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON. It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru:
"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport)
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport)
In the above quote Srila Prabhupada states that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru. The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider "amara ajnaya guru hana" to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya? This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must be referring to siksa not diksa guru. Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule. Whereas Srila Prabhupada envisaged millions of siksa gurus, comprising of men, women and children.
Looking now at category 2):
There were a handful of overly confident devotees, anxious to initiate their own disciples in Srila Prabhupada's presence, who Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to. These letters are used to support the M.A.S.S. Srila Prabhupada had a fairly standard approach when dealing with such ambitious individuals. Generally he told them to keep rigidly trained up, and in the future, after his physical departure, they may accept disciples:
"The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)
"Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72)
"I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74)
"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide 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 bonafide spiritual master and spread Krishna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tusta Krishna, 2/12/75)
(It is interesting to note that whilst GII quotes the above "law" in support of the M.A.S.S. doctrine, in the very same document it is asserted that it is actually not a law at all) :
"There are many such instances in the scriptures about disciples giving initiation in the presence of the guru, [...] In the scriptures there is no specific instruction about a disciple not giving initiation when his guru is present." (GII, p. 23)
Eagerness to accept worship and followers is actually a disqualification for a spiritual master. We can only marvel at the power of the false ego, that even in the presence of the most powerful acarya the planet has ever seen, some personalities still felt amply qualified to initiate their own disciples right under Srila Prabhupada's nose! *(2)
It is apparent that in writing to these devotees, telling them they could take disciples if they just held on a little longer, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to keep them in devotional service. In so doing there was at least the possibility that, in time, their ambitious mentalities might become purified:
Humble devotees who diligently performed their service in selfless sacrifice to their spiritual master would never have received a letter describing their glowing future as diksa gurus. Why would Srila Prabhupada only seriously promise diksa guruship to those who were most ambitious, and hence least qualified?
As far as statements to the effect that they would be free to initiate after his departure, that is true. Just as in England one is free to drive a car once he is 17 years old. However, we must not forget those two little provisos. First, one must be qualified to drive, and second one must be authorised by the driving license authority. The reader may draw his own parallels.
Another letter which is quoted to support the M.A.S.S. states:
"By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krishna Consciousness population." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Kirtanananda, 12/1/69)
Does the above statement validate the termination of the final order on initiation?
Since this is an attempt to terminate the ritvik system through the use of personal letters, we shall invoke here Srila Prabhupada's "law of disciplic succession". The first part of the "law" states that a disciple must not act as initiating acarya in his own guru's physical presence. Since this was the "law", clearly the above letter could not be referring to Srila Prabhupada's disciples initiating on their own behalf: Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. We can therefore only conclude that he was already contemplating some sort of "officiating" initiation system as early as 1969. By 1975, Srila Prabhupada had indeed "empowered", or authorised, devotees such as Kirtanananda to chant on beads and conduct initiations on his behalf. The above letter appears then to be predicting the future use of representatives for the purpose of initiation. Later he called these representatives "ritviks", and formalised their function in the July 9th order. Again, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was actually authorising Kirtanananda to act as a sampradaya initiating acarya as long as he passed a few exams.
"Anyone following the order of Lord Caitanya under the guidance of His bona fide representative can become a spiritual master, and I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Madhusudana, 2/11/67)
Using the quote above, it has been argued that since Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence, he must have been referring to diksa, since they were already siksa gurus. However Srila Prabhupada may simply have been reiterating his general encouragement for all his disciples to become good siksa spiritual masters, and that they should continue becoming good siksa spiritual masters also in his absence. There is definitely no mention in the above quote of his disciples initiating or accepting their own disciples. The term "bona fide spiritual master to spread Krishna Consciousness throughout the whole world" is equally applicable to a siksa guru.
Even if such letters as these did allude to some other type of guru system, they still could not be used to modify the final July 9th order since these instructions were not repeated to the rest of the Movement. The letters in question were not even published until 1986. It is occasionally alleged that some of these personal letters were leaked out to other members of the Society. This may or may not have been the case, but the important point to note is that the mechanics of such distribution appears never to have been set up or personally approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have seen no evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever ordered his private correspondence to be distributed to all and sundry. He once casually suggested his letters could be published "if there was time", but he never intimated that without these documents no one would know how to properly operate the M.A.S.S. on his departure.
