KCD’s Monthly Podcast – September 2023

Podcast transcription:

The Absurdity of Rittvik Hyper-Reality

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ

Post-modernism is represented by hyper-reality, which consists of ever-increasing absurdity and nihilism. Its ultimately goal is completely unfettered sense gratification. In the pseudo-devotional sphere, it also promotes this, but in a somewhat different way from the vikarmic Western culture, as must be the case.

Post-modernism exploits the inventions of the previous modern era for purposes that they were not created for during that era. Its hyper-reality consists of immorality along with nihilism, and it is conducted by the mode of ignorance. Primarily, in the so-called devotional sphere of hyper-reality, it consists of a unique deviation, and this is certainly present in the post-modern concoction known as Rittvik.

In order to gain popularity in a descending Western octave, everything conducive to the warped minds of the vox populi—and there are plenty of so-called devotees who are part of that–is jacked-up, made artificially special, embellished to extremes, promoted with excess and bad logic and made as sensually appealing as imaginable. This description certainly applies to the Rittvik concoction and its many features.

Hyper-reality is not limited to popularity. It is now embedded in Western culture to such an extent that it cannot, in many if not most cases, even be noticed for what it actually is. Anything presented that is not permeated by hyper-reality is automatically rejected as dull and uninteresting. In the vulgar vikarmic culture, hyper-reality thrives on useless factoids, the vast majority of them meant to divert attention from that which is—or should be–important or even essential.

Rittvik is not at all devoid of such vulgarity. This is particularly the case from the worst of the fanatics who attack anyone who exposes it. They divert people from THE TRUTH via their own brand of hyper-reality. Part of their shtick is exemplified with their “Back to Prabhupäda” magazine. There are many other examples of absurdity which their most degraded proponents utilize via argumentum ad absurdum.

Hyper-reality thrives on displays of deception, misinformation, rumor, and innuendo. Not all rittviks engage in these negative principalities, but some of them do—one in particular. Is there a need to name him? For those who have not followed the scene over the years, they may prefer that he actually be named. However, most of you are not in that category. Of the Rittvik-haters and Rittvik-lovers who are reading and/or listening to this article, you all know who is being referred to here.

He is the attack dog, affording the other rittviks to play good cop to his bad cop in their vitiatedargumentation. However, there are quite a few rittviks who wish that he was not part of their movement, because he is giving it a bad reputation by his mudslinging, lies, distortions, straw man attacks, etc. He is, without question, incorrigible.

Because rittviks will never be able to secure a strong governing body, he will continue to use the “I=ME” illusion to propagate the so-called success of what he is preaching, although, individually, he has accomplished almost nothing at all. The plural of that noun (rittviks) is employed for a reason, because the Rittvik movement is highly centrifugal and not at all united. There are reasons for this.

Have you noticed the proclivity of many rittviks to toss the name of Jesus into their ordinary mix? This gives you but another hint that their whole concoction is crypto-Christianity. I have not seen the name of Jesus anywhere on the list of the great äcäryas constituting our line of disciplic succession. Or, for that matter, any of the other sampradäyas authorized as the only means for deliverance by the Padma Puräëa. Never mind. They do not know Iesus Kristos, though they try to use him for their frivolous purposes nor does he approve of them nor even know them.

Rittvik’s evidence to establish itself as genuine is so weak that it can hardly be considered evidence at all. The original rittviks proposed a version, but that has merged into oblivion. The IRM started out as the “ISKCON” Reform Movement, but now they have changed their tune to “ISKCON” revival, which allows them to keep the acronym.

You have different other versions to pick and choose from in Rittvik. All of these versions fit into the category of hyper-reality, because all of them afford the faithlessness which covertly undergirds the whole concoction. Such faithlessness—disguised as devotion to a Prabhupäda who does not exist as advertised by these fools—opens to door to all kinds of sense gratification to be enjoyed by such loose so-called followers.

