Podcast transcription:
On and For the Record
A multi-part series
Analysis of Eleven Naked Emperors
(Review of Chapter Fifteen)
Fatal Flaws in the Rittvik Shtick
By Kailäsa Candra däsa
Bhakta Ernest: The following discussion was held on Sunday, July 20th between Kailäsa Candra däsa and two other members in good standing of The Vaishnava Foundation, namely, Gokulänanda and Sanätana.
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
KCD: This month, we finish our analysis of Henry Doktorski’s most important work, entitled Eleven Naked Emperors. It is the last chapter of that book which we analyze, review, and critique, although it is not the final chapter in that work. This was mentioned at the very beginning of the series analysis last year. We are thus reviewing the penultimate chapter, Chapter 15, which goes by the title: “The Rittvik Question.”
We shall refer to rittvik movements, which are highly centrifugal, nevertheless as if they are one. We shall refer to it either as Rittvik or the post-samädhi rittvik-in-absentia concoction.
Chapter Fifteen’s review by Doktorski is neither completely favorable nor completely unfavorable to the Rittvik proposal, which, most unfortunately, is believed in and followed by thousands of devotees at this time. However, please note, WE are completely unfavorable to Rittvik, which you will clearly glean as this review proceeds. We find the following passage from Chapter 15 in its initial pages:
“Today, a growing number of Gauòéya Vaishnavas say that Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda wanted to continue the ISKCON disciplic succession not by successor dékñä gurus, but by ritvik deputies, and they claim to have evidence to support their position.” 1
Gokulänanda, particularly as it concerns evidence the wrong idea that Rittvik is what Prabhupäda wanted, what do you think about this passage?
GOK: I have found no solid or strong evidence that Rittvik is bona fide. I have also done my research on this topic, and I see no strong evidence that Prabhupäda wanted the rittvik method of initiation to continue after he left physical manifestation. I do not believe that these rittvik deputies of today have any çästric or real evidence to back their concoction.
KCD: Do you agree with Gokulänanda on this, Sanätana?
SAN: I do agree. Rittvik is a concoction. It has no basis in Vaiñëava paramparä whatsoever. You need a perfect master, a physical spiritual master, in order to be genuinely initiated into the line of disciplic succession. The guru must be a very perfect man, 2 and he must be physically manifest on Earth when he accepts a disciple and initiates him into his branch of the guru-paramparä. Rittvik destroys this truth and this system. It is an anti-Vedic, anti-Vaiñëava concoction.
GOK: We find the following quote from Chapter 15:
“’Those who have progressed to the stage of anartha-nivrtti may initiate others on behalf of the Sad-Guru, namely Srila Prabhupäda, with the clear understanding, both on their part and the part of the initiates, that Srila Prabhupäda is the actual preceptor and will continue to be so after the time of initiation, and with the clear understanding that they are factually older, more experienced disciples helping the inexperienced disciples of the common spiritual master.’ Karnämåta’s July, 1986 article was one of the first calls . . . to adopt what later became known as the Posthumous Ritvik System, or the Ritvik-In-Absentia theory.” 3
Was this the seed of what became Rittvik in late 1989?
KCD: It was already a developing seed, because one of the eleven pretenders, Rämesvara, had previously mentioned a similar idea when he briefly rejected uttama worship at Los Angeles at the beginning of the Eighties. However, Karnämåta was a major proponent of the Rittvik concoction, being one of four brähmins pushing it from Mississippi in 1989. This particular excerpt of his was from an article in the short-lived Vaishnava Journal of the mid-Eighties, which the “ISKCON” leaders soon shut down. By the time of the Mississippi proposal was published in their Vedic Village Review, the Rittvik seed was starting to sprout.
SAN: In a nutshell, what was that original proposal?
KCD: It was that there should be no worship of “ISKCON” gurus, and they should not be recognized as having advanced to the stage where they could be adored as exalted Vaiñëavas on the highest level. They should simply continue as rittviks, which they were previous to Prabhupäda’s have left the scene in November of 1977.