To form a case regarding what should have been done in 1977, one can only use evidence that was readily available in an authorised form at that time. If such letters really held the key to how he planned initiations to be run for up to ten thousand years, surely Srila Prabhupada would have made their publication, and mass distribution, a matter of utmost urgency. There was, after all, the reasonable possibility that not all his leaders had read his private correspondence, and as a result gained a clear understanding of precisely how initiations were to run after his departure. We know this to be more than a possibility since the entire GBC still had no idea what Srila Prabhupada was planning as late on as May 28th, 1977. (please see May 28th conversation in Appendices)
In light of the above, any attempt to modify the July 9th order on the basis of these handful of letters can only be deemed recklessly inappropriate. Had such letters been vital appendices to his final order then Srila Prabhupada would certainly have made that clear in the order itself or in some accompanying document.
In the end, the only position granted to anyone as far as initiations were concerned, was as representatives of the acarya, ritviks.
Finally we shall look at category 3):
There are various statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures which have been extracted to justify the disbanding of the ritvik system. We shall now examine this evidence.
In Srila Prabhupada's books, all we find are the qualifications of a diksa guru stated in general terms. There is no specific mention of his own disciples continuing to go on to become diksa gurus. Rather, the quotes merely reiterate the point that one must be highly qualified and authorised before even attempting to become diksa guru:
"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorised spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master." (S.B. 2.9.43, purport)
The above injunction hardly gives carte blanche for anyone to initiate just because their guru has left the planet. The concept of the guru leaving the planet is not even mentioned here. Only the idea that they must be authorised and have been strictly obedient. We also know that they must have first attained the platform of maha-bhagavata.
Some devotees point to the section in Easy Journey to Other Planets (p.32) dealing with "monitor gurus" as evidence supporting the M.A.S.S., and the resultant dismantling of the ritvik system. However, this clever classroom analogy is clearly defining the position of siksa, not diksa, gurus. In this passage the monitor acts on behalf of the teacher. He is not a teacher himself. He may become qualified as a teacher, but that is a process, and is not described as automatic on the departure of the teacher (who obviously corresponds to the diksa guru). A monitor guru can only have, by definition, siksa disciples; and a limited number at that. Once such a monitor has become qualified, i.e. attained the platform of maha-bhagavata, and then been authorised by his predecessor acarya , there is no sense in calling him a monitor any longer; he will be a teacher in his own right. Once he is a teacher in his own right, he may accept unlimited disciples. So the monitor is the siksa guru, the teacher is the diksa guru, and by strictly following the diksa guru, the siksa guru may gradually rise to the platform necessary before diksa authorisation can theoretically take place. Furthermore, a monitor merely assists the teacher whilst the teacher is present. This again is at variance with the "law" of disciplic succession used to support the M.A.S.S. system, were the monitors actually diksa gurus. In other words, a monitor is not an entity that comes into being to replace or succeed the teacher, but exists to run in parallel or alongside him.
Certainly the monitor system in no way supports the GBC's a) and b) assumptions: that the ritvik system was meant to stop at Srila Prabhupada's departure, and that the ritviks could then automatically become diksa gurus.
There are other occasions, outside of Srila Prabhupada's personal letters, which are quoted as giving authorisation for his disciples to become diksa gurus:
"Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth. My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge." (Srila Prabhupada Arrival Lecture, 18/5/72, Los Angeles)
"At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master . Every one of you should be spiritual master next." (Srila Prabhupada Vyasa-Puja address, 5/9/69, Hamburg)
The first quote clearly mentions that Srila Prabhupada's disciples are already the twelfth - "you are the twelfth". Thus this is not some authorisation for them to become diksa gurus in the future, but merely a statement that they are already carrying on the message of the parampara. The second quote is in a similar vein. It undoubtedly mentions that his disciples are next in line. But as the first quote states, that succession had already taken place by dint of the disciples vigorous preaching. Either way, there is no clear explicit order to take disciples, but simply to preach. Just because he was asking his disciples to become spiritual masters next, does not mean he wanted them to become initiating spiritual masters next. To insist that he did mean this is pure speculation. In fact, we know it is wrong since the final order made it clear that his disciples were only to act as representatives of the acarya, and not in any type of initiating or diksa capacity.