You have Hard Rittvik as one of your choices. Hard Rittvik postulates that, for at least the duration of the age of Kali, Prabhupäda remains the only dikñä-guru. Of course, as of Nov. 15, 1977, he no longer could be a dikñä-guru for any newcomer, but Hard Rittvik opines otherwise. Hyper-reality is prone to fanaticism, and Hard Rittvik is certainly as fanatical as it gets. Hard Rittvik, without any strong evidence whatsoever, says that there will be no more uttama-adhikärés.

It has competition. There is Soft Rittvik, for example. Soft Rittvik postulates that Rittvik is the interim arrangement until the next maha-bhagavat shows up. Both Hard Rittvik and Soft Rittvik completely ignore and disregard Vaiñëava tradition as a standard. That the guru must be physically manifest is integral to that standard.

This tradition has been extant for millennia, but these fanatical, dangerous and deviant rittviks completely eschew it; they want a cheap and loose initiation process in order to attract numbers. They believe that numbers prove their legitimacy, and they believe that Prabhupäda defied all Vaiñëava tradition when he established his movement in the mid-Sixties in the West. However, he did recognize the law of physical guru:

 

Consider this room conversation on 5/23/74 in Rome, Italy:

O’Grady: The problem is to find this friend. The problem is to find this spiritual master.

Prabhupäda: No, there is no problem. The problem is if you are sincere. Yes. . . So if you are sincere, then God will give you spiritual master. If He knows that now you are sincere, then He will give you a spiritual master.

O’Grady: O.K. Thank you. That I know.

Prabhupäda: 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.

 

Why would Prabhupäda go out of his way in it to actually state “the physical spiritual master?” Everybody in his movement knew this rule. It was one of the bedrocks that differentiated his version of theism from so-called Christianity. It had been established by all Vaiñëava tradition for millennia. He did specifically mention it because, possessing tri-käla-jïa, he knew that, in the future, there could be fools trying to break this immutable law of disciplic succession. . . . and that’s exactly what went down in the form of Rittvik in the very late Eighties.

It is a highly centrifugal movement, so much so that you almost have to say Rittvik movements (in the plural) when conversing about it. Indeed, it is assuredly the case that it has lost converts due to their inability to determine which of the Rittvik alternatives offered is actually the one that Prabhupäda (allegedly) wanted. We have already discussed Hard Rittvik and Soft Rittvik. There is little room for compromise between them, but the divisions go far beyond that.

When the rittvik-äcärya performing the ceremony (allegedly performing it) on behalf of the yajamäna, what is the status of that yajamäna after receiving the Rittvik béja? Some of these so-called rittvik-äcäryas have opined that he is an equal godbrother immediately. In other words, the rittvik-äcärya has no responsibility to the yajamäna after the bananas and rice have been tossed into the fire, the name given, and then some ceremonial niceties actuated in the aftermath.

Other rittviks opine that the rittvik-äcärya is obliged to accept seva from his newly-initiated disciple on behalf of Prabhupäda. That yajamäna is to consider the rittvik to be like Prabhupäda to some extent; after all, he is known as a rittvik-äcärya. So, which is it?

The original Rittvik proposal was that the ISKCON G.B.C.—and only the governing body—could determine who could be rittviks conducting these ceremonies on behalf of a non-manifest guru. That theory made the original eleven the appointed rittviks to be expanded on by the G.B.C. in due course of time. That proposal was merged into oblivion soon, because the governing body rejected it.

Aside from the fact that no onetodayis a rittvik (because the rittvik function in relation to Prabhupäda came to a permanent end on November 15^th, 1977), how do the current Rittvik groups determine who is qualified to carry out their concocted initiations? How to determine which so-called rittviks are qualified? Do all the groups recognize all of the rittviks from the other Rittvik groups?

Then again, another group has proposed that all rittviks are actually gurus, but they can only be recognized as such outside of the established ISKCON temples. Otherwise, newcomers who come to the various well-established ISKCON centers from decades ago must accept Prabhupäda as their dikñä-guru if they get initiated there.

If they, however, become attracted to a rittvik-äcärya–one who has established his own center in the field–then he is actually their dikñä-guru when he performs the colorful ceremony. Again, this proposal could not take root, because “ISKCON,” has rightly condemned Rittvik as a dangerous deviation and did not cooperate with it. That could change at any time, however.

