by Ajamila dasa

Judges Rule Ritviks Lose Debate

Who are the judges anyway? Who will judge what Srila Prabhupada intended for ISKCON post-samadhi initiations? The judges with whom both debaters ‘agree’ are guru, sadhu, and sastra! And since both arguments are mutually exclusive only one can be right. So who is wrong?

Our judges’ position of ultimate authority is confirmed by our pre-eminent siksa-guru Srila Prabhupada in Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352 purport as follows:

"Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru- vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual centre is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the centre for all."

So on that basis our supreme judges gave either their ‘support’ or ‘falsification’ of both post-samadhi initiation arguments, which are as follows:

1. (NPD) is a ‘new posthumous diksa’ system argued by the ritvik people, a completely new idea which would entail initiates supposedly becoming direct diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada in his physical absence by way of an unauthorised ritvik ceremony.

2. (TRG) is the ‘traditional regular guru’ system being practised somewhat successfully by eighty or so gurus in ISKCON, defined in sastra as an unbroken Vaisnava tradition or the law of disciplic succession, a timeless law which authorises a sufficiently qualified disciple to accept his own disciples without restriction after his guru’s physical departure.

Here are the results of the conclusive test conducted by our esteemed judges Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra:

Click here to view evidence chart.

The Judges scored:

NPD zero out of 100
TRG 100 out of 100

Evidence 1

SB 7.7.30-31 purport; Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May 1972; BG 4-34; Srila Prabhupada 2 December ‘75; (Srila Prabhupada 2 Nov ‘67; Srila Prabhupada 25 Jan ‘69; Srila Prabhupada Mayapura 1976; Srila Prabhupada 2 Dec ‘75; Srila Prabhupada 18 July ‘71; Srila Prabhupada 28 May ‘77; Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; and so on.

Evidence 2

Satoh vriteh: Rupa Goswami instructs in Updesamrita that we MUST follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas, and therefore everyone must take initiation from a living diksa-guru. This evidence from our topmost SADHU Rupa Goswami is irrefutable proof from our judge ‘sadhu’.

Bhakti Ratnakara 14.190-191; SB 7.7.30-31 purport; C.C. Antya 2.96; Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.74-75; Los Angeles lecture, 18 May 1972; BG 4-34; SP 2 December ‘75; SP lect 2 Nov ‘67; SP lect 25 Jan ‘69; Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.21p; SP Mayapura 1976; SPL to Hamsadutta, 3rd December, 1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 12th January, 1968; SPL to Kirtanananda, 25th January, 1969; SP lect 2 Dec ‘75; SP 18 July ‘71; SP London, 22nd August, 1973; SP Lilamrta VI, page 167; SP letter to Tusta Krishna, Dec. 2, '75; SP 28 lect May ‘77; Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.7 purport; SP Conv. July 18, 1971; SP New York, 26 April, 1968; SP lect, August 14th 1966; and there is much more.

Evidence 3

Teachings of Lord Caitanya: Historical evidence or tradition is called aitihya. The historical evidence we find in sastra and in own line of disciplic succession is that every acarya in our line took diksa from a living guru. Diksa has never been taken posthumously in our line. This evidence from histories given in sastra is a rock solid example that cannot be broken even by Srila Prabhupada or any other guru and is sufficient evidence in itself to prove the TRG case.

Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya 20.352

Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.39 sruti-smriti- puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhis vina... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti then it is simply a disturbance in society.

The nature of the evidence found in the ‘unbroken Vaisnava tradition’ of ‘taking diksa from a living guru’ is equal in its unchangeableness to the principle that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The proof of this statement is the example of Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya Who both needlessly took diksa from a living guru to teach us by example. This example from sastra is irrefutable.

Thus our three judges unanimously rejected NPD and approved TRG.

Unfortunately the ritvik people have clearly demonstrated that they will reject ANY decision that disagrees with their fixated NPD idea, even if their idea places Srila Prabhupada in a bogus position of breaking the law of disciplic succession, and even if it means undermining the authority of our esteemed judges guru (Srila Prabhupada), sadhu (Rupa Goswami etc.), and sastra (SB, BG, C.C. and so on). Thus the Ritviks’ position is indefensible and most inauspicious.

Adridharan’s defence of his NPD idea in this debate contains over 100 deviations. Here I’ll present a few of the most ostentatious:

1. Head in the sand philosophy.

I said: "You argue that Srila Prabhupada was so powerful as a guru, sadhu, and Founder Acarya that he could change a major principle of Vedic philosophy that was firmly upheld even by Lord Krishna Himself!"

Adri said: "We have never argued this. We challenge you to show where we have."

Adri bravely denies that he never argued Srila Prabhupada wanted to change a major principle like the law of disciplic succession, but if the ‘result’ of his NPD idea clearly breaks that law then how can he irresponsibly disown the illegitimate consequences? This is head in the sand philosophy.

Unfortunately the limit of this summary was restricted to 1,000 words and so the expanded explanations of the following have been withheld.

2. A rebounding absurdity
3. Illegitimately hijacking the onus of proof.
4. Scepticism for Vaisnava tradition's own adjudication process
5. Legalistically ‘monopolising’ acceptable evidence
6. Confusion about parameters of legitimate/relevant evidence
7. Dodging the Vaisnava rationale of guru, sadhu, and sastra
8. Ritvikism is infested with guru and Vaisnava aparadha
9. Dishonestly arguing for argument’s sake
10. Chewing the chewed
11. Absurdity upon absurdity
12. A self-refuting argument
13. Agreeing out of confusion
14. Foolish logic
15. Ritvikism is mayavada

The list goes on and up past 100 such errors.

No matter how many mistakes the GBC has made, is making or makes in the future; no matter how many gurus have fallen down, are falling now or will fall in the future; no matter what other issues may come to pass, none of it gives actual meaning to, nor establishes as a viable true option a concocted posthumous ritvik initiation system that is rejected by Vaisnavism’s own adjudication process of guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Consume ritvikism at your own peril!

Your servant,

Ajamila Dasa Adhikari