To argue that such statements must override the final order is insupportable, and easily counteracted by quoting other statements made by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in relation to what would happen after his departure, which completely contradict the proposition being made:
Reporter: What will happen to the movement in the United States when you when you die?
Srila Prabhupada: I will never die
Devotees: Jaya! Haribol! (laughter)
Srila Prabhupada: I will live from my books and you will utilise.
(Srila Prabhupada Press Conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)
Here was a clear opportunity for Srila Prabhupada to lay out his plans for the M.A.S.S. were that to be his intention. But instead of saying his disciples will succeed him as diksa gurus he says he shall never die and his books will do the necessary. From the above exchange it can be understood Srila Prabhupada is a living spiritual master who continues to impart transcendental knowledge (the main constituent of diksa) through his books; and that this will continue for as long as ISKCON exists. The role of his disciples being to facilitate the process.
"Don't become premature acarya. First of all follow the orders of acarya, and you become mature. Then it is better to become acarya. Because we are interested in preparing acarya, but the etiquette is at least for the period the guru is present, one should not become acarya. Even if he is complete he should not, because the etiquette is, if somebody comes for becoming initiated, it is the duty of such person to bring that prospective candidate to his acarya." (Srila Prabhupada C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)
The quote above does mention the principle of his disciples going on to become acarya. However the whole emphasis is that they should not do it now. In fact Srila Prabhupada only seems to mention the principle of his disciples becoming acarya, if he is cautioning them not to do it in his presence. This is in a similar vein to the personal letters mentioned above. This is clearly not a specific order for any particular individuals to take their own disciples, but rather a general statement of principle. As will be seen later, on the "Appointment tape", which is used in GII as principle evidence for the M.A.S.S. system, Srila Prabhupada still had not given the diksa guru order even as late as May, 1977 ("On my order, [...] But by my order, [...] When I order"). And this situation remained unchanged until his departure. Furthermore, later on in the same lecture, he encourages his disciples to channel these acarya ambitions in the following manner:
"And to become acarya is not very difficult. [...] amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa, yare dekha tare kaha Krishna-upadesa: "By following My order, you become guru." [...] Then, in future... suppose you have got now ten thousand. We shall expand to hundred thousand. That is required. Then hundred thousand to million; and million to ten million." (Srila Prabhupada C.c. Lecture, 6/4/75, Mayapur)
It has already been demonstrated that Lord Caitanya's instruction was for everyone to preach vigorously, make lots of Krishna conscious followers, but not to take disciples. This point is reinforced where Srila Prabhupada encourages his disciples to make many more devotees. It is significant that Srila Prabhupada states "suppose you have got now ten thousand..." (i.e. in Srila Prabhupada's presence). From this it is clear he is talking about Krishna conscious followers, not "disciples of his disciples", since the main point of the lecture was that they should not initiate in his presence. The implication being then, that just as at that time there may have been around ten thousand followers of Krishna Consciousness, so in the future millions more would be added. The ritvik system was to ensure that when these followers became suitably qualified for initiation, they could receive diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just as they could when he gave the above lecture.
In Conclusion:
There is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada issuing specific orders for his disciples to become diksa gurus, thus setting up an alternative to the ritvik system.
What we do have is a handful of (at the time) unpublished personal letters, sent only to individuals desirous of becoming diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's presence, sometimes having only recently joined the Movement. In such cases they are told to wait until Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet before they fulfil their ambitions. The very fact that they were unpublished at the time of the July 9th letter means that they were not intended to have any direct bearing on the future of initiation within ISKCON.
Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada's books and conversations only contain instructions for his disciples to be siksa gurus. Though the general principle of a disciple becoming a diksa guru is mentioned, Srila Prabhupada does not specifically order his disciples to initiate and take their own disciples.
The above then does not represent grounds for supplanting the explicit instruction of July 9th, an order that was distributed to the whole Movement as a specific policy document. There is clearly no equivalent document outlining the M.A.S.S.
Thus the idea that Srila Prabhupada had taught far and wide that all his disciples should become diksa gurus, immediately on his departure, shortly after or indeed ever, is nothing but a myth.
It is commonly stated that Srila Prabhupada did not need to spell out in the final July 9th letter what was to be done about future initiations, since he had already explained again and again in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations precisely what he wanted to happen. Sadly this assertion, apart from being totally false, merely raises further absurdities:
If Srila Prabhupada's previous teachings on how he wanted to continue initiations in his absence were really so crystalline clear that he saw no need to issue a specific directive on the matter; then why did the GBC send a special delegation to his bedside in the first place? A delegation whose principal objective it was to find out what was to be done about initiations "particularly" at that time when he was no longer with them! (Please see "Appt. tape"). Srila Prabhupada was in ill health, about to leave his body, and here we have his most senior men asking him elementary questions which he had supposedly already answered scores of times over the preceding decade.
If Srila Prabhupada had clearly spelled out the M.A.S.S. system, why did he leave so little instruction on how to set it up that shortly after his departure his most senior men felt compelled to question Sridhar Maharaja (of the Gaudiya Math) on how to operate it?
If it really was so clear to everyone precisely how Srila Prabhupada wanted everyone to become diksa guru, then why did the GBC set up the zonal acarya system where diksa guruship was strictly limited, and allow it to run for an entire decade?
Although we have been somewhat critical of the GBC's paper GII, there is one passage in it relating to this issue which we feel totally encapsulates the mood that will re-unite Srila Prabhupada's family:
"A disciple's only duty is to worship and serve his spiritual master. His mind should not be agitated over how he may become guru. A devotee who sincerely wants to make spiritual advancement should try to become a disciple, not a spiritual master." (GII, p. 25, GBC 1995, emphasis added)
We could not agree more.
.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
*(1) - This interpretation is advocated in Ajamila dasa's paper "Regular or Ritvik", published in the GBC's ISKCON Journal 1990.
*(2) - We would like to point out that most of the devotees mentioned above have since recognised their faults, and thus we apologise for any offence or embarrassment we may have caused. Perhaps they may appreciate the fact that personal letters sent by Srila Prabhupada, to specifically address their individual anarthas are currently being used to support the M.A.S.S. within ISKCON.
8) "Maybe there is some sastric principle in Srila Prabhupada's books that forbids the granting of diksa when the guru is not on the same planet as the disciple?"
There is no such statement in Srila Prabhupada's books, and since Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, such a restriction simply can not exist in our philosophy.
The use of a ritvik system after Srila Prabhupada's departure would actually be in line with Srila Prabhupada's many instructions stating the immateriality of physical association in the guru-disciple relationship (please see Appendices). After reading these quotes one can see how some members of the GBC have presented a somewhat different picture over the years:
"Srila Prabhupada has taught us that the disciplic succession is a living affair [...] The law of disciplic succession is that one approaches a living spiritual master - living in the sense of being physically present." (Sivarama Swami ISKCON Journal, p.31, GBC 1990)
It is hard to reconcile the above assertion with statements such as:
"Physical presence is not important." (Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 6/10/77, Vrindavan)
or
"Physical presence is immaterial." (Srila Prabhupada Letter, 19/1/67)
Of course, we must have a guru who is external, since in the conditioned stage pure reliance on the Supersoul is not possible, but nowhere does Srila Prabhupada teach that this physical guru must also be physically present:
"Therefore one must take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence." (C.c. Antya, concluding words)
Srila Prabhupada practically demonstrated this principle by initiating large numbers of his disciples without ever meeting them physically at all. This fact in itself proves that diksa can be obtained without any physical involvement from the guru. There is nothing in sastra, or from Srila Prabhupada, linking diksa with physical presence. Therefore, the continuation of the ritvik system is perfectly consistent with both sastra and the example our acarya set whilst he was physically present.