Where did Prabhupäda give ANY specifics as to how the Rittvik concoction was to be carried out? Nowhere, of course, because he never authorized it. He could have very easily done so. Here, let me give you an example of what he could have said, which would have established this wrong idea for posterity:

“From this time onward, I am the only dikñä-guru for my future disciples, including when I depart this world and leave the scene.” In merely one sentence, he could have established it. He didn’t, because he wouldn’t, because the whole scheme is unauthorized according to all Vaiñëava tradition and disciplic successions. It is ridiculous.

If he had established it, he could have—and would have—been asked some questions as to how to carry it out. Such specific answers would have made everything clear, and there would have only been one Rittvik way. He did not, of course, because this concoction was never for a moment either his desire or his vision. Aside from that, no genuine spiritual master could ever make such a statement or try to establish such an unauthorized method for carrying out future initiations.

Many who reject Rittvik propaganda falsely believe that Prabhupäda could have established such a system for future initiations if he had wanted to do so. No, he could not have done so. No guru can claim that he is the last guru in the line. Any so-called guru who does should immediately be rejected as a charlatan.

It is all a hyper-reality, just another make-show. Of course, “ISKCON” is, as well. What is little understood is that the Rittvik concoction came just at the right time to bail out “ISKCON,” which was floundering badly in the late Eighties and early Nineties. Rittvik has some powerful pundits, to be sure. One of them in particular has written extensively to expose “ISKCON” and its narrative. His writings are potent but contaminated, as they almost are all vitiated by Rittvik-väda.

This is exactly what the vitiated G.B.C. required. It came in the nick of time. They can now dismiss all the unmasking and exposures in it with one fell swoop by marrying those to Rittvik, an apa-siddhänta. Not only is Rittvik an apostacy, but it is also heresy. As such, “ISKCON” leaders can claim—and most of their followers will believe them—that all of the other revelations about the corruption in “ISKCON” must be false, because all of them are linked to a heresy.

It is not necessarily the fact that the “ISKCON” leaders will use such blunt language, because those in its wheelhouse are already captive by the institution to greater or lesser extents. In effect, they are preached to that they should just toss everything out which is preached by the prominent rittviks (one, in particular), because, if there was any truth to any of it, then the Rittvik apa-siddhänta could not be part of it.

Is that bad logic? Of course it is, but “ISKCON” followers and fanatics are easily captivated by any bad logic that is accepted as dogma by that institution. Simple for the simpletons. “ISKCON” has a foil! The foil is as compromised as it is, but in an entirely different category. In other words, “ISKCON” is a semblance, an abhäsa, of the real thing. It is an imitation school. Bogus as a three dollar bill, but nevertheless a semblance.

Rittvik, on the other hand, is not that. Rittvik is a false school. It is wrong from the gate. Its very foundation is not a semblance, as its process is both false and heretical. It’s pundits—again, one in particular—are thus easily emasculated by the enemy, because of this gigantic flaw.

Please note: The Sanskrit word for flaw is dosha. That word is spoken by Lord Kåñëa in the Bhagavad-gétä when describing birth, death, disease, and old age. However, it is not translated as “flaw” in that particular verse. Instead, it is translated by Prabhupäda as “evil.” This is how we should apply it in connection to Rittvik, also.

Rittvik is not capable of producing clarity. Instead, it muddies the waters. Sure, its pundits expose so many flaws—and yes, evils—in what has transpired in “ISKCON” for the past four-plus decades. No doubt about it, but that amounts to pouring clarified butter on ashes. Nothing can really come of it, because only the Rittvik fanatics will fully believe it (even though the vast majority of the corruption report is true), because only those invested in the Rittvik can have faith in its narrative.

Lack of clarity will only produce evil results in the intermediate and in the long run. “ISKCON” survives the fierce, internecine attacks on its narrative due to the evil of “ISKCON.” To top it off, the first echelon of Rittvik leaders are all, to greater or lesser extents, fanatics. The down-line are sentimentalists. All of these people are incapable of seeing the truth of what went down (and continues to go down), because they almost completely lack any development in spiritual science.