The first Rittvik proposal was that the remaining gurus in good standing should admit their statuses and convert back to rittviks. All previous initiations, beginning from December, 1977, were to be considered rittvik initiations. The proposal included the idea that only the G.B.C. could appoint any future rittviks to carry on initiations on behalf of Prabhupäda, who would then be recognized as the dékñä-guru of the movement.
GOK: We find the following passage in Chapter 15:
“Many disciples who suffered under the oppression of the ISKCON zonal-acharya system perceived continuing the disciplic succession by ritvik representatives, instead of by unqualified pretender-dékñä gurus, as an improvement. Certainly, establishing a system of ritvik representation after the passing of the Acharya was unprecedented in the history of Gauòéya-Vaishnavism, but Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda, they reasoned, was no ordinary spiritual master. If he wanted to authorize and establish such a novel means of continuing the disciplic succession, he had the power from Krishna, they say, to do so.” 4
There seems to be a hint of a weakness embedded in this initial Rittvik proposal by the brähmins of Mississippi. Is this so? And, if it is so, are there any other weaknesses in their proposal?
KCD: Affirmative on both counts. The Rittvik idea remains unprecedented in the history of not only Vaiñëavism, but all Vedic lines of teachings, all disciplic successions from time immemorial. Besides this, there are two other major weaknesses in that initial Rittvik idea promulgated in late 1989. Sanätana, can you figure out at least one of those?
SAN: Is it lack of verification from Prabhupäda?
KCD: That is another one. Nowhere do we find, in any of Prabhupäda’s purports, platform lectures, room conversations, morning walks, letters, or official documents, that he establishes this post-samädhi rittvik-in-absentia proposal. The actual system of Vedic and Vaiñëava initiation requires a physical spiritual master:
“Therefore, God is called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.” 5
Because Prabhupäda had thousands of disciples internationally, he utilized a form of the Vedic rittvik process, which is authorized when properly applied. He was physically present somewhere during these initiation ceremonies, which were conducted by rittviks on his behalf. The yajamäna, the disciple, was initiated by Prabhupäda, and the rittviks conducted the ceremony. He was physically present somewhere on Earth in order to take the saïchita-karma of the yajamäna, and that is required.
He was also present so that the disciple could contact him on the physical plane or write letters to him or be present when he gave a platform lecture, etc. It was not at all infrequent that he was also physically present at an initiation ceremony, but chose not conduct it himself while his rittviks did so on his behalf in his physical presence.
GOK: What is the third flaw in the initial Rittvik proposal made by the four brähmins in Mississippi?
KCD: Their proposal relied upon G.B.C. approval, which it never attained. The G.B.C. rejected post-samädhi rittvik-in-absentia in the Spring of 1990 during its Mayapur conclave. As such, the proposal lost all viability, because it tried to make rittviks special by way of having them appointed by the vitiated G.B.C. before they could function.
They tried to link their proposal to the original rittvik system, which acted in a bona fide way from 1970 until late 1977. Prabhupäda appointed all of the rittviks during that time frame, giving them his stamp of approval. In his physical absence, the initial Rittvik proposal replaced him with the G.B.C., but the G.B.C. did not acquiesce to this suggestion. Instead, the Commish condemned it and would also officially call it a dangerous deviation in 1990.
SAN: What about this argument, which was already mentioned in the excerpt from Chapter 15, that Prabhupäda was no ordinary spiritual master, so he could create a post-samädhi rittvik-in-absentia system?
KCD: There are two essential points to be made here. First, he did not so choose. This has already been mentioned. Where is the solid evidence that he wanted this system? There is none. It is all based upon inference and imagination. It is based upon weak evidence, far removed from proof of concept. It is based upon wishful thinking. It is based upon the belief that, even if there are no bona fide gurus, initiations must, somehow or other, go on despite that gaping flaw.
Secondly (and just as importantly), this fanciful idea that Prabhupäda was so special that he could contradict tradition and çästra at will is preposterous. He had no such authority to do that, and he did not do that. The guru, even when he is an uttama-adhikäré on the highest level of power, love, and realization, is still limited by the boundaries of established Vaiñëava tradition, çästra, and the established order.