In one of the main sections on diksa in Srila Prabhupada's books, it is stated that the only requirement for receiving it is the agreement of the guru. This agreement was totally delegated to the ritviks:
"So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right. That will depend on discretion." (Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 7/7/77, Vrindavan)
Srila Prabhupada instructs us that:
"As far as the time of diksa (initiation) is concerned, everything depends on the position of the guru.[...] If the sad-guru, the bona fide spiritual master agrees, one can be initiated immediately, without waiting for a suitable time or place." (C.c. Madhya, 24.331, purport)
It is significant to note that there is no stipulation that the diksa guru and the prospective disciple must have physical contact. Or that the diksa guru has to be physically present to give his agreement (it is also interesting that Srila Prabhupada equates the term sad-guru with the term diksa guru). Srila Prabhupada has stated many times that the requirement for being initiated is simply to abide by the rules and regulations he had taught over and over again:
"This is the process of initiation. The disciple must admit that he will no longer commit sinful activity [...] He promises to execute the order of the spiritual master. Then, the spiritual master takes care of him and elevates him to spiritual emancipation." (C.c. Madhya, 24.256, purport)
Devotee: How important is formal initiation?
Srila Prabhupada: Formal initiation means to accept officially to abide by the orders of Krishna and his representative. That is formal initiation.
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 22/2/73, Auckland)
Srila Prabhupada: Who is my disciple? First of all let him follow strictly the disciplined rules.
Disciple: As long as one is following, then he is...
Srila Prabhupada: Then he is all right.
(Srila Prabhupada Morning walk, 13/6/76, Detroit)
"...unless there is discipline, there is no question of disciple. Disciple means one who follows the discipline." (Srila Prabhupada Morning walk, 8/3/76, Mayapur)
Does the definition of the word diksa imply a connection with the guru being physically present on the planet?
" Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)
There is nothing in this definition of diksa that in any way implies that the guru needs to be on the same planet as the disciple in order for it to work properly. Conversely, Srila Prabhupada's instructions and personal example prove categorically that the elements, which constitute diksa, can be utilised without the need for the guru's physical involvement:
"Reception of spiritual knowledge is never checked by any material condition." (S.B. 7.7.1, purport)
"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent." (S.B. 2.9.8, purport)
Thus, all the elements of diksa -, transcendental knowledge, the receiving of the mantra etc., can be effectively delivered without the guru's physical presence.
In summary, it can be shown conclusively that there is no sastric principle mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books that precludes the granting of diksa once the guru leaves the earth planet. Although historical precedent is sometime cited as an objection, historical precedent is not a sastric principal. Our philosophy is based on following sastric injunctions not historical tradition. This is the very thing that distinguishes ISKCON from virtually every other Gaudiya Vaisnava group. There are many influential smarta brahmanas in India who strongly criticise the lack of adherence to tradition exhibited by Srila Prabhupada.
Sastric statements, along with the practical example of Srila Prabhupada himself, fully support the principle that diksa is not dependent in any way on the guru's physical presence.
9) "Since this instruction would lead to the setting up of a system that is unprecedented, and has no historical basis, it should be rejected.
This can not be a reason to reject the July 9th order since Srila Prabhupada set many precedents - reducing the number of required rounds of japa from sixty-four to sixteen, performing marriages, allowing women to live in the temples, giving gayatri mantra by tape, etc. Indeed, it is a distinguishing feature of acaryas in our line that, practically without exception, they set their own historical precedents. As acaryas, it is their prerogative to do this; albeit in accordance with sastric principles. As already stated, the use of ritviks without the guru's physical presence on the planet does not violate any sastric principle. Srila Prabhupada's books contain all essential sastric principles, and since there is no mention in his books of the guru needing to be on the planet at the time of initiation, it can not be a principle. Thus the historical precedent of continuing to use ritviks after his departure can only be a change in detail, not in principle.