As such, the rittviks (both the fanatics and the sentimentalists, which comprises everyone in all of the offshoots) are prone to swallow extremely weak evidence to back up their false claim that Prabhupäda wanted a Rittvik arrangement after he left the scene. One such gem is from Prabhupäda’s Final Will and Testament.

Did Prabhupäda dictate that Will? He did not. He was in very bad shape on the material plane when it was presented to him. He did make one change to what was first offered to him. The devotees who wrote the Will had a very negative bias toward Guru Krpa, so they left him out of it in terms of his being a trustee for any of the ISKCON centers. Prabhupäda was aware of that bias, and he spotted it in the document. As such, he forced a limited re-write in a beginning section in order to give Guru Krpa trustee control of the Kåñëa-Balaräm temple complex in Raman Reti.

Aside from that omission in the first draft of the Will, Prabhupäda made no further suggestions: He signed off on it. In his condition, was he expected to go nitty-gritty on some remote ramification (produced by mäyä) that could result if some section of it leaving some kind of mayikä interpretation? Of course not! He did not do that with his letters, some which contained egregious spelling and syntax errors. And, in his condition, he was not going to do that with The Will, either.

Every devotee initiated by Prabhupäda in the Sixties and early Seventies knew it well that Prabhupäda did not have a favorable relationship with the godbrothers who were leaders of Gouòéya Mutt or Gouòéya Mission. Such was the case after he traveled to the West to begin his preaching mission. All of those godbrothers were against him doing that, and none of them helped him.

What was less known is that Prabhupäda did not have a very favorable relationship either with his former wife or his sons. The assets in India, especially the temple complexes, were extensive and extremely valuable. A claim could be made on them by either a section of his godbrothers or by one or more of his inimical sons. This potential was foreseen by the devotees who drew up the Will.

All of the Indian properties were under the ultimate control of trustees. These trustees were all Prabhupäda disciples, as could only be expected. As such, it was written in the Will that, in the future, all the trustees of the properties of ISKCON—particularly in India, of course—were to be Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples. Most of them were still either somewhat young or having just entered middle age. In the vast majority of cases, they would live for many more decades.

What kind of shelf life would potential litigation from threat of a takeover claim, either from Gouòéya Mutt or his sons, have? The obvious answer, due to many factors, would be a very short shelf life. If an inheritance lawsuit was going to be filed on the properties by either of these inimical entities, it would have to have been actuated within the first few years after Prabhupäda’s disappearance.

 

TATTVAMASI

 

In the event of such an inheritance lawsuit, would either all or the vast majority of those trustees still be living? Of course, they would. Was it Prabhupäda’s duty to go nitty-gritty and spot how, way up the road, the foolish rittviks would misuse the clause of “my initiated disciples” twelve years later in order to allege that Prabhupäda established a Rittvik system into perpetuity in his Will? It is utterly absurd to believe that he would have been expected to have done so!

Yet, that is one of the flawedgems used by the rittviks in order to allegedly establish that Prabhupäda planted something in his Will—very, very covertly—in order to establish Rittvik. They claim that, since all of Prabhupäda’s trustees listed in the Will would be dead within fifty or sixty years. They claim that the Will–by asserting that trustees must be initiated disciples of Prabhupäda—empowered future initiations by Prabhupada, as otherwise the centers would have no trustees unless future devotees could be (allegedly) initiated by Prabhupäda.

Any sane and serious transcendentalist considers such “evidence” to be nothing more than about as weak as it gets. Indeed, it is such an absurdity that most devotees who have not got suckered into the scam would dismiss it as no evidence at all.

On July 7, 1977, His Divine Grace named eleven rittviks to conduct initiations on his behalf, to conduct the ceremony for the yajamäna, who then became an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupäda. This was nothing new. It had been a system in place since 1970.

Before 1970, Prabhupäda had conducted these ceremonies personally. However, since the beginning of his last decade with us, he had his leading men conduct the fire sacrifice. Sometimes, he was physically present on his Vyäsäsan watching and giving the names and the beads to his newly-initiated disciples. More often, all of that was in a package received by the temple president or leading secretary, and Prabhupäda was not physically present while initiation formalities took place.