The established order of a physically manifest spiritual master initiating his disciple to a connection with the Vaiñëava guru-paramparä is beyond reproach. Everyone in India accepts it as intrinsic to Vedic and Vaiñëava teachings. It is one of the key components that differentiates the Vedic and Vaiñëava system of connection to the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, from all of the priestcraft of the West.
GOK: What is the history of Rittvik? Can you give a concise overview of it? Did Doktorski do so in Chapter 15? Is Rittvik growing and spreading? Could it possibly fulfill, in due course of time, the Prophecy of the Hare Kåñëa mantra spreading to every town and village of the world?
KCD: The history of Rittvik is checkered and sporadic. It proceeded in stops and starts. The idea of a madhyam-adhikäré actually being a rittvik and initiating on Prabhupäda’s behalf—a completely bogus understanding of the actual process—was vaguely and indirectly brought into the movement when Rämesvara rejected his alleged status as an uttama-adhikäré in 1980. He defaulted to being a madhyam, which neither he or his other ten cohorts, all great pretenders, actually were.
At any rate, then the idea disappeared until the four brähmins of Mississippi emerged—with the fourth being Gauridäs Paëòit from Washington State, who traveled there. He carried the message of Rittvik, claiming to have overheard Prabhupäda at Krishna-Balaram in Raman Reti having mentioned it to continue after his disappearance.
In Issue Eleven of “The Vedic Village Review,” the whole tenor of what the three brähmins (previous to Gauridäs) were preaching radically changed. The leader of the group, Nityänanda, fully bought into Rittvik. In effect, Gauridäs was the Karl Marx to Nityänanda’s Lenin. Gauridäs had no power to formulate and form anything, but Nityänanda, who single-handedly had opened the ISKCON center in New Orleans back in the Sixties, did have that power. As such, Rittvik emerged.
Gauridäs had only his personal testimony as evidence, but he was merely the servant of T.K.G., who actually had direct talks with Prabhupäda about the future of the movement. Gauridäs said he overheard something, so he needed backing, and that was supplied by Yaçodänanda at Krishna-Balaram in those last months before Prabhupäda departed. Yaçodä joined the four men of the antebellum shortly after their metamorphosis. He claimed that T.K.G. told him that rittvik initiations were to continue after Prabhupäda departed physical manifestation. 6
However, T.K.G. denied he ever said any such thing to Yaçodänandan. It is highly likely that what was jotted down as a note was the result of a miscommunication between the two sannyäsés. 7
All of this history is covered in meticulous fashion by Doktorski, so I need not repeat all of those details. Anyone can read the chapter for himself and herself. The Rittvik proposal was part of a challenge horse issued by Nityänanda to “ISKCON.” This led to an ineffectual and little known “debate” in January of 1990 in San Diego. A resolution for some kind of investigation into the controversy at the upcoming Mayapur conclave was procured, but that produced nothing of substance.
Rittvik then had to shift its emphasis. Being a centrifugal chameleon, it was intrinsically suited to change itself. Now, the need was seen not to depend upon “ISKCON” and the vitiated G.B.C., but to reform it. Thus, the ISKCON Reform Movement (IRM) emerged from the ocean of nescience.
About a decade later, another group called Prominent Link came into being. It advocated the anti-çästric idea that later initiations by “ISKCON” were conducted by two dékñä-gurus, with the real initiation secured from a non-manifest dékñä-guru, Prabhupäda, as the prominent link.
SAN: Can a newcomer to Kåñëa consciousness have two dékñä-gurus?
KCD: No. That is always forbidden. He can have more than one çikñä-guru, but never more than one dékñä-guru.
GOK: Did Prominent Link have much influence? Did it endure?
KCD: It was a short-lived phenomenon. It was splinter group of Rittvik, but there were other ideas floated. For example, one rittvik proposal was for initiations in established ISKCON temples to be of the Rittvik variety and initiations outside of those temples would have the gurus conducting them be actual dékñä-gurus.
There was also the question of guidance and orders. When rittviks initiated newcomers, were those new fellows then as good as the rittvik, since they were now directly initiated by Prabhupäda (allegedly) by the rittvik conducting the ceremony? Or should they automatically accept that rittvik as their authority and a çikñä-guru, and thus be obliged to follow his orders, considering him as the representative of Prabhupäda?