Srila Prabhupada did many things, particularly connected with initiation, which were unprecedented, yet we do not reject them (please see box ). It may be argued that he explained some of these changes in his books. This is true, but there were many he did not explain in his books. Besides, there was no need to give detailed explanations of the ritvik system in his books since he had practically demonstrated prototypes of it for many years, with the final touches of how it was to continue fully elucidated in the July 9th order. Srila Prabhupada never taught us to just blindly follow tradition:
"Our only tradition is how to satisfy Visnu." (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 30/7/73, London)
"No. Tradition, religion, they are all material. They are also all designations." (Srila Prabhupada Room conversation, 13/3/75, Teheran)
Whether precisely the same orders we received from Srila Prabhupada were ever issued by a previous acarya is utterly irrelevant. Our only duty is to follow the orders given to us by our own acarya.
If a system of initiation can be rejected solely on the grounds that it has no exact historical precedent, then we would certainly be forced to reject the current guru system within ISKCON by the same token.
Never before has a plethora of diksa gurus been subordinate to a committee, which could suspend or terminate their initiating activities. No previous initiating acarya in our line has ever been voted into office with a two-thirds majority vote, nor subsequently fallen prey to gross sinful activity and as a consequence been hastily withdrawn from the "disciplic succession". We reject such irregular practices, not on the grounds of historical precedent, but because they clash violently with many of the basic tenets of Vaisnava philosophy found in Srila Prabhupada's books, and are in blatant violation of Srila Prabhupada's final order.
The fact that the identical system to ritvik is not directly mentioned in sastra, or ancient Vedic texts, is also not pertinent. According to some Vedic rules, sudras and women should not even receive brahmana initiation at all:
" Diksa cannot be offered to a sudra [...] This initiation is offered not according to Vedic rules, because it is very difficult to find out a qualified brahmana." (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 29/3/71, Bombay)
Thus, strictly speaking, Srila Prabhupada should not have initiated any of his western disciples since they were all born lower than the lowest Vedic caste. Srila Prabhupada was able to over-rule such Vedic laws through the invocation of higher order sastric injunctions. He sometimes exercised these injunctions in ways that had never been applied before:
"As Hari is not subject to the criticism of mundane rules and regulations, the spiritual master empowered by Him is also not subjected." (C.c. Madhya, 10.136, text and purport)
"Therefore the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Isvara Puri is not subjected to any Vedic rules and regulations" (C.c. Madhya, 10.137)
The important point is that although the ritvik system may be totally unique, (at least as far as we know), it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he was able to apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time, place and circumstance.
Perhaps we have yet to fully grasp just how unique Srila Prabhupada is. There has never been a world acarya before. No previous acarya has ever stated that his books would be the law books for ten thousand years. Here there has never been anything like ISKCON before. Why should we be so surprised that such an unprecedented personality might decide to set a seemingly unusual initiation system?
10) "Since there is no specific mention of the ritvik system prior to July 9th, 1977, it could not possibly have been intended to continue past Srila Prabhupada's disappearance."
This objection rests on the premise that Srila Prabhupada would never "spring" anything new on the Movement. Taken literally, this objection is absurd, for it means that any order from the guru can be rejected if it is new, or even just a bit different from ones issued previously. It infers that in his final months Srila Prabhupada should not have delivered far-reaching instructions regarding his Society, unless everyone was already familiar with them.
As we have explained, the ritvik system was not "new" anyway. Prior to the July 9th letter, the experience of diksa initiation in the Movement would have predominantly been through the use of representatives. Srila Prabhupada was the diksa guru in ISKCON, and most initiation ceremonies, particularly in the later years, were performed by a Temple President or some other representative or priest.
The most notable difference after July 9th, 1977 was that the acceptance of new disciples would now be done by representatives without recourse to Srila Prabhupada. The letter, which was sent out to new initiates, would no longer be signed by Srila Prabhupada, and the selection of all the initiates" names would be done by the ritviks. Also the procedure was now linked with the relatively unfamiliar word -
"ritvik".
To get connected to the bona fide acarya
Comments