 

Due to Prabhupäda’s illness in the first half of 1977, all initiations were curtailed. The spiritual master has to take on the saïchita-karma of his newly-initiated disciples, and this can lead to some suffering for him. Even for the big fire that Prabhupäda was, he should not have been burdened during the period of his illness.

However, the stockpile of devotees requesting initiation was increasing at an alarming rate, and this was brought to his attention. Near the middle of 1977, out of his causeless mercy, he decided to once again initiate new people. Obviously, the rittvik system would be reinstated in order to do that. It was no big deal that it was reactivated.

There was nothing even remotely surprising about it; indeed, it would have been extremely surprising if Prabhupäda went back to how he personally conducted the fire sacrifices in the Sixties. In his condition, there was no question that he was going to do that.

A big deal, however, is made of the July 9^th letter by the rittviks. As could only also be expected, they twist some things in it in order to provide so-called evidence of their concoction, and that will be described now. The word which they highlight is as follows:

 

“Now that Çréla Prabhupäda has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple.”

 

This is generally known as the rittvik appointment letter. Many rittviks make it out to be a revolutionary development, as if a rittvik appointment was unprecedented. For these Rittvik pundits to do so is, frankly, just as deceptive as their “ISKCON” counterparts in the matter of spinning a narrative. The only difference, ultimately, is that both parties are spinning different false narratives, that’s all.

Eleven rittviks were named. Nothing astounding there. What is mind boggling is how the Rittvik pundits spin that one word—the word “henceforward”–in the sentence in order to eke out a bizarre, monumental, and unprecedented major change in the way that genuine Vaiñëava initiations are to be performed–and who the dikñä-guru must be for the yajamäna for posterity.

The rittviks all—and that is, without exception, all of them—claim that, by this letter of appointment of rittviks in July, 1977, a brand new system of initiation was created for Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement. They marry that with the aforementioned false pretense that even the appointment of rittviks in 1977 was new.

In the Folio, there are forty-two other mentions of “henceforward” in Prabhupäda’s letters. Most of these were part of creating some improvement. When the word was applied in that way, all of these turned out to be temporary measures, which were either reversed or implemented in a different and/or better way up the road.

Herein, you get but another hint of how the rittviks are incorrigible, fixed within blinders of their own making in order to allegedly prove that Prabhupäda established an anti-Vedic, anti-Vaiñëava system of initiation. He allegedly did so with but one word, conveniently misinterpreted in order to establish a completely new system.

One word in a document (that Prabhupäda did not even dictate), which was only meant to restart the previously well-established system of rittviks performing fire sacrifices on his behalf, and Prabhupäda is alleged to have changed the whole sampradäya! The purpose of the letter (written by T.K.G.) was to reinstate the rittvik process and list the rittviks for that time period; it was never meant to create a massive new hoax. However, that’s exactly what the rittviks use it for.

It is well known that Prabhupäda did not like—nor did he ever approve—changes to the tattva and siddhänta he mercifully bestowed upon us. Over the years, there were some other changes he did approve in terms of time, place, and circumstance adjustments.

Your host speaker does not wish to waste time detailing any of those; if you were part of the movement while he was with us, you well know this to be the case. On the whole, however, he did not make even many of them. As far as the basic process was concerned, that was never allowed to be changed whatsoever. The rittviks, as per their proclivity, turn this facton its head. They claim that, since Prabhupäda sometimes said “no change,” that means the rittviks’ method of initiation must be continued into perpetuity. How absurd this is!

In mid-November of 1977, there was an earth-shaking change in Prabhupäda’s movement when he departed physical manifestation. We had to adjust to that major change. Either the adjustments would be right or they would be wrong. In the case of both “ISKCON” and Rittvik, their “adjustments” were and are wrong!

Can you write a letter to Prabhupäda and expect him to reply? Where would you mail it? What address? What country? Can you arrange for a meeting with him so that he can settle some kind of major dispute or thorny issue? Can you book a preaching engagement for him? Can you invite professors and so-called religionists to meet and have provocative conversations with him?