There was also the issue of duration. If an uttama-adhikäré emerged, was Rittvik to be immediately shut down? Or was there no possibility of this? Was Prabhupäda to be the only dékñä-guru for the remainder of Lord Caitanya’s Golden Age, for another 9,500 years? Actually, one fanatic rittvik, who had previously been a second echelon man in “ISKCON,” directly opined that Prabhupäda would be the only Äcärya in the true sense of the term, and the only initiating spiritual master for his branch of the Gauòéya sampradäya, for the next eight billion years!
SAN: Do the rittviks accept that, since December of 1977 when Kértanänanda first started to initiate new people, that all “ISKCON” yajamänas in the ceremonies are actually initiated?
KCD: All evidence points otherwise, at least on the whole. Some believe that they are improperly initiated but, retroactively, they can be considered initiated if they adopt Rittvik. However, if one of those unfortunates abandoned “ISKCON” and approached a Rittvik center–in most, if not all, cases–he would be required to undergo a formal rittvik initiation ceremony at that place. Thus, he would be bamboozled into believing that Prabhupäda was now his dékñä-guru.
Similarly, “ISKCON” does not believe that any newcomer partaking as the yajamäna in a ceremony conducted by a rittvik (post-1977, of course) is anything but an improperly initiated person. His initiation would not be accepted by anyone in the “ISKCON” movement. If he was a brähmin in the eyes of the Rittvik movement, “ISKCON” would not allow him up on the altar. If he abandoned belief in Rittvik and came to “ISKCON,” he would be urged to accept initiation from one of its rent-äcäryas.
GOK: Didn’t some “ISKCON” leaders float the idea that “ISKCON” should offer latitude for rittviks, thus allowing them to become directly affiliated with “ISKCON”?
KCD: Affirmative. Some years ago, one of the first echelon “ISKCON” sannyäsés made that proposal. He was not alone. He likened it to how Christianity expands it congregation when the so-called high churches, such as the Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, and Episcopalians, accept the so-called low churches as also being Christian. The idea did not gain much traction in “ISKCON,” and there are obvious reasons for that.
SAN: Could you explain those reasons?
KCD: First, Rittvik is heresy. Many of the “ISKCON” leaders do not want to be tainted by approving, even minimally, what the vast majority of Vedic and Vaiñëava leaders and followers throughout India consider to be an unauthorized movement promulgated by a heretical belief in mass initiations advertised as linking people to a non-manifest guru.
Secondly, the G.B.C. has, on and for the record, formally condemned Rittvik as “a dangerous deviation” in its 1990 Annual Resolution. To walk that back would be more than just an embarrassment. It would be rightly seen as a compromise. “ISKCON” cannot afford too many more of those, since it has made many of them already. 8
Third, there is profound animosity between and amongst many prominent leaders of “ISKCON” and the prominent leaders of Rittvik. They do not have friendly feelings. This contempt–and, in some cases, hatred–is not expressed openly, but it is known by many; it is tangible and cannot easily be assuaged, if it even ever could be.
GOK: But wasn’t this the goal of the ISKCON Reform Movement, to reform ISKCON and have the two sides, in effect, merge?
KCD: Originally, it was. Just like, before that even, the original Rittvik proposal by the four brähmins of Mississippi was to have the G.B.C. become an integral part of how Rittvik was to be conducted. It proposed this by giving the Commish sole power to appoint rittviks. That had to be abandoned. In due course, the leaders and members of IRM realized that “ISKCON” could not be reformed. As such, they changed the interpretation of their acronym to mean The ISKCON Revival Movement or, as it is known by many of them, Greater ISKCON.
TATTVAMASI
SAN: What is the idea behind this moniker, Greater ISKCON?
KCD: It means that ISKCON is not limited to the G.B.C. but is instead comprised of all loyal devotees to the movement (read, Rittvik). It means the real devotees of Prabhupäda (and they also call themselves by the concocted term of Prabhupädänugas)—particularly those Prabhupäda initiated disciples from 1966-77—now carry the truth. Greater ISKCON is supposedly the real movement. Obviously, the term refers to the Rittvik movement as the keeper of the flame or, you could analogously say, as The First Church of Prabhupäda the Redeemer.
