The Timeless Order: Part 9
V. Pai
THE TIMELESS ORDER
A Chronological Examination of the Diksa Issue
This material comes from the Fun With Ritviks Site
(http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vivek/fwr/) and/or the Post-Samadhi Ritvik
Theory Site (http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vivek/psrt/) . For more
information, or to get a free e-mail subscription to the Fun With
Ritviks Newsletter, please contact vi...@cs.rice.edu. The complete
version of this paper (including appendices) is available at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vivek/fwr/final.html
----------------------------------
Analyzing the ritvig-vaadis (part 2)
There is other evidence that the ritvig-vaadis gloss over statements
that contradict them, especially when those statements contradict
their very assertions. With regard to the importance of the word
"henceforward", the ritvig-vaadis state:
On the other 86 occasions that we find on Folio where Srila
Prabhupada has used the word 'henceforward', nobody raised even the
possibility that the word could mean anything other than 'from now
onwards'.
That statement would suggest that the ritvig-vaadis had looked up all
86 other references and analyzed them. However, it appears that such
is not the case, especially since the GBC paper "Disciple of my
disciple" shows cases where Srila Prabhupada used the word
"henceforward" in a very limited sense. Even the standard definition
of the word does not state the "until eternity" belief the ritviks
propose, and this is once again addressed in "Disciple of my Disciple"
- we omit that discussion here since we expect that interested readers
can obtain that entire paper as well. (available at the FWR site,
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vivek/fwr)
The ritvig-vaadis frequently quote from Srila Prabhupada's earlier
statements to try to support their argument, but they try to
vehemently deny the relevance of the May 28th conversation:
Suffice to say it was not referred to in the July 9th letter, nor
did Srila Prabhupada demand that a copy of the taped conversation be
sent out with the final order. From this we can deduce, with
absolute confidence, that it cannot contain a scrap of modifying
information vital to the understanding of the final order.
The fact that the May 28th conversation was taped and its summary was
entered into the GBC minutes book should suggest that it was not just
a casual conversation. We know that it was not just done on a whim,
yet the the ritvig-vaadis deny that it contains even a scrap of vital
information. Srila Prabhupada did not give every single order to every
single disciple - he often propagated information from the top down,
and he relied on senior disciples to instruct junior disciples. No
organization requires that every single person receive direct
communication with the leader on every single issue. So, when Srila
Prabhupada had a significant conversation with those who would be
carrying out his wishes, on what authority do the ritvig-vaadis deny
that it has any vital information?
The idea that the ritvig-vaadis can deduce what Srila Prabhupada was
thinking "with absolute confidence" is patently offensive, and this
brings us to our next point - the ritvig-vaadis try to implicitly
claim that they alone represent Srila Prabhupada's true followers, and
that all the rest are deluded. In the process, they confuse themselves
with Srila Prabhupada, and they "explain" things which they could not
possibly know:
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:
On what basis can the ritvig-vaadis make the claims starting with "it
is apparent"? The only bases for doing so would be direct confirmation
from Srila Prabhupada (which they do not present), or if they believed
themselves capable of speaking for Srila Prabhupada. Given that fact
that many of them never even met Srila Prabhupada, and many came to
the movement after Srila Prabhupada's departure, it is very arrogant
for them to suggest that they know Srila Prabhupada better than some
of Srila Prabhupada's seniormost disciples (the GBC) ever did.
The ritvig-vaadis take it upon themselves to speak for Srila
Prabhupada on points which he never discussed. For example, one
obvious question raised by the post-samadhi ritvik theory is its
direct comparison to Christianity, and the fact that Christianity has
had so many problems. The ritvig-vaadis answer this objection in the
following manner:
(first they propose an allegation, then answer it)
"What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like Christianity!"
We are not proposing the ritvik system, Srila Prabhupada is - in the
final order. Thus even if it is like Christianity, we still have to
follow it, since it is the order of the guru.
In effect, the ritvig-vaadis are trying to suggest that Srila
Prabhupada endorses a Christian-style initiation in ISKCON, even
though Srila Prabhupada never made a statement to that effect.
Moreover, given the fact that the post-samadhi ritvik theory is just a
theory, it's once again very arrogant for the ritvig-vaadis to state
that Srila Prabhupada is the one proposing it. It is their
interpretation that's being argued, so when they say that Srila
Prabhupada is the one doing the proposing, they are clearly confusing
themselves with Srila Prabhupada. In another one of their responses,
they once again promote the idea that what they present is
unequivocally the same as what Srila Prabhupada wants:
Why not allow Srila Prabhupada to be what he wants to be? He is
certainly our siksa guru, but as he clearly indicated on July 9th,
he was also to be our diksa guru.