The rittviks misapply—as they do with everything—the principle of no change. They claim that no change means no change in rittviks conducting initiation ceremonies on behalf of the guru, even after he is no longer physically manifest. All the other sampradäyas—including the Gauòéya sampradäya—have never approved of any such concoction in the history of their lines, which dates back millennia. However, in Rittvik, it is tradition be damned!

Why should Rittvik be approved now? That is a rhetorical question. Simply because Prabhupäda, on a handful of occasions and in different contexts, expressed the no change principle? Once again, the absurdity of the rittviks’ so-called evidence falls light years short of what would be required in order to actually have solid evidence that Prabhupäda established a new system of initiation.

Rittvik insists that initiation can only be given by an uttama-adhikäré. During his physical manifestation, Prabhupäda emphasized being initiated by a mahä-bhägavat, and why not? He was that, and the knowledge of Kåñëa consciousness—including initiation into it–was brought to the West by him. He was the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Those who came into contact with him in any way, even from a distance, should never have been encouraged (by either him or anyone else) to instead accept initiation from a madhyam-adhikäré, even if that madhyam was Prabhupäda’s disciple. As such, there are a few statements here and there—all of which must be understood in context (meaning, while he was still with us on the manifest plane)–emphasizing the importance of initiation from an uttama dikñä-guru.

Yet, Prabhupäda specifically wrote and spoke that a madhyam-adhikäré can also accept disciples, meaning that he can initiate them into a connection with the guru-paramparä. There are plenty of examples, and we shall be presenting four of these.

The rittviks, absorbed as they are in bad logic, condemn the principle of a madhyam initiating. They do so on the basis of how it is misapplied in “ISKCON” since The Second Transformation, after the zonal äcärya scam crashed and burned. Misuse of a great science does not render it useless. Misuse of a spiritual law does not render it useless. Misuse of a spiritual principle does not render it useless.

The rascal rittviks, in the name of Vaiñëavism, have the audacity to concoct a post-modern, Western, crypto-Christian means of so-called initiation. It is nothing but a heresy, with no authorization from the previous Äcärya. In doing so, they attack the principle of a madhyam being able to carry on the line in the absence of a physically manifest uttama-adhikäré, although this has taken place in our own Gauòéya sampradäya just after the disappearance of Narottama däs Öhäkur.

The rittviks should be rejected, because they reject the clear statements by Prabhupäda in this connection. Here are four of those clear statements:

 

From Easy Journey to Other Planets:

“13. He must not take on unlimited disciples. This means that a candidate who has successfully followed the first twelve items can also become a spiritual master himself, just as a student becomes a monitor in class with a limited number of disciples.”

 

He becomes a spiritual master. Later in the sequence, at stage sixteen, the advancing guru becomes completely free from lamentation. By the way, that is attained at uttama-adhikäré, upon his initial entrance into mahä-bhägavat realization beyond the mahat-tattva.

As such, this stage thirteen, obviously, is still in the madhyam-adhikäré category. Yet, he can make a limited number of disciples. That means initiating them. He is the small fire, so he can only burn up a limited amount of saïchita-karma from his limited number of disciples. The uttama is the big fire, and he can take as many as he wants.

 

From Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 2.3.21, purport

“ . . . the second-class devotee makes distinctions between devotees and non-devotees. The second-class devotees are, therefore, meant for preaching work, and as referred to in the above verse, they must loudly preach the glories of the Lord. The second-class devotee accepts disciples from the section of third-class devotees or non-devotees.”

 

Accepting disciples means initiating them. The second-class devotee is, of course, the madhyam-adhikäré. He initiates neophytes and those who he brings, from the non-devotee section, up to the status of neophyte by his strong and loud preaching of the glories of the Lord.

 

From a room conversation in Raman Reti on 5-28-77:

“When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru, that’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.”

 

This is from that all-important conversation in Prabhupäda’s personal quarters at his Kåñëa-Balaräm center in Raman Reti. Prabhupäda would probably leave the scene soon, as his physical body was utterly emaciated, hardly more than skin and bones.

As such, some G.B.C.s were in his room. They asked him two questions in relation to how initiations were to be conducted: 1) How they were to be conducted while he was still with them (this was touched upon earlier in our presentation), and 2) How initiations were to be conducted after he departed physical manifestation. That he would do so seemed imminent, and it turned out that it was.