GOK: As it was reproduced in Chapter 15, what is your opinion of the 1990 G.B.C. Resolution against the rittviks, which reads as follows:
Whereas the posthumous ritvik theory (a concocted system by which a spiritual master allegedly acts as dékñä-guru after his departure through the agency of ritviks or officiating priests) has never been sanctioned by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda;
Whereas posthumous ritvik initiation has never been practiced by the Gauòéya-Vaishnava sampradäya (disciplic succession);
Whereas posthumous ritvik initiation has never been approved by sadhu, çästra, and guru;
Whereas the posthumous ritvik theory essentially conflicts with the law of disciplic succession as established by Lord Sri Krishna, as taught by Srila Prabhupäda and all previous acharyas, and as practiced by all bona fide Vaishnava sampradäyas;
The G.B.C. hereby declares that the posthumous ritvik initiation theory is a dangerous philosophical deviation. It is therefore totally prohibited in ISKCON. No devotee shall participate in such a posthumous ritvik initiation ceremony in any capacity, including acting as ritvik, initiate, assistant, organizer, or financier. No ISKCON devotee shall advocate or support its practice. 9
KCD: I agree with these resolutions, but the criticisms mentioned are not only applicable to “ISKCON” people. I do not approve of that term “posthumous ritvik,” however. There is an inference in it which is offensive. The resolution should have stuck with rittvik-in-absentia, which “ISKCON” occasionally employs. In terms of the final part of the resolution, there is no enforcement mechanism. One could have been listed, but its not being specified is a weakness of the resolution.
However, although lacking de jure explicitness, de facto there was an enforcement mechanism. Three of the four Mississippi brähmins who inaugurated that initial scheme were excommunicated. One of them, a bit later, repented, abandoned Rittvik, and returned to “ISKCON.”
SAN: Did Prabhupäda ever explicitly state that a disciple has to accept a guru who is physically manifest? Did he ever use the term “living guru?”
KCD: Affirmative. We have already shown that he used the term “physical spiritual master” as the necessary complement to Paramätmä in that room conversation with the Irish poet O’Grady in the Spring of 1974. There is also this concise statement by Prabhupäda from a platform lecture on November 20, 1975: “One has to take lessons from a live Bhägavata.”
GOK: The rittviks consider it offensive to call Prabhupäda a living guru while he was physically manifest, because he never underwent death like an ordinary conditioned soul. He is still living now as a mukta-jéva, and they harp on this supposed offense.
KCD: It is simply another example of their fanaticism. The use of the term living guru differentiates the Prabhupäda we knew and saw while he had a spiritually infused physical body and what he is now, which is without that physical form. There is no offense in the term, but the rittviks are prone to grasp any straw they can find in order to support their heresy.
SAN: You are quoted only a few times in Chapter 15, and, as could be expected, your quotes are all powerful criticisms of the Rittvik concoction. Two of those are brief, but one is quite lengthy. Would you be willing to read that one for our edification and realization?
KCD: Sure. We shall start with Doktorski’s introduction to my long quote:
“A Gauòéya-Vaishnava acharya can change the sadhana, but he cannot change the siddhänta. He cannot say that Çiva, not Krishna, is the supreme Lord, and he cannot say that after his departure from this world he can still initiate new disciples by ritvik proxy. Kailasa-Chandra, a ritvik critic, presented his assessment of the Ritvik-In-Absentia system:
‘The promoters of rittvik have not given their “disciples” a connection with Prabhupäda. All that has been given are colorful nuggets of glass which they claim are diamonds. No one has actually benefited. Time will prove this out. Where and when did Prabhupäda definitively establish a Rittvik-In-Absentia theory? Rittvik is automatically terminated—in relation to a spiritual master—when the spiritual master is no longer physically manifest. This has been the system in all four sampradäyas since they have functioned on this planet. Only one sahajiyä group, the Kartäbhäjas, attempted something similar to rittvik, but the standard and established sampradäyas never have done so.
