The following is a response to an article called “Ritvik Defeated” by Swami B.G. Narasingha (SN), which is published on a Gaudiya Matha related website. Statements from SN’s article will be enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with my comments following underneath.
In order to use precedent as a valid method by which to evaluate the bona fide nature of any practice, one would need to:
a) First determine if the issue of precedence is relevant to the activity in question by proving that such an activity has never taken place anywhere since the material universe began.
b) Then if one is able to prove the above, they would need to quote Srila Prabhupada stating that precedent was a valid method by which to evaluate the bona fide nature of any practice.
c) To round off the proof as being complete, one would further need to show that every bona fide practice has always had a precedent.
The burden of proof always falls on those who advance a particular claim. Thus, those who advance precedence as a valid argument have the burden of proof of demonstrating the above.
a) has not been done, since SN has not provided any proof that no ritvik initiations have ever occurred since the beginning of the material universe.
b) cannot be done, since Srila Prabhupada never states this.
c) would suffer from the same problems as a), as one would need to separately prove that every bona fide practice in existence had been practiced previously.
Further, this argument suffers from ontological problems, since one would initially need unprecedented actions to establish precedents in the first place.
SN claims that there are no examples of ritvik initiations of any kind mentioned in the scriptures, including when the Diksa Guru is present on the planet. This immediately destroys the relevance of this claim, because SN himself accepts that ritvik initiations when the Diksa Guru is present on the planet are bona fide.
Having told us there is no example of ritvik at all, he now immediately contradicts himself and says examples of ritviks initiating on behalf of the spiritual master, when the latter is on the planet, are “quite common”!
If one is initiated with a representative performing the initiation ceremony, one is being initiated by a bonafide spiritual master, just as the majority of the Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were initiated by him, using this method. The method by which the initiation ceremony is conducted does not change this. Thus, there is no conflict between being initiated by a bona fide spiritual master and … being initiated by a bona fide spiritual master.
Correct. And it is accepted even by the GBC, that the pre-eminent siksa guru in ISKCON is Srila Prabhupada.
SN repeats here the already defeated “no precedence” argument. Please see opening exchange.
The burden is on SN to cite to the date and place of the exchange and the tape number or location in the references such as in the Vedabase. Recall that the burden is on the proponent. We checked the Vedabase and could not find such a quotation. Therefore, it is an example of an unverified statement.
Srila Prabhupada never stated via 12 years of preaching that the ritviks which are appointed on his behalf should terminate acting as such on his departure. Never mind for 12 years, Srila Prabhupada did not state this once.
Asking everyone to become guru hundreds of times in his physical presence, cannot refer to Srila Prabhupada ordering Diksa gurus, otherwise we would have had every one of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples become Diksa Gurus alongside Srila Prabhupada. If SN himself thought this was what Srila Prabhupada was referring to, then he is guilty of at least 5 times disobeying the order of Srila Prabhupada. For, in these hundreds of calls to become guru, no mention is made that the person needs to wait until Srila Prabhupada has departed, nor is there any mention of requiring any qualification. Rather, Srila Prabhupada states that “no qualification” is required:
"How can I become guru?' There is no need of qualification... Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said."
(Lecture, 21/5/76)
"Anyone can do. A child can do."
(Conversation, 11/5/77).
And we know SN is not claiming that unqualified children should all be made Diksa Gurus, because later on in the same article, he states:
"But if you say there is no one qualified among Prabhupada's disciples, then why would anyone want to become his disciple?"
This is not being claimed. What is claimed is that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to remain as ISKCON’s Diksa Guru, and he ordered that this be the case, and his qualified disciples, would automatically follow such orders.
This is a repeat of the same straw-man argument just answered.
The IRM does not say this. We say Srila Prabhupada is qualified to hold the post of Diksa guru of ISKCON, and he did not order a successor, and therefore the qualification of others to be guru is not relevant, even though they may be qualified. However, anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master is automatically demonstrating he is not even qualified as a disciple, never mind guru.
Srila Prabhupada did not state he set up the system of ritvik because he was ill. Nor could this be the reason, because the only change was that now the ritvik would give the spiritual name, and send out an acceptance letter. Chanting on the beads and the performance of the fire sacrifice was already largely being done by others. Therefore, the responsibilities which Srila Prabhupada now devolved only required the use of his vocal chords to give a spiritual name, and have his secretary type and send out a standard initiation acceptance letter. And at the time the ritvik system was set up, his vocal chords were working fine, and indeed he even continued writing letters.
Conclusion
Like his Gaudiya Matha influenced colleague, Swami Tripurari (please go here, SN relies on using historical precedence and straw-man arguments to try and rebut Srila Prabhupada’s ritvik system, while avoiding discussing Srila Prabhupada’s actual orders for the application of the ritvik system to ISKCON.