He answered the first question by authorizing that the rittvik system was to be reactivated. No surprise there. A few seconds later, he answered the second question by stating that, if he recognized one of his disciples as regular guru, then that disciple would initiate new people into the guru-paramparä connection after Prabhupäda left the scene.

The rittviks hate this interpretation. They also hate the term “regular guru,” because it completely dismantles their fanatical assertion that only an uttama can initiate. An uttama-adhikäré is NOT a regular guru. Regular means under regulation. Even at the topmost level of madhyam, the disciple is no longer under regulation, regulative principles, although he follows them nevertheless.

Please note: Prabhupäda DESTROYS the Rittvik concoction in this excerpt from that important meeting with his leading secretaries, sannyäsés, and presidents in late May, 1977. “Disciple of my disciple” means that his disciple makes a new disciple, who is the disciple of Prabhupäda’s disciple. This is basic logic. This is good logic. This accords perfectly with the Vedic and Vaiñëava tattva and siddhänta.

The bad logic of the rittviks uses all kinds of convoluted rationalizations in order to overcome what is clear as a cloudless day. Prabhupäda authorized the principle of regular guru. He did not name any such gurus, and he obviously did not recognize a Successor. If he had recognized a Successor, that great devotee would not be in the category of a regular guru.

He would not be dismissed as “the best of the lot,” either.

 

From a letter to a temple president, dated 4-26-68:

“A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession.”

 

This sentence shatters the imposition that only an uttama can initiate. A mahä-bhägavat is certainly a liberated devotee; anyone who questions that has a hellish mentality. Acting as guru means acting as dikñä-guru. You cannot limit that to merely vartma-pradarçaka or çikñä-guru. Of course, some rittviks try to do so.

Person who are “less qualified and not liberated” indicates clearly the madhyam-adhikäré, not the neophyte. Why? Because the added qualification of “strictly following” is present in the statement. The monitor guru is a concession when there is the absence of a physically manifest spiritual master on the uttama or highest platform. The guru from nature’s study (specifically referred to as such a bit earlier in the letter), can act as guru. He can act as a spiritual master by carrying out the activities of THE ÄCÄRYA.

The initiation he conducts is bona fide. Those initiations link the newcomer, generally a neophyte, to the guru-paramparä. After Narottama däs, that is how, for many decades, our line of disciplic succession remained intact and did not scatter. Once Viçvanätha Cakravarti and Baladeva Vidyäbhuñaëa came along much later, there was once again a manifest uttama adhikäré, but not in the gap, the interim.

These four excerpts (just described in some detail, above) SHATTER the Rittvik apa-siddhänta. These excerpts are self-evident. Rationalizations cannot overcome the clear message that they convey.

Please realize that all of the rittviks are low rung neophytes. Many of them are sahajiyäs, and some of them are almost certainly non-devotees. None of them are genuine, because all of them are constantly breaking one of the four rules and regulations integral to advancement in spiritual and devotional life, namely MENTAL SPECULATION.

All rittviks are mental speculators. Realize them as such. Reject them as such. Mental speculation is a serious sin. No genuine transcendentalist in the personal line of yoga engages in it. The rittviks are on the wrong side of history. They are on the side of “Christianity,” as cryto-Christians. The Golden Age, when it finally blossoms, will relegate all of that into the dustbin of deservedly destroyed cheating religions.

Also realize that “ISKCON” set the stage for this absurd Rittvik manifestation of hyper-reality when it opened Pandora’s Box in the Spring of 1978. “ISKCON” does not escape culpability. The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. Rittvik is only able to prosper at the current time, because the original ISKCON movement was destroyed and replaced by “ISKCON” over forty years ago.

It opened the door to such manifestations as these loose and ridiculous Rittvik movements. Feel free to condemn them now, for they fully deserve to be ridiculed. Reality bites when hyper-reality craters. No genuine transcendentalist will criticize you for pointing out the defects of the Rittvik concoction . . . and Jesus won’t mind, either.

SAD EVA SAUMYA