In fact, this is so standard and automatically understood that it is not set down anywhere (that I know of) because there is no need for it to be set down anywhere. However, if rittvik—as practiced today in differing ways by many splinter groups—was to be a brand-new system, a brand-new innovation in his branch of the sampradäya, then Prabhupäda would have to have specifically stated such to be the case.
And, if he did so (he did not), then he would have been obligated to provide details as to how it was to be carried out. Since he never did any of this, there are all kinds of differing rittviks with different conceptions and different processes throughout the world. Indirectly, this in and of itself gives conclusive evidence that Rittvik-In-Absentia is a concoction. No guru, including the Acharya (uttama-adhikäré) can meddle with either the tattva or the siddhänta.
The siddhänta is derived from the tattva and is, in that sense, non-different from it. The general processes are included in both the tattva and the siddhänta, although they are mostly in the siddhänta. The Vedänta Sütra is an example of siddhänta. Some specific processes can be adjusted. Prabhupäda did that in a number of ways. My terminology here would be that these are down-line sädhanas, which, when adjusted by The Äcärya (I am very skeptical that a madhyam-adhikäré can make these adjustments), are adjusted in order to facilitate Krishna consciousness . . . The acharyas do not at all meddle with the tattva or the siddhänta. Most definitely rittvik defies the siddhänta, big-time.
Prabhupäda did not have the authority to change the Law of Disciplic Succession. He did not do so, but, for those who believe that he did have the authority and power to create anything like the Ritvik-In-Absentia theory, they are absolute fools. They have no understanding whatsoever of the genuine guru, even when he is an uttama-adhikäré Sampradäya Äcärya (which Prabhupäda was, of course). The guru cannot say that Lord Çiva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and there are many other tattvas, siddhäntas, spiritual and devotional laws that he cannot modify in any way (what to speak of radically changing!).
The Rittvik System of proxy dékñä initiations worked well enough when it was authorized. It was authorized during the physical manifestation of His Divine Grace Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda. On Nov. 14th, 1977, the Rittvik System (if you can call it that, although such terminology comports a subtle misconception) was no longer was valid. It became defunct. Any remnant of it still active went into the category of apa-siddhänta. . .
All the rittvik concoctions completely lack a sound çästric basis; indeed, they really have none at all. But, due to the deviations of the Party Men over so many decades, almost nobody has faith anymore in the “ISKCON” process, philosophy, or initiation system. That is why rittvik, which is ultimately in the mode of ignorance, works like a rock to break the scissors of the “ISKCON” weltanschauung. Some rittviks even spoil the “ISKCON” Jagannatha Rath Cart parades each summer by making very noticeable propaganda against the cult during the festivities themselves. This has not gone unnoticed by the Western press.’” 10
GOK: At the conclusion of Chapter 15, Doktorski quotes a current and influential “ISKCON” leader who attempts to sum up the Rittvik deviation by saying that it is, at root, similar to the other inimical “ISKCON” splinter group, namely Neo-Mutt, which you exposed threadbare last month. I would like to read this section and then imbibe, for the benefit of the readers and listeners of this Podcast, your analysis of it:
“To conclude this chapter, let’s examine the similarities between the Neo-Gauòéya Math and the Ritviks, as noted by Drutakarma däsa in his 69-page essay, “Çréla Prabhupäda and the Gauòéya Matha.” Drutakarma explains:
‘At the root of every ISKCON heresy lies the matha (read, Mutt) 11 mentality. The current Ritvik Movement wants a Gauòéya-Math regime, the single guru model, except that the single guru does not change—it remains Prabhupäda for all time.
The ISKCON members who have deserted ISKCON for various Gauòéya-Math gurus are also adhering to this math (Mutt) system. They could not accept their guru’s decision that they go through the admittedly difficult process of submitting to a collective management system in ISKCON. They want to take shelter of some single-acharya figure outside ISKCON or they want to bring that acharya into ISKCON and replace the collective management system that Prabhupäda set up with their own favorite Gauòéya-Math guru.’