How can they say with absolute certainty what Srila Prabhupada wants,
unless they believe that they are perfect disciples? However, their
own statements suggest that they cannot do a proper job of
representing Srila Prabhupada in all regards. Consider the issue of
qualification, a topic discussed by the ritvig-vaadis. Once again,
they try to judge Srila Prabhupada's seniormost disciples. In doing
so, they do not even do a decent job of representing Srila Prabhupada,
preferring instead to selectively quote him as well. Look at what they
say about how Srila Prabhupada acted and what decisions he made:
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 guruship to those who were
most ambitious, and hence least qualified?
While it might seem that the ritvig-vaadis appreciate humble devotees,
they actually argue quite the opposite. For example, consider the
following quote:
Srila Prabhupada had not authorised any such gurus, nor had he
stated that any of his disciples were qualified to initiate. Rather,
just prior to July 9th, he agreed that they were still 'conditioned
souls', and that vigilance was essential lest persons pose
themselves as guru.
To the best of our knowledge, it is in reference to a conversation
that occurred on April 22 (not just prior to July 9th), and the
following is the relevant excerpt from that conversation:
Tamala Krsna: "Well, I have studied myself and all of your
disciples, and it's a clear fact that we are all conditioned souls,
so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible."
Srila Prabhupada: "Hmm!"
Tamala Krsna: "...but not now."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who
is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I am
waiting for that. You become, all, acarya. I retire completely. But
the training must be complete."
(Room Conversation - 22 April, 1977, Bombay)
So, Tamal Krishna Goswami calls himself a conditioned soul, and the
ritvig-vaadis use Srila Prabhupada's claimed "agreement" as a sign
that he's unfit to be a diksa guru. Note that Tamal Krishna Goswami
volunteered the assessment, rather than being asked by Srila
Prabhupada, and note the answer - Tamal Krishna Goswami called himself
a conditioned soul. Consider the following - if Tamal Krishna Goswami
had declared that he's liberated, what would the ritvig-vaadis have
said? Would they have accepted that statement? We're left to conclude
that the ritvig-vaadis take a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
approach to judging Srila Prabhupada's senior disciples. Furthermore,
they try to pretend that they speak for Srila Prabhupada. However,
consider what Srila Prabhupada may have been thinking upon hearing
that assessment:
"Liberated soul never says that 'I am liberated.' As soon as he says
'liberated' he's rascal. A liberated soul will never say that 'I am
liberated.' Caitanya Mahaprabhu, He is God, He said: guru more
murkha dekhi' karila sAsana. 'My Guru Maharaj saw me a fool number
one and he has chastised Me.' He's God. This is the example. If one
remains always a servant everlastingly of guru, then he's liberated.
And as soon as he thinks that he is liberated, he's a rascal. That
is the teaching of Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Conversation, 16 August, 1976, Bombay)
In other words, had Tamal Krishna Goswami said that he was liberated,
Srila Prabhupada would have thought poorly of him. However, when Tamal
Krishna Goswami tells Srila Prabhupada that he's conditioned, the fact
that Srila Prabhupada does not contradict him does not imply agreement
with the idea that Tamal Krishna Goswami is unfit to be a diksa guru.
In fact, Srila Prabhupada may have thought to himself that Tamal
Krishna Goswami is fit because of his humility. However, we do not
pretend that we can speak for Srila Prabhupada. What does seem
implausible, however, is that Srila Prabhupada would publically
declare one of his disciples to be a liberated soul, but it seems that
only this type of declaration would have pacified the ritvig-vaadis.
But is this type of declaration feasible? Consider the following quote
from Srila Prabhupada:
"Our system, parampara system, is that, for example, I am just a
disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I don't say that I am
liberated. I am conditioned. But because I am following the
instruction of Bhaktisiddhanta, I'm liberated. This is the
distinction between conditioned and liberated. When one is under the
direction of a liberated person."
(Morning walk, 4 January, 1977, Bombay)
Srila Prabhupada makes it quite clear that none of his disciples
should consider themselves liberated, because even Srila Prabhupada
calls himself conditioned. So, when Srila Prabhupada does not
contradict Tamal Krishna Goswami, what should we make of it? The
ritvig-vaadis seem to suggest that they know Srila Prabhupada so well
that he believed that his disciples were unfit to be diksa gurus.
Judging from what Srila Prabhupada said on the topic of conditioned
and liberated souls, we do not see how the ritvig-vaadis can be so
sure of their judgment. In fact, it seems outright arrogant and
deceptive to pass such a judgment without even looking at all the
things Srila Prabhupada said on the topic.