Drutakarma claims that both the Neo-Gauòéya Math devotees and the Ritvik devotees are . . . essentially the same. Both were unable to work within the collective system which Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda had attempted to set up (even if the collective system was mauled by the dysfunctional G.B.C.), and so they joined or created a single-acharya system which seems simpler . . . but actually appears to be against the expressed desires of both Bhaktisiddhänta Bhaktisiddhänta Saraswati Prabhupäda and his foremost disciple, Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda, who desired a collective-guru system.” 12
KCD: This is nothing but a shrewd diversionary tactic. It is claiming that the chief deviation of these two splinter groups is the sole äcärya myth, and this idea was first propounded by Ravéndra in the mid-Eighties. As such, it both directly and indirectly glorifies “ISKCON,” alleging that, after the gold rush of the heady zonal äcärya era, the institution returned to its bona fides by establishing its current “collective system.”
The collegiate compromise of The Second Transformation was nothing more than another deviation replacing the zonal scam. Aside from that fact, Neo-Mutt and Rittvik do not have a sole äcärya idea in common. It is contradictory. Contradiction means rascal.
What they have in common is that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar directly influenced the manifestation of Neo-Mutt and, indirectly and subtly, influenced the manifestation of Rittvik. 13
Since we have reached the end of our analysis of Chapter 15, let me now share an excerpt I offered (and still offer) all of you in my most recent book, entitled: On Consciousness & The Perfection of Man. 14
“(Prabhupäda) wanted monitor gurus, but he did not name any. He wanted madhyam-adhik?r? gurus, but he did not name any. He wanted regular gurus. He did not officially recognize any regular gurus, because there were none to recognize.
In other words, by not specifically naming or recognizing or appointing any of his disciples as d?k??-gurus, he did not make a specific and immediate appointment (or appointments) for the continuation of initiations in his movement. He did, however, through extensive writing and preaching on the subject, make comprehensive and adequate arrangements for continuing guru-disciple initiations . . .
However, that’s as far as he could go. There is no injunction that a Founder must either name a Successor or, less than that, name a regular guru (or gurus) if and/ or when there are none to so be recognized. If he does not see any, he does not name any. While still with us, he appointed eleven rittviks to initiate on his behalf, and that’s all.
That he named rittviks (nothing new) is what has primed the centrifugal Rittvik concoction to come up with its illegitimate projection for continuing initiations after Prabhup?da departed. Both “ISKCON” and its inimical splinter group, the rittviks, believe that there must have been a specific, foolproof, guaranteed arrangement provided by Prabhup?da for immediate initiations after he departed. There was not.
They both believe that his movement had to go on, and that he made a guaranteed arrangement that it would. It does not, and he didn’t. Spiritual lines or branches are always subject to disappearing, as we have mentioned previously from this verse in Bhagavad-g?t?, 4.2:
eva? parampar?-pr?ptam
ima? r?jar?ayo vidu?
sa k?leneha mahat?
yogo na??a? parantapa
‘O Subduer of the Enemy, this yoga system was thus received and understood by saintly kings through guru-parampar?. In course of time, that great knowledge of yoga here in this world was scattered and lost.’
Lord K???a Himself had to re-establish a line of guru-parampar? that had been lost, and He did this through Arjuna over five thousand years ago. Lines were still being scattered at that time. In those days, people (including gurus and disciples) were very elevated in culture, strength, intelligence, duration of life, knowledge, and behavior.
What to speak of now! Prabhup?da’s branch of the Hare K???a movement could never be guaranteed to continue unless an uttama-adhik?r? emerged from it as his best disciple. If one had emerged, His Divine Grace would have recognized him. That man would have been the Successor.
However, no such disciple emerged, although eleven pretenders to that status did manifest (for some time) as part of the scattering process. The line could still be carried out— genuine initiations from genuine gurus— if some madhyams had emerged, but that also did not transpire. You may consider this statement controversial, but that would be nothing but the emblem of your ignorance.”
The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. Once it instituted the zonal takeover—which was a smash-and-grab affair, hijacking and killing the real movement—it set the stage for all kinds of concoctions. Neo-Mutt came first, and it is horrible, of course. Pandora’s Box was then opened even wider and, in late 1989, out popped the Rittvik heresy.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, p. 420, Kindle Edition;
2. Prabhupäda verified this very early in his movement: “Now, to take such guidance means the spiritual master should also be a very perfect man. Otherwise, how can he guide?” Platform Lecture in New York City, 3-2-66;
3. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, pp. 423-24, Kindle Edition;
4. Ibid. Page 424;
5. Room conversation with Desmond O’Grady in Rome, Italy, 5-23-74;
6. Prabhupäda had just appointed the eleven rittviks at this time, namely the second week of July, 1977. These appointments were done on two consecutive days, as nine were appointed on the first day and Hansadutta and Bhävananda were added the next day. After that, T.K.G. had some kind of brief meeting with Yaçodänandana (then Swämi), who was a very important man at the Krishna-Balaram complex. He was highly respected and was also the Gurukula headmaster.
The only record of this meeting was a note jotted down by Yaçodä after it ran its brief course. Obviously, T.K.G. discussed the appointments of rittviks with Yaçodä. That is certain. After that, who can know what T.K.G. actually said to him? What was the context?
T.K.G. later, when confronted by the emergence of Rittvik, denied that he ever said to Yaçodä anything even remotely connected to the idea that Prabhupäda would be the dékñä-guru for all newcomers after he left physical manifestation. It was imminent that he may do so at the time of his appointing those eleven rittviks in the summer of 1977.
In other words, the evidence that T.K.G. was instructed by Prabhupäda to conduct a rittvik-in-absentia program in his movement after he left the scene—that evidence is very shaky. A short note jotted down by a devotee after an unrecorded brief meeting—the essence of which was later denied by the man who allegedly delivered the information–falls light years short of being conclusive evidence.
It can be considered weak evidence and nothing more. You cannot change the method of initiation of a branch of the sampradäya, the method followed by it for over a decade (that Prabhupäda was personally and physically manifest somewhere during all initiations), simply on the basis of a cryptic note jotted down without recorded verification and without context. It is absurd to believe that the note is conclusive evidence.
7. “Tamäl Krishna, when asked years later, denied that Prabhupäda had ever talked to him about the Ritvik System continuing into perpetuity. ‘I do recall meeting Yaçodänandan and showing him the list . . . but I could never have stated that Prabhupäda wanted the ritviks to continue after he departed,’ Tamäl Krishna protested. ‘Why would I have ever said such a thing when His Divine Grace never made mention of it? How could Yaçodänandan Prabhu ever have imagined hearing such a thing?’” Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, p. 433, Kindle Edition;
8. One such major compromise is The Second Transformation of the collegiate assembly becoming the new leaders of the movement in the mid-Eighties. It gave way to another compromise: The Hindoo Hodgepodge;
9. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, pp. 440-41, Kindle Edition;
10. Ibid. pp. 449-452;
11. This refers primarily to Gouòéya Mutt and, secondarily, to Neo-Mutt;
12. Op. Cit. pp. 452-453;
13. That Swämi B. R. Çrédhar directly influenced the manifestation of Neo-Mutt is self-evident and requires no explanation. It is blatantly obvious. However, it is subtle how he promoted the manifestation of Rittvik in the late Eighties. He died in the second half of 1988.
In his Will, he named his chief disciple, Govinda Mahäräj, as his successor. However, he put a clause in that appointment which stated that Govinda was actually initiating new disciples on behalf of his guru, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. This meant that they were rittvik initiations. He then added, in that section of his Will, that he was making this arrangement “just like Swämi Mahäräj did.”
Swämi Mahäräj was the back-handed hashtag that most of the elder disciples of Siddhänta Sarasväté called Prabhupäda. At any rate, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar stated in his Will that our Prabhupäda created a kind of rittvik-for-posterity system after his departure from physical manifestation. Just over a year later, via the brähmins in Mississippi (including Yaçodänandan, who mailed a copy of that section from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s Will to me sometime later, although I had already knew about it) facilitated the emergence of Rittvik from the ocean of nescience.
Separated by such a very short period of time, do you think that there is no connection in these two events? If you do, guess again!
14. Available via Amazon in both hard copy and Kindle formats.